Art v. Politics

On the New York Times The Score blog yesterday, composer Michael Gordon asks the musical question, "What If I Like Your Politics but Don’t Like Your Art?" Gordon elaborates:

Or put a simpler way, would you want a fantastic painting hanging on your wall that was made by a Nazi? It may sound like a bizarre question, but anyone with Carl Orff, Richard Strauss or Herbert von Karajan CDs in their collection should give it some thought. The throngs lined up around the block to see Karajan conduct the Berlin Philharmonic, as many New Yorkers did on repeated occasions, should have asked themselves this. And if we care about this question, do we need to examine the politics of other composers, like Wagner, whose views we know, along with perhaps Beethoven and Bach, whose views we know less about?

Non-musical examples abound, as well (Voltaire was an anti-Semite - does that ruin Candide?) Gordon appears to conclude that art and politics are both better off if they remain separate, although he wonders if he's been guilty of doing just that.

I'm not convinced that it's either necessary nor wise for artists to try and wall off their political views from their art, or that it's completely possible. Art generally reflects, in some fashion, the world of the artist who created it. The world, particularly in times like these, is a highly political place. It's probably harder for an artist to block it out than it is to let it in.

Where art mixing with politics falls down is when the political becomes the motivating reason for being artistic at all. If the politics comes first and gets jammed into the art, the art suffers. If, on the other hand, the art grows naturally and absorbs some politics along the way, it's probably OK. Obviously, mileage may vary based on the skill of the artist.