While I think you've pegged a certain single group here, there ARE more variations, and more shades to consider, than "in the dark" vs. "wildly visible" and "politics" vs. "morality". There's a reason the phrase "socio-political" exists. Because "politics" outside of its purely governmental definition, are inextricably entwined with society and being social in any way whatsoever. Politics is how we govern OURSELVES, our communities, our companies (companies have internal "politics", too.) You can have an ethical or moral framework outside of "politics", but that dreaded "p" word denotes what you actually do with it when interacting with others. Morality and ethics is largely useless when acted upon in a solo vacuum.
When it comes to artists being activists, there is again a full spectrum from one end to another before you hit what you're calling an "activist" here, something more performative or more purely political than simply a part of a person's public activities. Can you separate the artist from their art? Not really. As Vonnegut says: it's about you yourself "becoming" and "finding what's inside you." That means you are your art. And in a capitalist society, there's the question of financial support for any artist who would use their financial stability to push dangerous politics themselves. Even if only through their work.
Being an artist can't be entirely divided from being a fully realized, active human being in a heavily social and entwined global culture. It's not being an activist to simply use your visibility or platform to advocate what you think is right. Stephen King is an excellent example of this - he does not deign to become a figurehead of any group, he does not rant on a daily basis, but he does speak up. Regularly. About what he thinks he should. THAT is a fully ethical position. I get the resistance to political performance. But this post feels far too binary in its picking apart the inordinately complex world we all have to navigate day by day.
I get that it helps to simplify things sometimes. But it doesn't do anyone any good to oversimplify, especially as a full-on philosophy going forward..
While I think you've pegged a certain single group here, there ARE more variations, and more shades to consider, than "in the dark" vs. "wildly visible" and "politics" vs. "morality". There's a reason the phrase "socio-political" exists. Because "politics" outside of its purely governmental definition, are inextricably entwined with society and being social in any way whatsoever. Politics is how we govern OURSELVES, our communities, our companies (companies have internal "politics", too.) You can have an ethical or moral framework outside of "politics", but that dreaded "p" word denotes what you actually do with it when interacting with others. Morality and ethics is largely useless when acted upon in a solo vacuum.
When it comes to artists being activists, there is again a full spectrum from one end to another before you hit what you're calling an "activist" here, something more performative or more purely political than simply a part of a person's public activities. Can you separate the artist from their art? Not really. As Vonnegut says: it's about you yourself "becoming" and "finding what's inside you." That means you are your art. And in a capitalist society, there's the question of financial support for any artist who would use their financial stability to push dangerous politics themselves. Even if only through their work.
Being an artist can't be entirely divided from being a fully realized, active human being in a heavily social and entwined global culture. It's not being an activist to simply use your visibility or platform to advocate what you think is right. Stephen King is an excellent example of this - he does not deign to become a figurehead of any group, he does not rant on a daily basis, but he does speak up. Regularly. About what he thinks he should. THAT is a fully ethical position. I get the resistance to political performance. But this post feels far too binary in its picking apart the inordinately complex world we all have to navigate day by day.
I get that it helps to simplify things sometimes. But it doesn't do anyone any good to oversimplify, especially as a full-on philosophy going forward..