Politics Masquerading as Art

An April 22 article discussed producer complaints that the black-cast TV show “Under One Roof” had not received adequate support from the general public or the black community (“Critical Raves May Not Save ‘One Ro” Calendar).

On April 27, Calendar reported on Latino groups protesting ABC’s failure to put a positive, Latino-themed show on the air by an allegedly prearranged date (“Latinos Protest at ABC Stations”).

Also on April 27, Calendar carried a review (“Identity Crisis”) of the Armand Hammer Museum exhibition titled “Black Male: Representations of Masculinity in Contemporary Art.”

A similar illogic seems to drive these three events, a similar misreading of the relationship of art and/or entertainment to politics.

Like most others, I did not watch “Under One Roof.” I did not even tune in for a tryout. A show about a very, very nice family, be it black, white or Venusian, just doesn’t grab me. A show principally devoted to its characters’ upstanding-ness seems to lack the pull of either comedy or drama.

The show may be (or may have been) much more than I suggest, but it was not marketed as such. It was marketed as a form of visual castor oil: something that doesn’t taste too good but sure is good for you. Viewers were asked to respond to the political act of airing a “positive” portrayal of a black family, not to the entertainment value of the show itself.

Unfortunately for the show, audiences rarely respond to political acts aimed at fulfilling agendas or soothing TV network consciences.

Latino groups also want more “positive” portrayals on TV. These groups picketed ABC because such portrayals had not yet hit the air. Once again, however, complaining that a certain type of show has not hit the air by a certain date suggests disingenuousness. The facts of television development make any such target date almost impossible to meet.

Demanding a positive TV portrayal of an entire ethnic group by “X” date suggests that the networks should air an “uplifting” political statement masquerading as entertainment, thereby allowing viewers to take their visual castor oil. It’s as if the networks were in the business of social engineering.

*

The real point should be to ensure that talented Latino actors, writers and directors have equal outlet for their creativity in this medium. One show by date “X,” which would probably suffer “Under One Roof’s” fate, would do little to achieve that goal.

Ah. And finally . . . “The Black Male.” The stated goals of this exhibition, every brochure for it and every article about it, suggest that it has more to do with politics than art. The very title reeks of objectification and mass mentality, as if “black male” were as sure and solid a thing as a “green lamp.” While some say that that is the point of the exhibition--to undercut such stereotypes--putting forth images purporting to represent a certain type of person is inherently reductive, and thereby insulting to anyone who happens to fall into that category.

This is not presented as an exhibition celebrating the work of black artists. It is presented as an exhibition dedicated to political views of a certain type of person. The very subject is beneath art.

Imagine an exhibition called “White Woman.” It would include, perhaps, billboards of Angelyne, breasts erupting? Heroic paintings of tampon dispensers? A couple of photos of abused women, black eyes shining, wounds fresh? Maybe an installation of a trailer park?

It would not be tolerated.

The artists and works that enrich my world are about expression, not politics, not ethnicity. Political and ethnic aspects of the works are outgrowths of creative expression, not vice versa. That is art, and entertainment. What those discussed above advocate or represent is something less altogether.