One of the most disturbing natures of this time we are in is the pendulum nature of censorship and turning art into artifice.
I see people on all sides turning established work into propaganda or labeling it as dangerous, meanwhile simply thinning out the material;
from Shakespeare to Dahl and in between.
The very thing I was worried would begin to happen - to the delight of those who want to exactly what both Mao and Stalin wanted - destruction of art.
This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s a human issue.
So what can be done?
Wisdom must prevail. This won’t be won by numbers; it’s won with the strength of memory and discourse.
Why is this happening? Well, many reasons. This isn’t the first time in history. However, I believe there are a few incredibly powerful forces that have been strengthened by a chasm left behind by two things; one is the way the arts and thinking artfully was deemed inessential
at such a massive scale by COVID policies (and I don’t only mean the obvious, there is an art to medicine for example too) but also because of something explained brilliantly here: vimeo.com/112028941
Wish me luck! Hoping I found a space to begin working on a stage production of a play I’ve been chomping at the bit to get in front of an audience. Plan is to do this live with one cast and as a radio play with another from around the world.
Final (a variation slightly on the original) monologue of the play is in this film staring Gene Wilder from the 1970s.
When you’re dealing with socialist realism - data doesn’t matter.
When you’re confronting ideology, data doesn’t matter. Data will only serve to protect the participant in the totalitarian system from accepting their loss of human dignity. They will double and triple down.
From “Power of the Powerless”
“The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the
idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?…
“The essential aims of life are present naturally in every person. In everyone there is some longing for humanity's rightful dignity, for moral integrity, for free expression of being and a sense of transcendence over the world of existence.
Yet, at the same time, each person is capable, to a greater or lesser degree, of coming to terms with living within the lie. Each person somehow succumbs to a profane trivialization of his inherent humanity, and to utilitarianism.
In everyone there is some willingness to merge with the anonymous crowd and to flow comfortably along with it down the river of pseudolife. This is much more than a simple conflict between two identities.
There is nothing moral about cloaking censorship and bastardization of our natural rights in the guise of the greater good, hindering misinformation or expertise.
It is criminal, unconstitutional, anti human and deadly.