Matt McLean

Amanda Yesnowitz
Writing the Essay: Progression 2
12/11/12

Drawing the Line

Whos Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a staple for any hardcore theater geek. After
hearing that there was a revival coming to Broadway, I couldnt help myself. It wasnt
long before I was anxiously bobbing up and down on the subway, on my way to the
theater. After seeing the show, I waited at the stage door, numb with shock and
amazement at the sheer brutality and force of this psychologically gripping show. As the
actors filed out of the door, I mustered up the strength to ask Amy Morton, who played
Martha, how she was able to perform this show eight times a week. She gave me a look
of sheer surprise, and said matter-of-factly, Well, its my job! That seemingly simple
interaction resurfaced multiple times while reading Richard Schechners A Polity of Its
Own Called Art. In his essay, Schechner attempts to define the term artistic citizen by
giving examples of how other essayists and scholars portray them. Was it Amy Mortons
duty as an artistic citizen to perform that tormenting play for her grateful audiences?
What does it mean to be an artistic citizen?
Richard Schechners A Polity of Its Own Called Art? focuses on art as a
medium of expression and the concept of artistic citizenship. One of his main conflicts
comes from the meaning of the word citizen and therefore what it means to be an
artistic citizen. Schechner defines citizenship as ones affiliation with a place and its

people, their aspirations, common purposes, rights, duties, history, and future and the
basis of his essay derives from the question: is there a difference between citizenship in
general and artistic citizenship (Schechner 34)? Throughout the essay, Schechner is
constantly striking us with rhetorical questions, constantly challenging us to think about
citizenship and its relationship to art.
To be a good citizen, Schechner states that one should be willing to lay down
their life in defense of the common purpose. On the other hand, a bad citizen, as he
defines it, is one who avoid[s] performing the duties of one who belong[s]. Schechner
continues by musing about the duties of a citizen and how they relate to art, asking the
reader if being avant-garde is similar to breaking the law. Schechner believes that the two
citizenships can coexist peacefully, but when conflict arises, one must choose which path
to follow: the path of good citizenship, or the path of artistic citizenship. Interestingly
enough, Schechner doesnt define artistic citizenship. On the contrary, he asks sixteen
rhetorical questions about the details of being an artistic citizen, all the while failing to
actually define the term artistic citizen (33-41).
In an attempt to fully understand the term artistic citizen, we must understand
two terms first: art and citizen. Seeing as Schechner has already defined a citizen
for us, he now begins to define art. Schechner quotes painter Allan Kaprow, saying art
does not have to be artlike art, which is simply representative, but that it can be
lifelike art, or more active. Artlike art would be considered much of what we
traditionally find in museums and galleries today: sculptures, paintings, photographs,
drawings, and the like. On the contrary, lifelike art is what some people may not even
classify as art. One way to think of lifelike art is that it is not the inspiration from the

event, but the actual event itself, and the reactions to the event. It is the act itself, not its
representation. He treads deeper into the murky waters, musing over the concept that
terrorismas art works more on states of mindand feelingthan on physical
destruction. This means that perhaps art is not in the act of the destruction, but more in
the feelings that the destruction invokes in its audience. He bolsters his point by using the
September 11th attacks as an example, citing artists and authors, including Karlheinz
Stockhausen and Frank Lentricchia, who both say the attacks are examples of lifelike
art rather than artlike art. (Schechner 33-41). Shockingly, Schechner is presenting the
idea that the terrorists who performed the attacks on that day are good artistic citizens.
They performed their work, and received a massive wave of reception from their socalled masterpiece. It is horrifying to think that anyone could even consider praising
the citizenship of terrorists who killed upwards of 5,000 people.
Although Schechner infuriates his audience with his comments regarding
terrorism, he soon refutes them with the mention of regular citizenship, and how that can
affect artistic citizenship. When our artistic and general citizenships are in harmony,
there is no problem, but the minute something goes wrong, we must choose which
citizenship is more important to us (Schechner 39-40). Using Henry David Thoreau as an
example, Schechner explains how Thoreau disobeyed his U.S. citizenship and then used
his artistic citizenship to his advantage by writing Civil Disobedience. Thoreau
accept[ed] the consequences of disobeying the law. By writing about what he did, he
brought his artistic skills to bear on the problem. Though, Schechner explains that
Thoreau didnt go to jail because of his artistic citizenship, he simply used his artistic
skills to strengthen his overall citizenship. Schechner leaves us with a plethora of

questions, inevitably to attempt to answer ourselves, and still he fails to concretely define
the term artistic citizenship.
Although artistic citizenship can be a source of personal significance and benefit,
is there any responsibility that artists have to generate a response in the general public? Is
there a bar that has to be met in order for an act or depiction to be deemed worth the title
art? As I stood in a gallery on 24th street, gawking at an enlarged photograph on the
wall, I considered these questions, taking in the burning house and the small, dilapidated
farmers stand in the picture. Was the photograph of that scene art, or was the blazing
rooftop in the photograph itself art? Who is the artistic citizen in this case: the
photographer who documented the event, or the fireman who participated in the event
and was simply captured in the process?
While the role of the artistic citizen becomes more unclear, E.M. Forster brings a
new perspective: that art is fully self-sustainablebut only because it has been originated
by its creator. In his essay Art for Arts Sake, he says that a work of art is a selfcontained entity, with a life of its own imposed on it by its creator (26). In this way, art
can exist in a world of its own, without any outside assistance, except for its creator. He
also goes so far as to say that art is the one orderly product which our muddling race has
produced (27). Forsters artistic citizen is, in a way, a kind of conduit for the art, existing
solely to create art that can then live on its own.
Whereas Forster claims that art can sustain itself because its creator has brought it
to life, Ozick seems to be saying that art shouldnt separate itself from other facets of life,
because it is a part of life and is influenced by aspects of it. Ozick argues against
Forsters points made in Art for Arts Sake, saying that artdoesnt fastidiously

separate itself from the human roll, neither should artists (154). Ozick claims instead of
art existing in its own universe, independent of human activity, that art exists in our
universe, and is also a part of it. She contends that Forster ignores the historical context
that all art takes, whether intended or not. History isnt only what we inherit, safe and
sound after the fact; it is also what we ourselves are obliged to endure (154). Ozick is
saying that in order to be a public thinker, or an artistic citizen, you have to take on the
responsibilities of what is happening around you, and react to it and exemplify it in your
artwork. Ozicks definition of an artistic citizen is extremely dependent on the context
that the artist is creating his or her work in, completely contrary to Forsters definition.
Now that we see Ozick has realized that artistic citizens cannot separate
themselves from society because their art depends on it, Schechners artistic citizen has a
few more dimensions. Looking solely at Schechners article, the reader will most likely
become confused as to the actual definition of an artistic citizen, since he never really
does provide one. He simply speculates the actual definition of the term. He asks does
playing the game mean being an artistic citizen? and at the beginning of his essay, he
wonders if artistic citizenship [is] separable from citizenship in general (Schechner 3435). Schechners entire article is based on the concept of what it means to be an artistic
citizen, yet, he cant even define what an artistic citizen is. He does try, by breaking down
the term into concepts and defining those: art, and citizenship. Still, after this, he cannot
come to a concrete conclusion of what the definition of an artistic citizen truly is. And
truly, there is a problem here: if Schechner is willing to define terrorists and jihadists as
successful artistic citizens because they work more on states of mindand feeling
than on physical destruction, then he better be able to back up his statement with a

concrete definition of what exactly it means to be an artistic citizen. Instead, he dances

around the subject, giving his audience an extremely vague spectrum of artistic citizens,
from those who accept commissions from wealthy patrons and entrenched governments
to those who explode the bases on which power stands. There is also, the very broad
middle path. Outlining artistic citizens in the broadest way possible, Schechners
essay seems confusing without a definition for his central topic (34-35).
Though Schechner does little to no work on explaining the concept of an artistic
citizen, he has set guidelines for where an artistic citizen could lie. Within these
guidelines, Ozick and Forster help reinforce the definition of an artistic citizen through
their opinions of where art fits into society. In assembling both Ozicks and Forsters
thoughts coherently, it is possible that an artistic citizen is an artist. But, there is more to
it than that. Someone who takes their political, social, environmental, and most
importantly personal context into their art and creates a work that makes a statement,
however big or small, perhaps a raison dtre for that work of art. But what will become
of our terrorists? Sure, weve fleshed out a definition for artistic citizenship, but the
question of what makes art art still remains. It is a long and arduous task, but now at
least we have a way of declaring an artists citizenship so we can eventually come to
decide if their work is valid enough to be considered art at all.

Works Cited:
Schechner, Richard. Forester Trans. Array Artistic Citizenship. Mary Schmidt Campbell
and Randy Martin. New York: Taylor and Francis Group, 2006. 33-41. Print.
Forster, E.M. Art for Arts Sake.WritingtheEssay:ArtintheWorld:TheWorld
ThroughArt.Ed.DarleneA.Forrest,Ed.BenjaminW.Stewart,Ed.Randy
MartinandEd.PatC.HoyII.NewYork:TheMcGrawHillCompanies,Inc.,
2012.5556.Print.
Ozick,Cynthia.PublicIntellectuals.WritingtheEssay:ArtintheWorld:TheWorld
ThroughArt.Ed.DarleneA.Forrest,Ed.BenjaminW.Stewart,Ed.Randy
MartinandEd.PatC.HoyII.NewYork:TheMcGrawHillCompanies,Inc.,
2012.5556.Print.