Beautiful Trouble Response 

By: Lauren Baker

After what has been, in my opinion, a rather hellish political year in the United States, as well as an election that has left the country clearly divided, I see the value and power of the arts more than ever before. When attempting to address issues in regards to the two major political parties in this country, I feel that Beautiful Trouble offers many strong examples of different principles, tactics, and theories. I feel that anger is certainly a strong principle, and something that both democrats and republicans share. There is a great divide expressed on both sides- everyone feels that the opposite side is wrong, and for better or for worse, anger has obviously been a strong vehicle for political candidates. Candidates connecting with the people through anger is a legitimate and powerful thing- as I said, for better or for worse. What Beautiful Trouble offers is that anger works best only when you have the moral high ground. It discusses the distinction between morality and self righteousness. Anger expressed in regards to issues of human rights can be powerful- when doing this through the arts, anger can be a way to force the opposite side to consider life from another person's perspective. This works best in regards to morality, because we are all human and are capable of compassion and feeling empathy. Anger can have the reverse affect, however, if expressed in self righteousness, as it comes across very aggressively and does not force one to consider someone else's perspective. Instead of raising the stakes of an issue in order to display the seriousness of whatever point a democrat or republican would be trying to make, it comes across as selfishly argumentative. This is counterproductive. In terms of tactics, culture jamming is a powerful opportunity to have an affect on the division of republicans and democrats. As I have experienced while talking to voters from both parties, each side thinks that they are right and that the other side is totally crazy. Culture jamming, or finding spaces in urban life to create a some kind of spectacle, is a way to cause someone to think of an issue in a way that they hadn't before. Again, we are all humans, and images can evoke feelings that could have the power to change a person's perspective on a situation. This idea is something that Brecht would probably strongly disagree with, and call a form of emotional manipulation. His theory of the alienation effect is the opposite of what I just described- evoking feelings and causing a viewer or audience member to feel a certain way is something that disgusted Brecht. He had seen similar tactics when the Nazis took over Germany, displaying this kind of "art's" power. Brecht's theory of alienation attempts to present things differently, perhaps making the "good" and the "bad" characters in the story unclear, and presenting each opposing side with a strong argument. It causes the audience to think critically rather than act based on pure feelings. I feel that a mix of these three elements would benefit the current division of the political parties in our country, and the arts can be a way to do so.