I’ve been hearing about the need for art to create social change quite a bit recently. For instance, there were a couple of articles in The Guardian on this, with a focus on theatre: Theatres must look beyond their regular audiences and to society itself and Safe house: theatre’s role in helping refugees. I remembered it again when the Migrant Workers’ Poetry Competition took place last Sunday. After all, it’s that one event that has gone some way in addressing the prejudices Singaporeans have against migrant workers by allowing the latter’s voices to be heard.
It’s definitely heartening that art is being used for such purposes, because it can lead to a more open and tolerant society. Bringing social issues to the public’s eye allows for conversation, and that’s essential for change.
There are two ways social issues can be brought to the fore. One, by the marginalised groups themselves, and two, by others who choose to speak out for them. There is, of course, nothing wrong with the latter. But the beauty of the former is that it forces art itself to be more accessible. Because art is, ultimately, is for the privileged. It takes time, finances and freedom to pursue art. The voices that may want to be heard cannot be heard because the opportunities aren’t there and the circumstances aren’t right.
But the problem with the former is that we cannot know if the draw of that piece of art is the art itself, or its creator(s). Going back to the Migrant Workers’ Poetry competition, I can’t help but get the impression based on some comments that there are people who are more interested in the fact that these are migrant workers than by their art itself. It seems a lot like objectification, especially when held on a platform that restricts participation to a group who can be objectified. Then again, that objectification may be necessary evil on the path to social change.
I am conflicted as to whether tailoring arts events to be exclusive to marginalised groups is an overall good or bad. But perhaps it doesn’t matter. These events do make art more inclusive, and inclusiveness is what opens conversations between people from different walks of life, broadening minds at the very least.
Yet in the midst of trying to create art for social change, we can’t neglect art for art’s sake. Because such art does something for the individual, regardless of whether it’s for the artist or audience. It inspires and relaxes, beautifies and affects us; yet it can disturb and destroy. It puts us in touch with ourselves, let’s us understand ourselves.
In any case, art is a reflection of society, and in making people aware of themselves, change will naturally come, whether or not we intend to cause it.
that.interval 