In the previous edition of OffBeat regarding the role of the arts in politics (”The Arts Influencing Politics”), important questions were broached regarding what the actual role artists can or should play in the civic life of society, and is such a role a legitimate one for an artist to serve in?

Art is a universal form of communication, perhaps the most meaningful and resonating way humans can express themselves in the hope of sharing a part of their vision of the world they live in and their experience of it. That experience of connectivity and the primordial need for it is what makes us and fulfills us as human beings, thus by its nature making the very act of communication itself a fundamental human right. True art recognizes that, reflecting on at least some level a shared understanding that its very existence is a fundamental expression of humanity, a fulfillment of basic human need. It is the uniquely distinctive power of art that it is expression through the most individualized of languages while simultaneously being able to be understood in the most universally recognized of ways.

The greatest works of art are those that don’t ‘tell’ you the truth, they share it with you. Since ‘truth’ is an ever-elusive presence, the role of the artist is to help illuminate that journey towards it. The challenge for the artist in relation to politics is to take on this most primordial and essential form of human relationship, but from a perspective that transcends the ideological and dogmatic which presents the ‘truth’ as a finite and exclusive quantity, and instead uses creative vision to identify the issues and concerns of the day in a deeper, more universal way, illuminating the political path with the eternal truth of our shared humanity. As muralist Mike Alewitz pointed out, “When we make art in the studio, we assert our humanity. When we make art in public, we assert our existence as social beings.”

Here in this social sphere the artist is called to not simply create as a passive reflector of the human experience, but also to serve as an active projector, envisioning experience not as is but as it should be. Whether this active projection crosses over from the realm of art into mere propaganda is determined by whether the creation is animated by a sincere desire to reveal the truth in a way that humbles the artist to sharing the same experience as their audience in relation to the work, as opposed to simply declaring an already certain ‘truth’ designed to move the audience in a premeditated way towards that perspective.

As for art being delegitimized by its participation in the civic sphere, there are few who could address the issue with more authority than Vaclav Havel, Czech playwright turned President, who seemed to allay such concerns on the topic; “There is only one art, whose sole criterion is the power, the authenticity, the revelatory insight, the courage and suggestiveness with which it seeks its truth.”

It is the timeless role of the artist to reflect the truth, and that includes within the civic sphere as well, cautious of but not deterred by the fear of descending into the didactic, as opposed to reflecting the universal. As the great literary artist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn emphasized, though it is the duty of ordinary citizens to “not participate in the lies”, the artist has greater responsibilities, for “it is within the power of writers and artists to do much more: to defeat the lie!” Ghandi stated the key to human progress in the civic sphere is dependent on “making the injustice visible.” It is the artist more than any other figure in society best suited to effectively manifesting that visibility.

- Andy Valeri

(First published in the March 2009 edition of “OffBeat”, a student publication of the University of Dayton)

An article by Michael Kane (”Politics Influencing The Arts”, OffBeat, Jan 2009) which referenced the work of various disparate creators such as the likes of Picasso, Michael Moore, the ‘Speak Out’ exhibition in New Mexico and others, was interesting in that it framed the issue around these artists’ work as examples of how art and artists are influenced by politics.

Perhaps the more relevant question regarding these and numerous other works of a similar vein is not so much one of understanding the influence that politics has upon the arts, but rather one of understanding how the arts serve to influence politics.

Art has been in the service of politics since the days of antiquity, for which examples are numerous, particularly amongst the the great works commissioned by the Church over it’s many centuries of political dominance of Europe. Our modern understanding of art as a form of individual or group expression could be said to have begun with the use of the literary arts, with the rise of the Lutheran Reformation and the use of the printed word to challenge the prevailing sovereign authority of the Church. This was a tradition which extended up through the English Civil War and the Cromwellian revolution, and perhaps most importantly to us as Americans, the publication of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, the galvanizing document of the American Revolution. This short pamphlet served to take what was a collection of grievances and define them into a unified cause, and which was by all accounts a literary blockbuster whose reach and influence on the politics of the day has no compare by modern standards. It was a work whose distribution was surpassed globally only by Paine’s later treatise The Rights of Man, the most published work of the 18th century (possibly sans the Bible).

In the visual arts, an artist’s drawing of the British slave ship Brookes was perhaps the single most important act of public expression to turn the tide of Abolitionism in Britain. From the time of the illustration’s first publication in 1789, the cause of the Abolitionists went from being one of a politically marginalized and almost universally neglected movement to being one which succeeded in permanently banning slavery throughout the entire Empire within the span of only a couple of decades.

The plays of Bertolt Brecht, the music of Woody Guthrie and Bob Marley, the literature of Upton Sinclair and George Orwell, the Gilded Age photography of Jacob Riis, the political graffiti of British artist Banksy, the aforementioned films of Michael Moore and countless other documentarians: the ad infinitum through every form of artistic medium, these are creations designed to generate social and political change by, in the words of Mohandas Gandhi, “making the injustice visible.”

Kane’s piece also referenced Picasso’s classic anti-war portrait of an atrocity, Guernica, as an example of art being influenced by political events. Certainly it was, but the power of this work to influence politics was well-understood by the Bush administration and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell who, when giving his press conference at the UN after presenting his pseudo facts to the world regarding the supposed threat of Iraqi WMD’s February of 2003, had the painting (which hangs on the second floor of the UN building where the press conference was held) completely covered in blue drapery. This was very consciously done by political operatives who understood the power of the visual image and the effect it would likely have in providing a stark and revealing counterpoint to their own desired agenda of initiating military operations against another society.

The works of the Russian artists Komar & Melamid were some of the most provocatively humorous exhibitions of artistic response to the oppressive nature of the Soviet regime, eventually leading to a violent government crackdown of their publicly displayed work. This incident was then cleverly promoted around the world as the “Bulldozer Exhibition” (because bulldozers were used to destroy the outdoor displays) resulting in severe international embarrassment for the Soviet regime, and eventually liberalizing changes in official state policies towards artistic freedom.

But if art is utilized in order to influence political events, then what distinguishes such work as actually being ‘art’ as opposed to simply being considered propaganda, or even merely a form of public relations? (’Public relations’, or ‘PR’, being our market society’s more palatable euphemism for PRopaganda).

And what exactly is propaganda? It is certainly one of the more elusive concepts to concretely define, akin to Supreme Court Justice Stewart’s famous attempt to describe obscenity by declaring that he ‘knows it when I see it”. So should propaganda legitimately be considered art, or is it some diminished or prostituted form of it not worthy of the status and recognition that other, more universally recognized mediums of artistic expression receive?

In order to better understand this, there would first seem to be a need for some shared baseline consensus on defining what exactly art is. There are of course a wide multitude of perspectives and opinions on the topic, but one characteristic that I would propose needs to be inherent in any work to be legitimately defined as art is that it expresses truth. It may be an individual truth, a perception or an interpretation of a truth, the documentation of one’s honest search for it, but it is truth and nothing less than, as the artist understands and/or experiences it.

Whether a work of art is created in an effort to share a truth, or is rather a conscience attempt to direct the audience towards an already pre-determined conception of what that truth is, may very well be the line which defines whether a work of art is a form of propaganda. This is important to understanding the influence of the arts on politics because does this then inherently imply that all forms of artistic expression geared to directly addressing political concerns are then by definition a form of propaganda?

What did George Orwell mean when he stated that “all propaganda is a lie, even when it is telling the truth”? Could it be that any communication that is designed to elicit a certain specific response by it’s audience, which is in essence what propaganda is, is inherently deceitful to both the audience and the artist? And what is the role and responsibility of an artist when addressing issues of social and civic importance, both to their own artistic integrity as well as to their place in the society that they live in?

These are questions which will be addressed in the next edition of OffBeat as we continue this discussion on the role and effects of the arts in politics.

- Andy Valeri

(First published in the February 2009 edition of “OffBeat”, a student publication of the University of Dayton)

This film is an excellent example what I am all about supporting and pursuing in regards to some of these issues of mediated communication as not only a primary tool in support of human rights work, but as human rights work. It is arguably the most important factor involved in it. The response to the Burma situation is only happening because of this kind of work. This film is a distillation of the very reason any human rights movement that does not encompass mediated communication within it’s core is incomplete. “Burma VJ” is in a nutshell a form of “Exhibit A” in making the case for such inclusion.

He lives in Thailand now, largely because he doesn‚t think he could hold up under torture. “I’m not sure how much I could keep secrets,” said the slight, shaggy-haired, 27-year-old Burmese video journalist, who is considered a public enemy by his country’s military junta.

Should his admission make him seem less than courageous, consider Burma VJ: Reporting from a Closed Country. Directed by Anders Ostergaard of Denmark and opening on Wednesday at Film Forum in New York, the documentary chronicles the work of the Burmese journalist and his team of guerrilla cameramen during the “saffron revolution” of 2007, in which robed Buddhist monks joined street protests against Myanmar’s military dictatorship.

—————

Moviemaking philosophy aside, Burma VJ provides powerful evidence of the new ways in which oppression can be documented and world opinion swayed. “Technology is on our side,” said Micheline Lévesque, Asia specialist for Rights and Democracy. She said reports on human-rights violations, when done outside a country like Myanmar, are routinely ignored by countries that want to continue doing business with an oppressive regime. It’s harder to argue with a Burma VJ and the technology it champions, the eventual influence of which may be enormous. “Tibet is very interested,” Ms. Lévesque said, “and other movements in other countries are looking to what’s happening in Burma to use in their own movements.”

—————

But you go forward a hundred years, you have a situation in film where two cellphones talk to each other, and it’s impossible for a military dictatorship to keep secrets.

“Can you imagine,” Ms. Nevins added, “if someone had smuggled a camera into a concentration camp?”

Read more Here from The New York Times

A profoundly important (to say nothing of disturbing) report on what may be the most dangerous corporation on planet earth, Monsanto. They are for all intents and purposes in the process of attempting to control the world’s food supply, and own the patents to the life that sustains agriculture itself.

Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.

———–

Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds have transformed the company and are radically altering global agriculture. So far, the company has produced G.M. seeds for soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton. Many more products have been developed or are in the pipeline, including seeds for sugar beets and alfalfa. The company is also seeking to extend its reach into milk production by marketing an artificial growth hormone for cows that increases their output, and it is taking aggressive steps to put those who don’t want to use growth hormone at a commercial disadvantage.

Even as the company is pushing its G.M. agenda, Monsanto is buying up conventional-seed companies. In 2005, Monsanto paid $1.4 billion for Seminis, which controlled 40 percent of the U.S. market for lettuce, tomatoes, and other vegetable and fruit seeds. Two weeks later it announced the acquisition of the country’s third-largest cottonseed company, Emergent Genetics, for $300 million. It’s estimated that Monsanto seeds now account for 90 percent of the U.S. production of soybeans, which are used in food products beyond counting. Monsanto’s acquisitions have fueled explosive growth, transforming the St. Louis–based corporation into the largest seed company in the world.

Read this detailed expose’ from Vanity Fair

Great article from Sarah van Gelder and Doug Pibel as part of their ‘Liberate Your Space’ series, published in YES! Magazine.

This is pretty much right on the money, not just on what can be done, but why it should be done, with resonating relevance to some of the actions and initiatives taking place here in my own locality of Dayton, Ohio.

This issue asks what happens when we throw off the invisible chains that keep us from realizing the world we want—when we, as they say in the global south, decolonize our minds.

Suppose that, instead of waiting for the whole world to change so we can live as we would like, we remake spaces where we can live that way now.

Think of the game of Go. Unlike chess, where you confront and defeat an enemy, in Go you win by taking over spaces. You simply surround territory and make it yours.

Instead of asking someone in power for policy changes or the right job, why not take over streets for bikes and parks, build our own cooperatives, create cultural events that nurture our souls and community spirit, build our own homes? Why not live the lives we want, along with others, without waiting for permission from the authorities?

————————

If we believe there is nothing more urgent than building a just and sustainable world, maybe we simply need to start building it, beginning wherever we are.

This is the leadership we need today. Not the lone heroic leader, who is so easy to corrupt or shoot down, but the leadership of ordinary people who are both the creators and the beneficiaries of free spaces, and who use those spaces to claim more freedom for everyone.

Mahatma Gandhi said, “You must be the change you want to see in the world,” and less famously, “I believe it to be perfectly possible for an individual to adopt the way of life of the future …without having to wait for others to do so.”

Read The Full Article Here

Ever heard of Vulture Funds? The Humanitarian Chronicle will tell you a bit about this certain strain of self-aggrandizing greed. The hijacking of debt from poor nations and then holding them hostage with it. They’re going to have to do a renovation of Hell in order to provide for newer, even lower levels in order to accommodate the purveyors of this peculiar kind of conscienceless evil.

Vulture Funds are powerful financial organizations which prey upon companies and countries weakened by debt.

They buy up the debts of struggling nations at bargain prices then use bribery and legal muscle to extort the full debt plus punitive interest and court costs. Vulture Funds have successfully sued governments, frozen country’s assets and made vast profits from the poorest nations on the planet. Reverse Robin Hoods they rob from the poor and make the wealthy even richer.

In 1996 Paul Singer - the reclusive billionaire who is credited with inventing vulture funds - paid $11m for some discounted Peruvian debt and then threatened to bankrupt the country unless they paid $58m… which they did. Now he’s suing Congo Brazzaville for $400m for a debt he bought for $10m.

Read The Full Report

UnCommon Sense TV - “Propaganda: Yesterday and Today” A look at the use of propaganda by political regimes and the ongoing recycling of similar rationales used in justifying their actions, particularly those employed to initiate plans of war and conquest. Historical comparisons are highlighted through the featuring of the 1940 Nazi propaganda film “Campaign In Poland”, which presented to the world the argument for the German invasion of Poland as a preventive strike in self-defense against “Polish aggression.” Discussion is focused on employing techniques of effective propaganda through the use of the “Big Lie” and how those techniques continue to be applied successfully today. Focus is also given to the principles for which America fought for in the Second World War, and the argument for how those are being subverted today through actions of the U.S. government as defined by the so-called “Bush Doctrine.”

Yep. It is.

Public ownership is a better plan. Broadband networks are here for the long haul, and our dependence on them will only increase. Many citywide wireless networks are privately owned, depending on city government as an anchor tenant. The network requires city money without offering the city any control. Under such circumstances, owning beats renting.

———

Ownership is about self-determination. Modern telecommunications regulations mean owners make decisions. A city cannot compel a private provider to upgrade the network or mandate network neutrality. Residents have little recourse when the sole private broadband provider blocks some applications or network protocols.

A number of large private providers have managed their networks in a questionable manner. These companies have one goal. The law requires them to maximize their shareholder value. In contrast, a publicly owned network should maximize social benefit. If it does not, residents can change it. Try getting AT&T to modify its network management policies.

———

Broadband networks have become essential infrastructure. Depending on a private network may be the easier course of action, but gives away too much power. Network owners make decisions; they do not have to beg providers for faster speeds, lower prices or better customer service.

Read The Full Report

UnCommon Sense TV - “Truth, Justice and Reconciliation, Pt.2″ Continuation of the forum on human rights and political accountability with Judge Guzman, Peter Kornbluh and others, including questions and dialogue with the public in attendance at the University of Dayton. Other discussants include Mark Ensalaco, Director of Human Rights studies at the University of Dayton, and author of “Chile Under Pinochet: Recovering The Truth”, Bert Lockwood, of the University of Cincinnati Law School and publisher of “Human Rights Quaterly”, and Ted Orlin of Utica College of Syracuse and Director of the International Human Rights Education Consortium.

WATCH THE PROGAM

UnCommon Sense TV - “Truth, Justice and Reconciliation” Exclusive coverage of a forum on human rights and political accountability held in the spring of 2005 at the University of Dayton, featuring Oscar Romero Award recipient Judge Juan Guzman Tapia. He is one of the most important figures involved in bringing former Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet to justice for his role in the years of murder and repression that took place in Chile during his reign of power in the 70’s and 80’s. Featured along with Guzman are Peter Kornbluh, senior analyst with the National Security Archives and author of “The Pinochet File”, and Marjorie Agosin, Professor of Spanish at Wellesley College and author of “The Absence of Shadows”.