“A profound debate on the role of intellectuals and artists before liberation today is enriching the perspectives of intellectual work all over the world. However, this debate oscillates between two poles: one which proposes to relegate all intellectual work capacity to specifically political or political-military function, denying perspectives to all artistic activity with the idea that such activity must ineluctable be absorbed by the System, and the other which maintains an inner duality of the intellectual: on the one hand, the ‘work of art,’ ‘the privilege of beauty,’ an art and a beauty which are not necessarily bound to the needs of the revolutionary political process, and, on the other, a political commitment which generally consists in signing certain anti-imperialist manifestoes. In practice, this point of view means the separation of politics and art.”
Solanas and Getino’s manifesto advocates for a third cinema–one which uses cinema as a means for personal expression and political action. To me, the authors seemed to be advocating for a space for artistic expression away from the main stream that could still appeal to the masses. However, I wonder if this has changed to some degree since the 60s. For example, Shonda Rhimes appeals to the masses. Her shows are mainstream. But, in 40 minutes she can make a political statement. On thursday night alone her shows addressed sexual assault, rape culture, race, class, gender roles and sexuality. To me, that is mainstream content also has a political message. Given the political atmosphere 50 years ago, do you think society has changed to allow for this kind of representation in the mainstream? Or, do you think that she is but one outlying example of an artist in the mainstream who is also making a political statement (I would put Jason Katims–creator of Friday Night Lights and Parenthood–in the same category)?