By Renee Liang

Last time I blogged, I raised the question of whether all art is political. I'm neither clever nor suicidal enough to discuss this (at least not sober and in public), but there are plenty of tomes in the university library, and here's a starter discussion. But as politics is on all of our minds right now, I'd like to devote this blog to looking at some of the weird and fascinating interrelationships between politics and art.By Renee Liang

Last time I blogged, I raised the question of whether all art is political. I'm neither clever nor suicidal enough to discuss this (at least not sober and in public), but there are plenty of tomes in the university library, and here's a starter discussion. But as politics is on all of our minds right now, I'd like to devote this blog to looking at some of the weird and fascinating interrelationships between politics and art.Well, NZ may not be the only country which lampoons its politicians as they campaign for election, but doing it by means of sellout plays must surely rate as classy. In the last few months I have seen both The Hollow Men, an adaptation of the now notorious email sting by journalist Nicky Hager, and On The Conditions And Possibilities of Helen Clark Taking Me As Her Young Lover (OTCAPOHCTMAHYL for short).

The Hollow Men, sadly, was crippled by the fact that the script was taken from verbatim transcripts of emails written by National politicians, who are not noted for their artistic flair with words. They also have rather undramatic lives, apart from the odd embarrassing high-profile affair. But aside from its plot and dialogue failures the play was a fascinating look at how politics corrupts, and was unashamedly presented as a warning (though obviously not strongly enough). On the night I went, the audience hooted with laughter every time the (stage) Don Brash underwent another humiliation, so it was an interesting experience in pillory by proxy.

OTCAPOHCTMAHYL, on the other hand, was a charming piece that one guesses Aunty Helen would have secretly enjoyed, had she managed to sneak unseen into the audience. Certainly the audience seemed to whoop up the underhand satire. Sadly, with Aunty Helen's successor opting for the Tourism portfolio instead of Arts and Culture, it's clear that there are going to be some changes in the arts climate.

But why focus on our own small woes? No one else in the world was watching the NZ election, they were all busy cheering on Obama. Interestingly Barack Obama is a published poet. It's been fascinating me how his early poems have been unearthed and academics dusted off to comment in distinguished publications. It seems odd to me that people were analysing what he wrote in his student days, like some sort of tea-leaf forecast. It just goes to show the level of Obamania, but I guess the lesson is that if you're planning on being a world leader, be careful both whom you sleep with and what poetry you publish.

Meanwhile other, quite different sites are jumping up to immortalise the 'poetry' of Sarah Palin. It's likely that some in the US comedy industry are quite sad that the US election result means less access to Palin, seeing as she did wonders for Saturday Night Live ratings and made a star of Tina Fey.

As an aside, I tried googling the poetry of John Key, Chris Finlayson and Helen Clark. No leads, though I did find a number of references to poetry written in honour of Aunty Helen. Anyone?

Anyway, despite my flippancy, there's a serious intention to all this chatter. What I want to get to is the issue of whether politics should influence the arts. I mean, it does, but is that right? Nicky Hager's book, play and now movie, for example, managed to fire the ire of several right-wing commentators, who alleged that the Labour government gave it tacit support by granting it funding through Creative NZ and that public performance of the play broke the Electoral Finance Act. (Here I'll point out that funding was also given to OTCAPOHCTMAHYL. And call me naïve, but I thought that Creative NZ are supposed make decisions independent of government).

There are many other examples, nationally and internationally, of politicians and councils trying to restrict the performance and content of art, for whatever "PC" reason. You all know where I'm going. It pretty much goes without saying that this isn't right. Art should be free to explore, to expose, and to comment. Does this mean that there are no lines to be crossed, that anything, even gross offence, is OK? I'm not sure on that one. But on the comment and exposure front I'll end with this quote from Harold Pinter's 2005 Nobel Prize lecture:

"A writer's life is a highly vulnerable, almost naked activity. We don't have to weep about that. The writer makes his choice and is stuck with it. But it is true to say that you are open to all the winds, some of them icy indeed. You are out on your own, out on a limb. You find no shelter, no protection - unless you lie - in which case of course you have constructed your own protection and, it could be argued, become a politician - ..

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man."

Read previous TalkWrite blogs

Use the comment box below

20/11/08