>It is not self-evident to me that art should persuade the unpersuaded.
>Rather, though it may have innumerable specific functions (including
>perhaps none at all), its audience should always be those who are already
>at least tentatively committed to the struggle. It deepens their
>commitment; it lets them talk to each other about their commitment or
>their tasks; it may simply entertain those in struggle. Most of the
>nastier fights over revolutionary (or simply progressive) art all stem
>from this assumption that it should persuade.
I'm not sure people need to be tentatively committed. One of my favorite examples of good art with good politics are Barbara Kingsolver's novels. No sledgehammers here; no brawny proletarians. But lots of people facing the day to day, and presented in such a ways that (a) the systemic nature of things is clear, and (b) darn good values are made manifest in people's actions. For example, collective committments, keeping hope alive, taking the responsibilty of being one's sister's/brother's keeper seriously, and doing it in practice; etc.
Not surprisingly, Barabara has a long history of work in solidarity movements, with folks at home and abroad (her non-fiction book on the women of the Clifton-Morenci Phelps-Dodge strike has just been re-released.) But her politics are at a "deeper" level in her story telling, I feel. Her characters kinda exude them, more then preach about them. That is, they show ways to live them.
And I've heard from lots of people, previously uncommitted to anything, that Kingsolver's books have moved them in a leftward direction.
Tom
Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242 Email: tkruse at albatros.cnb.net