Art, Fame, and Political Responsibility

Chappell Roan recently found herself in hot water once again. Roan was bashed online for comments she made when she went on the wildly popular, ‘Call Her Daddy’ podcast. 

During the interview, Roan contended that it is difficult for pop stars to stay politically informed because the demands of her career leave little time for political education. 

Critics of Roan’s comments argue that it is a responsibility for public figures to remain politically aware and a luxury to remain ignorant.

Roan’s art has always had a political edge: from advocating for LGBTQ+ rights, refusing to perform at the White House during the Biden administration, calling out the Democrats’ failings on Palestine and their continued support of the genocide in Gaza, and drawing inspiration from drag artists. In a sense, Roan marketed herself as an artist who cares deeply about the issues in our world. So, it's fair to say that fans are feeling deceived.

I can see validity in both Roan's and her critics’ perspectives. 

Roan’s artistry has inevitably become intertwined with her politics, so it’s fair to expect a continuation of that. Yet, more broadly, I want to take a more nuanced look at how celebrities utilise politics, why we expect our favourite artists to take political stances, and why, in my view, though motivated by good intentions, our expectations may not be productive for healthy political discourse.

Let’s look at Taylor Swift.

For a long time, Swift maintained a strict stance that she would never publicly state her political beliefs. When ‘The Chicks’ (a country music group) made, albeit very timid criticisms at a concert of George Bush’s illegal war in Iraq, their career was essentially tanked. There was a mass witch hunt levied against ‘The Chicks’ as they were branded 'bimbos', 'anti-American', 'stupid women', amongst other derogatory names. 

This was the backdrop in which Taylor Swift entered her career, and because of this incident, she was strictly apolitical. 

As Swift’s career grew, in certain dark corners of the internet she was hailed as neo-Nazis’ perfect Aryan princess, with blonde hair and blue eyes. Swift’s apolitical stance opened the doors wide open for the public to assume that she wasn’t just a covert conservative, but also a neo-Nazi. So, in 2018, Swift announced she was a Democrat and she was finished being silent on the issues she cared about, issues such as LGBTQ+ advocacy and women’s rights. 

From Swift's perspective, this was the bravest thing she could’ve done. 

Yet, I disagree because Swift’s coming out as a Democrat was cynically used to market her latest musical escapade, 'Lover', and as quickly as she picked up the political mantle, she dropped it, showing that to her, using politics in her art is more akin to a marketing ploy. 

Swift perfectly employs the idea of ‘Girlboss feminism’ - a form of feminism that emphasises individual female empowerment (particularly in corporate or entrepreneurial contexts), often aligning with capitalist ideals. 

What did ‘You Need to Calm Down,’ really achieve? Who did she help? What legislation did she influence? Was it just to show that she was on the right side of history by not being homophobic? 

I’ll let you decide.

Once the Lover era ended, Swift once again went silent on political issues. 

I don’t doubt that she cares about the horrors happening in America right now. But... if she cared the way she says she does, she would be constantly posting about the destruction of LGBTQ+ rights under the Trump administration, the rolling back of women’s rights, the genocide in Gaza, amongst other travesties.

Swift entered the political realm, so it is only fair to expect her to speak out. Yet, she doesn’t. Which leads me, a fan of her music, to presume that Swift’s 'era' of political activism was just that, an 'era'. Or, to be frank, a marketing ploy.

An artist whose music is inherently political is Irish favourite, Hozier. Take, for example, his debut track, ‘Take Me To Church,’ which acted as a scathing criticism of the institutionalised church in Ireland. Since then, his music has never strayed away from touching on nuanced, interesting, and relevant political issues.

The key difference between the likes of Taylor Swift and Hozier is that Hozier is basing his art on the work and writings of activists, academics, and political leaders, finding inspiration from these sources and then incorporating them into his music. 

Thus, Hozier acts as a sort of middleman between us, the listener, and the people with knowledge on these issues. From his work, we, the fans, are then referenced back to the essays and literature which informed Hozier’s conviction to write a song about a certain topic, like a breadcrumb trail. 

For example, within the context of Roe vs Wade being overturned (thus limiting people’s ability to get an abortion), Hozier released the song, ‘Swan Upon Leda’. When talking about the writing process, he references a quote by Egyptian writer and activist Mona Eltahawy, who says, “the systemic oppression of women is the world’s oldest form of occupation.” 

Thus, through the song, Hozier explores themes of patriarchy, apartheid, occupation and human rights. 

Plus, the money generated from the song was donated to four different women’s rights charities. 

Where Swift delivers vague platitudes with little political meaning, Hozier delivers impactful, purposeful art.

Art has always been political; oftentimes, it is nearly impossible to divorce the two, and artists who feel compelled to use their art as a means to deliver a message do so from a place of personal conviction. Take, for example, Sinead O’Connor, Bob Dylan, Macklemore, Hozier, Woody Guthrie, Johnny Cash, Tracy Chapman, the list goes on... These people all made/make political art because they saw injustice in the world around them that they thought oughta be challenged, and this is crucial in both challenging and changing public opinion. 

To conclude, this is a tricky topic to discuss with many layers. Ultimately, I believe that we care about our favourite artists’ political stances because who we choose to endorse and support directly reflect on the type of people we are. 

I certainly feel like Swift, who has a huge platform, hasn’t done enough to raise awareness of social and political issues. However, her lack of action or comment on the genocide in Gaza will never make me doubt that a genocide is taking place, or undermine my belief in Palestinian self-determination and freedom. It does make me question her morality, but I do not need her (or anybody else) for political guidance.

So, what would I like to see in the future? Well, for one, more moments like Bernie Sanders delivering a message to the audience at Clairo's Coachella set. This was extremely clever because she deferred the spotlight (during a large concert) to somebody rich with political knowledge. 

So, for artists who have political convictions, like Roan, pointing their fans in the direction of those with real political power may be one of the most impactful things they can do, and for us, the fans, we must be willing to accept that our favourite artists will not always speak out on the issues we care about. 

Instead, we must be willing to do the work ourselves, look to the activists, academics, journalists, and moral politicians for guidance to begin the process of fixing our broken and unjust world. 

This is when real change will be enacted.