Bruce Springsteen's Op-Ed Today in the NY Times

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by rcyannacci
I am an educator, and while I am passionate about people advancing themselves through education, I also think that calling someone unintelligent who only has a high school degree extremely unfair. Different people have different live experiences that contribute to thier political views, school only being one contributor to social ideas/ideals. Wisdom, knowledge, intellect- these all have subtle shades of difference.

I find actors to be particularly smart individuals (I've worked with many in my career). For every role they take on, they do extensive research into history, social politics, etc. Their willingness to "become" the person they are representing generally leads them to become empathetic people- so how could this not influence thier perception of the world?

Musicians and actors are an interesting group of people with different types of educational experiences. One reason why many of them lean to the left is pretty obvious, actually- conservative politicians don't support funding for the arts and arts education. If the Republicans want celebrities to support thier policies, they might want to consider this point.

This is interesting. Republicans DO support the arts, rcyannacci. . I, personally, am a patron of the arts. I just prefer that arts programs would be funded with private funds, not with taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

It sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you are making the argument that since James Brolin played Ronald Reagan, than therefore, Mr. Brolin has the same experience, learning, and skill that the actual Ronald Reagan had. This is similar to a viewer of "the West Wing" saying, after viewing a performance of Martin Sheen's, "Gosh, what a great President!" (No doubt, many of you do!) Actors do exactly what they're told to do when filming. There is no implication, through their performances, of learning or education on their part. Remember this: an actor does EXACTLY what the director tells him to do and speaks only those lines that he was given.

If, in the course of your own career, you were to simply, day in and day out, regurgitate the work of others while emoting ably, as actors do, you would be considered ineffectual. So, why is it that actors are held on such a high pedestal by the general public, including yourself?

As to Shortbun's accusation of jealousy? Hmmm, if I protest, will I be protesting too much? Think of William Shakespeare--considered the best playright, ever. Now, the people, during his time--while they appreciated the performances of actors in his plays--also, at the same time, considered actors on par with prostitutes and criminals. It's only since the motion picture arrived, that actors are seen, literally and figuratively, as larger than life. But they are just doing a job like everyone else.

The real travesty of this annoying celebrity worship in our culture is that these people are somehow considered to be more intelligent and having opinions more worthy than those in the general public. For proof, look at Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, etc. Specifically, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins. ..these are people that have a HUGE anti-administration, anti-capitalist, and yes, socialist agenda. That is why they are so shrill, and that is why the lefist media covers them so heavily.

Everyone has the right to give their opinion in public. One poster stated that Springsteen gave his opinion just as Sean Hannity has. If you listen to Hannity, which you probably don't but should, you will hear that he is an expert in the American Political System and GeoPolitics in general. Bruce Springsteen is a musician. His greatness as a musician doesn't qualify him as an expert in politics, geopolitics, and history. Just like being a famous athlete or artist doesn't qualify him/her as an expert. They have every RIGHT to give their opinion. It is also my right to dismiss him out of hand because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Springsteen's piece is an OP-ED piece. He gives no basis for his article except his opinion. There is no historical background or cogent argument. Just feeling and opinion; worthless.

 

[Nancy]

So if you want to go see the concerts and hear them talk politics then go and have a great time. If you want to see the concerts and don't care if they talk politics then go and have a great time. If you are against them talking about politics during the concerts then don't go! They are being advertised as fundraisers so if you don't want to be involved stay away. Everyone has the right to say what they want and vote for whomever they choose. If a celebrity chooses one candidate and wants to show support for that person...that's his/her right. I really don't see what all the commotion is about.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by WillyJ





He doesn't know for sure, but based on rhetoric and actions he thinks there's a good chance if Bush is re-elected that there will be more "pre-emptive" wars and considering how streched the military is now a draft will be inevitable.

He's not sure about Kerry, but he thinks/hopes it will be less likely that his son and other American sons and daughters will be forced to fight wars of choice rather then necessity if Bush is gone and Kerry is in.

Let me preface my post by saying I'm having computer problems, so if I disappear after making my comments, it's the damn fault of this stupid machine!

Willy, this brings up something that got me thinking, after hearing Kerry's speech. He said something to the affect that America has always had a tradition of only fighting wars of necessity.

I'm thinking that's a statement that just doesn't jib with this country's history. What defines a war of necessity, in your view? Or could you describe a situation where our going to war would be considered necessary?

And a question for Shortbun. I wondered about this on the other concert thread, but lost track of whether it was ever answered, and if you already answered there, sorry for asking again.

You said all the money was going to the Kerry campaign. How do you know this? (you're obviously very involved, so I'm not questioning that you do know it, I'm just curious), The performers aren't getting anything from the concert revenues? And how is the money funneled to the Kerry campaign? Within the context of campaign finance. Again, I'm not saying things aren't on the up and up, I'm just curious as to how it all works.

 

[tar heel]

WillyJ -- Great post. I totally agree.

I have three sons and the thought of their lives being in George Bush's hands makes me cringe.

 

[gina2000]

Originally posted by shortbun
This concert is for us and obviously not for you. We are glad
you are staying home as we want no wet blankets booing while
we excersize our freedom of speech. Thanks for knowing
not to go, I'm afraid some oblivious folks will wander in and
expect these events NOT to be political. They are Kerry fundraisers, those of you who choose to go; we will be politicizing.
You have been warned. I can't wait to see the BOSS and R.E.M.
together!!! Bruce really would be happy you are not coming if
you are not heart and soul in the spirit of the concerts and gatherings. They are political events to be sure.

That's some opinion you have, there, Shortbun. I'm now a wet blanket because I don't agree with you. I don't boo other peoples' opinions (nor call them a wet blanket). I prefer to discuss my opinions with a modicum of decorum. But hey, if it works for you.....

And, yes, Will, I agree with you concerning Bruce's possible motivation. He always has worked on a grassroots level with no overt political alignment. I'm against the draft, the war in Iraq and a million other things that are going on right now in this country. I just don't want to hear about it in a concert. Thanks for the opinion. I agree with every word you've written.

 

[WillyJ]

Very good question Bet.. .

Too me a war of neccesity is one in which our country has been deliberately and directly attacked by the government of another country, or one of our allies has been and they ask for and need our intercession to defend themselves. . .


I know this is a pretty simplistic answer but it's early and I'm only on my first cup of coffee. . . . . . but my current rule-of-thumb is: if the phrase "winning the hearts and minds" concerning a military action, then it's wrong.


As for Kerry's assertion- like Bush he's a politician and politician's lie. . . I don't expect to hear much in the way of truth from either side between now and Nov.


Good morning Gina!

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by Kendra17
This is interesting. Republicans DO support the arts, rcyannacci. . I, personally, am a patron of the arts. I just prefer that arts programs would be funded with private funds, not with taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

It sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you are making the argument that since James Brolin played Ronald Reagan, than therefore, Mr. Brolin has the same experience, learning, and skill that the actual Ronald Reagan had. This is similar to a viewer of "the West Wing" saying, after viewing a performance of Martin Sheen's, "Gosh, what a great President!" (No doubt, many of you do!) Actors do exactly what they're told to do when filming. There is no implication, through their performances, of learning or education on their part. Remember this: an actor does EXACTLY what the director tells him to do and speaks only those lines that he was given.

If, in the course of your own career, you were to simply, day in and day out, regurgitate the work of others while emoting ably, as actors do, you would be considered ineffectual. So, why is it that actors are held on such a high pedestal by the general public, including yourself?

No, I'm not making the assertion that Brolin and Regan are now somehow equal in experience through some sort of "magical" acting transformation. This is why I placed the word "become" in quotations. The differences between "real" and "performed" in the theatre, film, etc. are played with constantly for effect.

A good actor is more than just a puppet; they collaborate with the director, using rehearsal time to discover the best choices for a particular character. While the director might have the ultimate say over the direction of a project, it is rarely the dictictorial relationship you have painted here. If it were, many of the best, creative people would leave performance altogether. If an actor only did EXACTLY what they were told to do, and added nothing of their own interpretation, my guess is that they'd be out of a job very soon.

And, I'm not arging that actors are any more intelligent than anyone else; I'm only trying to argue that they aren't any less intelligent because of thier vocation.

As to your support of the arts, fabulous! We are compatriots in this respect. But, the issues of arts funding are also very complicated, and so far public funding of the arts has proved very ineffectual for most non-for-profit galleries, theatres, etc. When a theatre company, for example, depends on a local corporation, for example, to help them pay thier costs, they are then obligated to that corporation and have to pick thier season accordingly (nothing too controversial, too political). But what if the community is going through some complicated political issues- shouldn't local arts organizations be able to address relevant community problems? I want local arts to speak to me and my neighbors, not to corporations.

Actually, I would love for my "hard-earned tax dollars" to go to the arts...better than many other projects I can think of. Recent studies have shown consistently that education augmented with the arts produces better educated children. The arts don't have to be separate from the curriculum; they serve the curriculum- music teaches math, drama teaches reading, writing, even science under the guidence of an arts trained teacher.

Remember the first page from the 9/11 Commission report that stated that one of our worst mistakes was one of "creativity." Time to make creative thinking (stimulated by arts education) a priority in this country.

 

[buddy&wooz]

Originally posted by Kendra17
One poster stated that Springsteen gave his opinion just as Sean Hannity has. If you listen to Hannity, which you probably don't but should, you will hear that he is an expert in the American Political System and GeoPolitics in general. Bruce Springsteen is a musician. His greatness as a musician doesn't qualify him as an expert in politics, geopolitics, and history.

How do you know Springsteen hasn't studied the American political system? As a matter of fact Springsteen is extremely intelligent and knowledgeble about politics and many other subjects. No, his musical talent doesn't qualify him as an expert, but based on what I've heard him say over the years, particularly over the last two, I have no doubt the man knows what he's talking about, and I still see no difference between self-taught pundits like Hannity and people like Springsteen- and myself for that matter, who have taken the time to educate themselves.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by rcyannacci
No, I'm not making the assertion that Brolin and Regan are now somehow equal in experience through some sort of "magical" acting transformation. This is why I placed the word "become" in quotations. The differences between "real" and "performed" in the theatre, film, etc. are played with constantly for effect.

A good actor is more than just a puppet; they collaborate with the director, using rehearsal time to discover the best choices for a particular character. While the director might have the ultimate say over the direction of a project, it is rarely the dictictorial relationship you have painted here. If it were, many of the best, creative people would leave performance altogether. If an actor only did EXACTLY what they were told to do, and added nothing of their own interpretation, my guess is that they'd be out of a job very soon.

And, I'm not arging that actors are any more intelligent than anyone else; I'm only trying to argue that they aren't any less intelligent because of thier vocation.

As to your support of the arts, fabulous! We are compatriots in this respect. But, the issues of arts funding are also very complicated, and so far public funding of the arts has proved very ineffectual for most non-for-profit galleries, theatres, etc. When a theatre company, for example, depends on a local corporation, for example, to help them pay thier costs, they are then obligated to that corporation and have to pick thier season accordingly (nothing too controversial, too political). But what if the community is going through some complicated political issues- shouldn't local arts organizations be able to address relevant community problems? I want local arts to speak to me and my neighbors, not to corporations.

Actually, I would love for my "hard-earned tax dollars" to go to the arts...better than many other projects I can think of. Recent studies have shown consistently that education augmented with the arts produces better educated children. The arts don't have to be separate from the curriculum; they serve the curriculum- music teaches math, drama teaches reading, writing, even science under the guidence of an arts trained teacher.

Remember the first page from the 9/11 Commission report that stated that one of our worst mistakes was one of "creativity." Time to make creative thinking (stimulated by arts education) a priority in this country.

One of the differences of republican and democrat thinking is the use of tax dollars. Arts are an INTEGRAL part of our way of life and has contributed much to our population. That said, I would disagree that it is a good use for my tax-dollars. You stated:

"But, the issues of arts funding are also very complicated, and so far public funding of the arts has proved very ineffectual for most non-for-profit galleries, theatres, etc. When a theatre company, for example, depends on a local corporation, for example, to help them pay thier costs, they are then obligated to that corporation and have to pick thier season accordingly (nothing too controversial, too political). But what if the community is going through some complicated political issues- shouldn't local arts organizations be able to address relevant community problems? I want local arts to speak to me and my neighbors, not to corporations."

This is all well and good, and I don't completely disagree with your desire to have art address relevant community problems. If a theater company desires to fill the season with controversial and political programming, than it also has to ensure that it does so with private funds.

If an artist--or playwright--desires to make an "artistic statement" that offends much of the public at large while asking for my funds to support this endeavor, why would you find this reasonable? Much of art, today, unfortunately, is self-promotion and self-gratification masquerading as deep, thought-provoking work. Yes, I'll be flamed here, again. . .

I want to interject here. I have a degree in art. I have almost ALWAYS supported myself, while working, by creating art. I have had several shows and won several awards. That said, although I am home with the kids now, when I work now I do graphic art and design. I LEFT the artistic community by CHOICE. I have worked with artists VERY CLOSELY for YEARS--galleries, classes, etc.

Here's another shocker: my husband is a historian and many times published author/writer. And, he used to act in local theater and teach others, too. So, we're definitely "in the know" when it comes to the arts and knowing artists. Furthermore, we are also encouraging our daughter to act and sing, since she is so talented.

One MAJOR reason we have both chosen to leave our original paths is because of this attitude. I want to say, almost, but the truth is EVERY artist I have known speaks this way: "I want this to say". . ."I am expressing MY thoughts". . .in my LIFE, I have never known as many self-obsessed people. . .in absolutely ANY field. The problem with this outlook should be obvious. I'm reluctant to delve further into this, since I literally start gettings headaches when I do so! In a nutshell, though, when people start focusing too much on how they "feel" about the issue, as if it's the most important aspect, one's thorough knowledge about the issue is compromised.

So, remember the Brooklyn Museum 5 or 6 years ago? Many Catholics (no, I'm not Catholic) found this particular piece of art (the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung) to be extremely offensive. Every single person I worked with (still worked with many artists at that time) found Guiliani to be a horrible man for attempting to cancel that show. Now why would that be? Why do public funds have to pay for someone furthering his/her personal political or social agenda? I am completely for your free speech and artistic expression. . . but don't use my tax dollars to support you while you're doing it. It's your choice to say whatever you want to say. . . but I don't have to pay for it if I disagree.

The argument of these "artists" was that they were making the rest of us "think out of the box". That art IS supposed to provoke, make one think and see the world differently. Maybe or maybe not. I'm not sure that is what the point is, regardless. If that is indeed true, fine. However, this viewpoint has to be funded privately. At one point, I knew many performance artists. Great. I have to pay for this nonsense, too? There was one theater where I used to live that tried to fund a "piece" where a woman had sex with 2 men on stage in the course of the "piece". No, I don't have to attend if I find this offensive, but I also shouldn't be forced to financially contribute to its production, either!

I will concede that I was a bit hasty regarding that actors are LESS intelligent than everyone else. But, this focus on their own self-importance is truly disheartening.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by buddy&wooz
How do you know Springsteen hasn't studied the American political system? As a matter of fact Springsteen is extremely intelligent and knowledgeble about politics and many other subjects. No, his musical talent doesn't qualify him as an expert, but based on what I've heard him say over the years, particularly over the last two, I have no doubt the man knows what he's talking about, and I still see no difference between self-taught pundits like Hannity and people like Springsteen- and myself for that matter, who have taken the time to educate themselves.

I do not know what he has studied. And, you make a point. However, his article is based on how he "feels" and certainly does not warrant a full length article on the opinion page of a still-well-respected nationally-read newspaper.

Although I've been accused of sour grapes (which is close to the argument: whatever you say, you're wrong), the truth (yes, as I see it) is that he was given this forum because he's a celebrity. What he said in that "article" is no different from what many of you said, with the exception of announcing a concert. He said nothing new, nothing insightful.* You may agree with his opinion; I do not, obviously. But, he was not stating new information. The writing wasn't spectacularly powerful (no insult to Springsteen intended). The New York Times is known to have this point of view, as well. So, printing this announcement of Springsteen and Friends' support for Kerry and Edwards is worthy of a full-length op-ed piece in the NYT? I don't think so. And, I don't think that the announcement of an upcoming concert is worthy of this forum, either. This has to do with furthering the agenda of the NYT. It's not NEWS. And, announcing Springsteen's support of Kerry and his upcoming concert is not appropriate in that FORUM.

*This is not an insult to anyone's opinion. I'm just saying, this is the standard opinion of Kerry supporters, of the Democratic supporters. There is nothing new here.

 

[Pete's Mom]

Originally posted by cubsfan
LOL! As opposed to the President's Harvard education that gave us such verbal gems as....'misunderestimate' and all the others that I'm sure just make his professors so very proud.

Actually he graduated from Yale.

 

[barbeml]

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about government funding of the arts, but I am pretty sick and tired of government giving huge subsidies and tax breaks to wealthy sports team owners for new stadiums.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by Pete's Mom
Actually he graduated from Yale.

Actually, he graduated from Yale AND Harvard (MBA program).

 

[Disney Doll]

Celebrities have a right to their opinions. I have a right to ignore or consoder them, as I see fit.

We will both exercise those rights.

God bless America.

 

[buddy&wooz]

Originally posted by Kendra17

One MAJOR reason we have both chosen to leave our original paths is because of this attitude. I want to say, almost, but the truth is EVERY artist I have known speaks this way: "I want this to say". . ."I am expressing MY thoughts". . .in my LIFE, I have never known as many self-obsessed people. . .in absolutely ANY field. The problem with this outlook should be obvious.

I think we see this quite differently. When I hear someone say "These are my thoughts, this is my opinion" what I hear is that they aren't trying to impose those opinions on me, and I appreciate that. I enjoy hearing the opinions of others, famous or not, and I like to hear how they come to those opinions. And no matter which side you come down on, isn't it all opinion in the end? Maybe this is just a matter of viewpoint, I don't know.

...But, this focus on their own self-importance is truly disheartening.

I really don't think artists have a monopoly on self-importance. I don't think there's a politician or pundit out there who doesn't feel self-important, who doesn't feel the right to express their opinions in as public a forum as possible. Even those of us here, in this discussion, have to have some sense that what we have to say is worth saying in a public forum. Isn't that self-importance?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by buddy&wooz

I really don't think artists have a monopoly on self-importance. I don't think there's a politician or pundit out there who doesn't feel self-important, who doesn't feel the right to express their opinions in as public a forum as possible. Even those of us here, in this discussion, have to have some sense that what we have to say is worth saying in a public forum. Isn't that self-importance?

Yes, but it's not the same. Again, this is my opinion. . .which you may think is incorrect. And, I'm going to be stating something very unpopular.

Have you seen children who are given everything they want? Children who are taught to think of themselves first, and not taught to think of others'? Some may consider this to be a recipe for disaster, so to speak.

This doesn't change with adults. When people are fawned over constantly, when they are told they are brilliant constantly, surrounded by "yes" people, etc., well, something happens in their psyche, too.

I'm going to go by my experience only, now. But, when I was in college--a well-respected art school-- everyone, all the time, was encouraged to express themselves in their art. And, the more one "expressed" themselves, the more "WOWED" everybody was. So, had someone taken a statue of the Virgin Mary and spread elephant dung on it, that would have been considered avante garde, bold, wonderful. . .what a STATEMENT they are making.

What I found, in galleries, in the schools, etc., was exactly the same thing. Artists surround themselves with artists--whether actors, fine artists, etc. And, they feed off eachother. . ."oh, your work is brilliant. . .take it further. . .oh, it's so bold! It's genius!" Many people are a little afraid of saying, "gee, that sucks", for fear of being accused of "not getting it" or being too "provincial". So, instead, lacking much of the criticism that comes in other fields, the "artists" believe their work to be Very Important. And, with that, comes self-importance--which is actually different than believing yourself to be important. Most people are hesitant to criticize art and just say, "wow, this is horrible--they sure have no talent". And, when they do criticize, it's often with euphemisms and language such as, "maybe if that act was shortened. .." or "that piece just doesn't speak to me", or something like that.

Also, an education in art differs than an education elsewhere. It isn't a well-rounded education. And, when other classes are required, they are, unfortunately, easy.

Lastly, as you must be aware, most artists, art instructors, and even instructors in other subjects are MOSTLY liberal. So, these students are really getting one view of the world. The free-thinking that we used to hope was being pursued is limited in this environment because everyone these students are around during school and afterwards--if they remain in this field--share the same opinions.

I would hope we all believe ourselves to be important. That is good for us and the people around us. But, we have to think most of us are equally important.

***Edited a few minutes later!**** What makes a "pundit" different, is that he or she is usually surrounded by those with opposing views. Because that one poster brought up Sean Hannity. . .we can use him as an example. He surrounds himself DAILY with those with opposing views, and he listens, disagrees, sometimes agrees, etc. THey spend all of their time attempting to learn as much as they can about what's going on. This is a lot different than, again, surrounding yourself with people that are going to tell you you are smart whether you are or not.

 

[rcyannacci]

Kendra-

I'm sorry you've had such a negative experience with the arts community. It sounds like you spent time at a conservatory, which is a distinctly different experience from arts programs at most liberals arts institutions where students are required to take rigorous subjects outside thier emphasis. There are so many divergent educational models for the arts, and it seems as if current trends are moving away from the conservatory experience toward community-based arts and activism.

Also, just because an instructor's personal politics may lean to the left doesn't mean that thier classes revolve around that politics. When I am teaching, I take many different positions and points of view to keep discussions lively and to give students an opportunity to express thier ideas, not mine. Again, your experience may have been different, but I think it is a mistake to label all arts programs this way.

As far as the issue of self-importance, I think what Springsteen and these other artists are doing with these concerts is the exact opposite. They are using thier music to focus on issues beyond their own lives, to help others through the political process. These aren't "children who've been given everything they want"- they are artists who want thier work to make a difference in the lives of others.

 

[Kendra17]

rcyannacci--
Thank you. No, I have two bachelors degrees-one from a liberal arts institution (summa cum laude) and one from an accredited art college and an advanced degree from an accredited University.

I have taught art, also.

No, I have found that most classes actually discuss politics and current events on a daily basis during studio time. This was usual and definitely part of the daily routine.

And, many of the other art instructors walking in and out of the open studio space would chime in with their thoughts, as well, usually echoing everybody else.

This was prior to 9-11, mind you, so terrorism was not an every day discussion. But, Mumia Abu-Jamal would be discussed, the Clinton Administration, Waco, keeping the Republicans out of office, etc., and a hundred other topics. Which view do you think they held? I would say 95% of the students and instructors shared the same view. And, maybe you do, too. . .

Yes, I believe that these artists do believe they are "artists who want thier [sic] work to make a difference in the lives of others." I don't think their desire changes the fact that they are not always well-versed on the issues. They might think they are thinking "outside the box" but, in fact, if everyone that surrounds them are thinking the exact same way, they are still thinking "inside the box". . .it's just a larger box.

 

[buddy&wooz]

Kendra, we just have such different views on this... I could cite examples to refute each of yours, and I'm sure you could come back and refute mine...

In the case of Springsteen, I don't know him personally of course, but I do know enough about the people he lives among to believe he hasn't surrounded himself with people who always agree with him. The children his kids go to school with are generally the offspring of Wall Street execs, doctors and lawyers, groups not exactly known for being liberal. I can't fault him for taking advantage of his fame to try to make a difference and get his thoughts out to as many people as possible. He's not doing anything Ronald Reagan didn't do before him .

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by DukeStreetKing
I just wanted to add the while Bruce's recent lyrics have more of a political/social slant to them, this is the first time he has gone on record to support a particular candidate. During the Reagan re-election campaign, both parties were trying to co-op his music and lyrics for their benefit and Bruce vehemently took exception to this, as is his right.

I haven't read this whole thread yet, so this may have already been covered, but the reason Bruce (rightly) was ticked at people trying to use "Born in the USA" as a campaign / patriotic kinda anthem was simply because that's NOT what that song is about. The song is about a disillisioned vietnam vet, and doesn't exactly lend itself to an "ain't Amurca great" kinda campaign.

Just thought I'd get that out there, in case nobody had mentioned it.