I do agree with Wright’s idea that artists and politicians stand at opposite poles. The artist will always look at life and analyze it. They don’t just take it at face value. They will sit and wait and watch life until they understand what it is. Wright himself does this. He uses writing to figure out what life is. He uses writing to question what life is, to find out what the meaningless suffering is.
A politician does not what to know what life is. They don’t sit around and wait for the answer. They decide what the answer is, and don’t care if it is real or not. They just pick what they think it should be, especially the Communist Party. A politician, like Ed Green can’t understand why Richard would want to write about a person’s life. Richard is just learning and telling as many stories as he can to help himself and others find out what the reason for the meaningless suffering is. A politician, can’t understand this and will automatically think that, because the artist is questioning life, and will not just accept what they are being told, that they are a threat to society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Jordannn
I took the same opinion as you on this question. Artists think in a much deeper and convoluted (aha!) manner than politicians. However, I do think that both artists and politicians are searching for something. Politicians just do it in a much more systematic way and don't understand the depth at which the artist thinks. And perhaps they are not searching for the same thing... an artist is compelled to be an artist because they are searching for a way to explain meaningless suffering, as you have said. But a politician is searching for conformity. Why else would there be political parties?
Post a Comment