The topic of ‘art and society’– or, more elaborately, ‘what is the role of the artist in society?’ – seems like a grand topic that people would write about in a philosophical-sociological kind of mode in the mid-20th century, as in the (imaginary) book pictured above. I’ve been wondering what that kind of discussion would look like today.
At The Creative School at Toronto Metropolitan University, we have begun to form ‘clusters’ around areas of interest, and I’m in the one called Creativity and Social Change. We had to write a little paragraph about our connection to this theme, so I wrote this:
Creativity often begins in personal projects, in which the individual can feel more connected to other people, and the world, and begin to see themselves as someone who can make something meaningful, and so make a difference for others. From small beginnings, then, creativity can make a big difference, and is a vital part of life. As a settler living in a racist culture, on stolen land, which generates an odd often-not-saying-things culture weighed down by its shameful foundations, I’m trying to find responses that are helpful and make sense, allied also with queer, trans and neurodivergent students, friends and colleagues.
I like that, but I want to build on that, so — that’s what we’re doing in this blog post.
First of all, we have to acknowledge that although I love the retro design, those old Pelican books — if they had ever done one on the role of the artist in society — would probably be elite and patriarchal, and ‘the artist’ would be a senior white man speaking authoritatively on behalf of the nation. So we don’t want that.
But I do remember a good bit about the role of the artist in society which crops up in my 2022 book Creativity, where we find cybernetic theorist and artist Roy Ascott, in the 1960s, writing a piece called ‘The Construction of Change’:
“Culture regulates and shapes society. The artist functions socially on a symbolic level. They act out the role of the free individual par excellence. Having chosen the symbolic field within which they will act, and setting for themselves material limitations with which they are familiar, they set out to discover the unknown. They stake everything on finding the unfamiliar, the unpredictable. The artist’s intellectual audacity is matched only by the vital originality of the forms and structures they create. Symbolically they take on responsibility for absolute power and freedom, to shape and create their world. They demonstrate, perhaps ritualistically, humankind’s ‘capacity to create what is to be […]’ (Goethe). In this context the artist’s activity is as significant as the artwork they produce.”
And in the Creativity book I went on to explain:
When people talk about the important social and cultural role of artists, they typically focus on the power of particular artworks to make striking statements or challenge assumptions. Perhaps they might also mention the less specific value of artworks showing up in otherwise utilitarian public spaces. But here Ascott has a role for artists which isn’t really about their artworks at all. Of course, they do need to be doing work, so it can’t be one hundred percent about sitting in cafes and smoking. But it is the doing of the work, the symbolic role of the artist taking seriously the need to engage in creative expression, that is the really vital power.
It’s good to find that the artist can have value simply by existing and visibly doing creative things. This is readily achievable. But we want to do more than that — and damage is being done in and to the world with such bewildering vigour that we know it cannot be counterbalanced by a few sweet artworks. But also it’s good to recognize what we are asking art to do. We can’t expect art to be that counterbalance, exactly. You don’t dissolve 20 discriminatory laws by pouring 20 outstanding works of sonic or visual art upon them, and you can’t offset 50,000 tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere with 50,000 streams on Spotify.
So, if not that, what can be achieved by the artist instead?
There’s the obvious answer of “raising questions” and “looking critically at the world” — but lots of people do that — and it doesn’t necessarily find its most vital or impactful expression in art or music.
So the real answer has to be about how art engages the emotions, and can hook you into recognitions of reality through joy or sorrow, or both. Or by putting you into a space of weirdness or enchantment, where the world feels different and you want it to stay different.
If our hope is that each individual creator is going to change the world in this way, then — well, that’s not going to happen, and — perhaps even worse — the obvious futility of this aspiration is instantly and unavoidably depressing.
But every time a person engages in the world in creative or artistic ways — every time makes a difference; and the person feels more creatively connected with the world, and therefore, we would hope, less likely to embrace the nihilism of the populist destroyers of healthcare, education and fair and equitable respect for all.
To be making and creating is to be striving and hoping. We need more of it.
Leave a Reply