“Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war…” On March 10th, 2003, an impending American-led invasion of Iraq was publicly condemned by country-music darlings known then as the ‘Dixie Chicks.’ It became an infamous flash of political candour triggering moral shockwaves across a post 9/11 music industry- and their right-leaning audience. Black-listed and bullied, to be ‘Dixie-Chicked’ was to endure a nationally broadcasted social-lynching; the outcome of which left a generation of artists, especially female artists, afraid to voice their opinions within the Conservative-dominated media. Yet today, amid the cultural primacy of social influence, popular artists are not only encouraged, but arguably required to use their public platform to spotlight political events and movements- as just as all art is political, all artists exist in a political context.
To go farther, I find the challenges of this new breed of the all-accountable, all-visible artist are not just found in the political content of their advocacy but in the careful (or indeed clumsy) degrees of activism they are willing to engage in. Red carpets (and the events they lead to) for instance, often act as a revolving door of both surface-level representation and genuine support. We can find ourselves wondering if Cara Delevingne’s viral ‘Peg the Patriarchy’ vest- worn during the 2021 Met Gala, might still be seen as an empowering statement when the trademark afforded to the original queer creator Luna Matatas was overlooked by both the model and the designer (Dior.) Whereas recent subtle nods to critical political events- such as Cate Blanchett’s covert Palestinian flag on last year’s Cannes red carpet, remind us that any visible form of support can be a necessary reflection of moral values.
Another viral moment was recently found in Hugh Bonneville’s tactful appeal for Gaza towards the “international community” during the premiere of Downtown Abbey: The Grand Finale in September; whilst the ITV reporter was surprised and the studio glossed over the subject, his advocacy was outright. This was following The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) had passed a resolution declaring Israel actions in Gaza as meeting the legal definition of genocide.
Another intrepid medium in signalling the cultural priorities of certain artists can be found in that of the awards acceptance speech. Across the years, the media have been seen to swarm the concentrated exposure these speeches generate, creating iconic landmarks in an artists career. In 1975, just twenty days before the fall of Saigon, a sudden uproar surrounded the Oscars when Hearts and Minds, (an anti-Vietnam war film) won Best Documentary Feature. In his acceptance speech producer Bert Schneider promptly thanked all those fighting for peace using a message from the Viet Cong official Dinh Ba Thi. Notably, in the midst of outrage, Frank Sinatra took to the stage with a message read on behalf of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS): “We are not responsible for any political utterances on this program and we are sorry that this had to take place.” In recent media, Jonathon Glazer added his name to the list of ‘controversial speech-makers’ becoming the first filmmaker to acknowledge the ongoing conflict in Gaza whilst accepting the award for best international feature for The Zone of Interest at the Oscars in 2024: “Our film shows where dehumanization leads at its worst. It’s shaped all of our past and present.”
It appears to us today, that there is more demand for artists to speak more on what isn’t being said than to discuss that what is. Therefore, in a culture in which visibility grants absolution, censorship breeds destruction. As we bear witness Donald Trump’s second term, I found Kendrick Lamar’s headlining Super Bowl half-time show an apt example of demonstrative political commentary. Drawing a record-breaking audience of 133.5 million, Lamar’s performance writhed with evident satire over the state of US politics, warping iconic American symbols to demonstrate the country’s discontent and division.
It’s important to remember that no piece of art or media can exist in a vacuum. As such, the relationship these artists demonstrate between activist statement and political context are key. So, when we saw Sabrina Carpenter welcome the Chicks onstage at Austin City Limits in mid-October, an impression is caught of something beyond the sassy country-infused pop music and audiences come to appreciate the small nod towards female agency within the industry, heralded so often by the influence of Beyonce.
All artists have lived in times of inequality, armed conflict, famine, governmental corruption and exploitation; but none as much as today have been capable of witnessing it so completely. In the words of Greta Thunberg upon return from detention by Israeli authorities on the 6th of October: “No one has the privilege to say ‘we didn’t know.” This statement was taken following the prohibited launch of the Global Sumud Flotilla which saw 27 Greek citizens and 134 international activists, artists doctors and humanitarians. from 15 countries on a mission to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. Among those onboard was Liam Cunningham, an Irish actor known for Game of Thrones, who appealed to the stark humanity behind the political conflict. This poignant act of unity is cemented further in the artists4ceasefire movement; a voluntary collective formed October 20th, 2023 as a direct call for immediate and permanent ceasefire – and as of March 2024, the collective’s open letter has expanded to include hundreds of artists such as Mark Ruffalo, Dua Lipa, Drake and Jenna Ortega. Often signalled by badges worn by celebrities at public events, they hope to encourage global support and focus on promoting the magnitude of human rights.
Today, some would indeed make the argument that we should not expect such a scrutinising degree of accountability towards modern artists; and that to hold them personally liable towards any political allusion becomes an inhuman social expectation. Yet, at the very least, in a world where media-proliferation is king, silence appears to be the worst statement to make.
