Carbon Cate

There's a bunch of people getting upset that Cate Blanchett (an actor who makes lots of money (apparently)) and Michael Caton (who is also an actor, but I'm betting doesn't make nearly as much money) are about to share their view on the proposed carbon tax in a series of advertisments. Of course, we haven't yet seen these ads, but we're led to understand that these two artists (I'm referring to their real jobs here) are broadly in favour of this new tax thingy.

From the clamouring news headlines, it appears that the main thing Cate & Michael have done wrong so far is (gasp!) develop an opinion and have the commitment to publicly state it. I am reasonably sure that's still OK 'round here, but from the press this is getting you could be forgiven for thinking that it's not. What is really confusing is that there's also a view that because these people are actors/performers/artists, then that automatically precludes them from having opinions of their own. Worse still that these two are successful actors ( & therefore wealthy as well, but I think that's another part of the debate).

Sorry, but you've lost me there - I thought one of the primary reasons for art was to challenge, question and reflect the society in which it exists. Truly great art is often possible of transcending society and time. So how does shutting our artists up help us? How does accusing them of having selfish agendas help develop the debate? (and didn't the Nazis try that approach?)

Seems we've lost track of what art & artists are really all about, and we've perhaps gotten it confused with entertainment. Yes, I'm sure there's a difference, and in a world which is obsessed with disposability, in which consumerism now extends to everything, it seems to me that the best thing about art is that it might occasionally have the capacity to NOT be disposable. (Hah! - even when Andy Warhol tried to make disposable art, he couldn't!) That it might have that transcendant quality. That it might make us better people.

It also beggars belief that because someone does a certain job for a living then they can't have a publicly held opinion on something else.  Wow, that kinda blows that whole "democratic freedom of speech " concept out of the water, doesn't it?