Some thoughts on Artisans and Activism, an essay by Katalin Gibson
I am not a politically minded person. I’d prefer to live my life worrying about diaper rash, spelling words, or upcoming Halloween costumes, disrupted by a broken faucet, or a tire needing replacement. Unfortunately, and ironically, such “idyllic” life is not possible. Even after walking my children to school, half in an attempt to ignore the gas prices, watching a TV award show does not afford one the luxury of being entertained.
Last night, while doing other things around the house, I wanted to keep an eye on the Emmys. Then I had to keep checking the channel to see if I’m tuned in to the right program. It all started with Murphy Brown. Now I have to admit I grew up without that, and M.A.S.H., and Happy Days, and the Partridges, and many other cultural icons that make up the average American’s upbringing. But being brought up in Hungary, perhaps, can help me form opinions about many American things as I encounter them as an adult, rather than nostalgic reminiscences from my childhood. And now I see Murphy Brown as a TV character, who, as such, contributed to the way millions of people think about a condoned way of having a child. Out of wedlock. Some people do think it should be that way, some oppose it. If Dan Quayle came out against it, it fortified it’s status as a social model–but Candace Bergen, the actress who pretended to be that character is treated as a champion for women’s reproductive rights.
Sometimes this world seems to be upside down from where I’m standing as a private person. In school I was taught that the arts were originally thought of as “crafts” and its practitioners as craftsmen (and here I have to pause for a second, because I’m not sure if that word is considered politically correct and could maybe launch another snowball of offended responses–but that’s the topic of another ranting). If you carve a nice walking stick, for instance, I would call you that. But because some people practice their craft in wide view of the public (to satisfy a psychological need for fame, I assume), they presume to be entitled to voice their opinions on a wide variety of topics, and what’s worse, we seem to care.
Let me ask you a question. If you have a health issue, maybe an upcoming operation, would you feel confident lying on a table with Goran Visnjic hovering over you with a scalpel? Or would you call Richard Karn for a blown fuse, because on screen he appears more apt than Tim Allen? I have to wonder sometimes, because of all the fuss we afford people whose only claim to fame is that they are shown to pretend to be other people on some kind of a screen. Who denies Dan Quayle the same right to voice an opinion on someone else’s craft, while Blythe Danner, who does a good job pretending to be Dina Byrnes, can spew political comments on national television and be met with approval. Try that next time on a symposium on nursing or a PTA meeting. There everyone would feel such comments unprofessional and out of place. But if a celebrity makes a fool out of themselves, we as a community do not feel irked. What next? Maybe a pack of pretend doctors from Grey’s Anatomy of Nip/Tuck will demand to change the course an angioplasty is done? Or old (and forgotten) characters from Wings will insist on offered employment at an airport.
The list could go on. I personally find it very ironic that the very same people who live in a world of fantasy, far removed from reality, and can’t even make decisions in the plotlines involving the characters they play demand to sputter opinions about the way the world should be governed. Not that they do not have the right to form them (which they do) but they should not abuse their access to the microphone. Would you allow the bagger during your next trip to the grocery store to use the few minutes they have having your attention to endorse party affiliations or political issues? Personally, I think you’d find him more relevant.