politicians vs artists

            I agree with Wright’s theory to an extent. In a situation, like Russia pre USSR or segregated US, early political movements are in need of numbers, public eye, and action. Politicians pursue these ends and seek numbers of people who will not only pledge support, but be active members that can instigate change. They need a majority of the unthinking masses to upset the system. Artists, who may be attracted by the idealism behind it, will seek to express their take on the glory or horrors of the theories through imagery. This can only serve to rally the support of other intellectuals or artists who can grasp the deeper meaning of the pieces. This does not serve the politicians purposes and while they are semi grateful for the support of a different group, they do not particularly care about them. The leaders desire a manifestation in the streets, not an isolated theorist with paper. What can change this, however, is in the even that the movement has established a large enough base and is kicking off as a major faction. Should this take place, artists and other groups of the given party will be used to spread the ideals to new and less understanding parties in an attempt to bolster ranks and make their thoughts supported and intricately stated. The politician has no need for the artist to begin his movement, but should it succeed or last he needs the artist in order to maintain control and spread ideology. The cast down artist is also the easiest and most dangerous form of dissent against the faction.