I think Clint Eastwood is one of the greatest film directors of his generation. “Unforgiven” is not only his masterpiece, it is, more importantly, one of my top ten favourite films of all time (and he starred in one of the others). So watching his notorious “Empty Chair” interview with Barack Obama was a particularly unsettling experience for me even though his weird brand of right-wing libertarian politics was already familiar. However, nothing he could say or do would ever diminish for me the level of his cinematic achievement. In other words: his politics doesn’t really concern me when it comes to his art. Likewise, Sam Raimi, James Woods and, from the world of music, Alice Cooper, whose shows remain one of the best-value tickets you’ll ever purchase. Neil Young, of course, came out for Reagan but then I think a lot of Democrats did and that never impinged on my admiration for him. As for arch-libertarian, Frank Zappa (for whose music my admiration knows no bounds), he could have come out as a Nazi and I could have tolerated that for a burst of “G-Spot Tornado” and chorus of “My Guitar Wants to Kill Your Mama”.
And arguably my favourite writer, Patrick O’Brian was a staunch supporter of the UK Conservative Party and numbered some of Margaret Thatcher’s ministers amongst his friends and that has not diminished in any way for me, the power of his work.
This isn’t true for everyone, however. Kelsey Grammer’s political views have utterly ruined for me the great writing that “Frazier” offered and I’m still smarting over the fact that in spite of my vociferous support for her work over the years (against, I might add, legions of naysayers) Tracy Emin came out as a Tory.
But isn’t it gratifying when artists in all endeavours (and whose work one despises) turns out to be of an opposing political persuasion? Frederick Forsyth is one who springs to mind for me, along with the execrable Gary Barlow and the unutterably dire, Julian Fellowes.
By now, I fully expect to have lost a number of readers: and this is precisely my point. For there will be many for whom my observations will represent a crossing of the line. For them (for you?), the people I mention may well have had their reputations enhanced by the fact that they are of the Right and you will feel nothing but contempt for some of the more left-leaning practitioners of the arts.
But will you admit it? And should I?
The other day, I found myself becoming angrier and angrier at some of the things I was reading in the press and I became aware that this was causing me to post more and more left-leaning links on Facebook and in other forums. Not only this, I found myself getting involved in discussions and arguments with people who, frankly, were unlikely to be swayed by any of my arguments. All I seemed to be doing was alienating a constituency who might hitherto have been prepared to give my work a try. Hence this little article.
There are many artists, writers and performers whose political allegiances (if they exist at all), they prefer to keep to themselves. As a result, they can appeal to those of whatever persuasion and are never in fear of losing readers/listeners/viewers because of politics. Should that be the stance of all artists?
I think not. A writer’s work is always going to be influenced by politics, even if they are apolitical. Their thoughts on the mores of their time are always going to filter through their work. My own books do demonstrate something of a left-leaning tendency, even if only in passing and reflect I hope, a socially liberal view of the world, in which the pompous are pricked; the wicked, punished; the innocent, occasionally victimised; and the powerful, brought low.
And if you’re wondering how a hit-man can have a social conscience, then I invite you to read “The Rothko Room” and find out. (See what I did there?)
As for my own dilemma: well, I believe that we must be true to ourselves and that those who come out one any side of the political argument should be respected for doing so. For some of us, it is a vital part of who we are and if our readers can get over that, then that would be one more affirmation that our work was valued for what it is rather than for who created it.
And arguably my favourite writer, Patrick O’Brian was a staunch supporter of the UK Conservative Party and numbered some of Margaret Thatcher’s ministers amongst his friends and that has not diminished in any way for me, the power of his work.
This isn’t true for everyone, however. Kelsey Grammer’s political views have utterly ruined for me the great writing that “Frazier” offered and I’m still smarting over the fact that in spite of my vociferous support for her work over the years (against, I might add, legions of naysayers) Tracy Emin came out as a Tory.
But isn’t it gratifying when artists in all endeavours (and whose work one despises) turns out to be of an opposing political persuasion? Frederick Forsyth is one who springs to mind for me, along with the execrable Gary Barlow and the unutterably dire, Julian Fellowes.
By now, I fully expect to have lost a number of readers: and this is precisely my point. For there will be many for whom my observations will represent a crossing of the line. For them (for you?), the people I mention may well have had their reputations enhanced by the fact that they are of the Right and you will feel nothing but contempt for some of the more left-leaning practitioners of the arts.
But will you admit it? And should I?
The other day, I found myself becoming angrier and angrier at some of the things I was reading in the press and I became aware that this was causing me to post more and more left-leaning links on Facebook and in other forums. Not only this, I found myself getting involved in discussions and arguments with people who, frankly, were unlikely to be swayed by any of my arguments. All I seemed to be doing was alienating a constituency who might hitherto have been prepared to give my work a try. Hence this little article.
There are many artists, writers and performers whose political allegiances (if they exist at all), they prefer to keep to themselves. As a result, they can appeal to those of whatever persuasion and are never in fear of losing readers/listeners/viewers because of politics. Should that be the stance of all artists?
I think not. A writer’s work is always going to be influenced by politics, even if they are apolitical. Their thoughts on the mores of their time are always going to filter through their work. My own books do demonstrate something of a left-leaning tendency, even if only in passing and reflect I hope, a socially liberal view of the world, in which the pompous are pricked; the wicked, punished; the innocent, occasionally victimised; and the powerful, brought low.
And if you’re wondering how a hit-man can have a social conscience, then I invite you to read “The Rothko Room” and find out. (See what I did there?)
As for my own dilemma: well, I believe that we must be true to ourselves and that those who come out one any side of the political argument should be respected for doing so. For some of us, it is a vital part of who we are and if our readers can get over that, then that would be one more affirmation that our work was valued for what it is rather than for who created it.
RSS Feed
