Back in June of 2016, Chance the Rapper took part in a
discussion at the University of Chicago entitled “the Art of Activism.” The hour-long talk ranged across a number of
topics including family, Chance’s relationship with the music industry, and
religion, but ultimately, it centered around the intersection between art and
activism, specifically, the relationship that rap and hip-hop artists maintain
with activist traditions. I’ve pulled a
couple of clips from the talk that I felt were particularly relevant to our class
discussions in the last few weeks. The
first clip centers around a concept that Chance references over and over during
his talk, that of the “free artist,” and in the second, Chance breaks down the
tension that exists between different schools of activist thought, a concept he
sums up as the choice between “the mouth and the fist.”
Use of the phrase “free artist,” was interesting to me for two
reasons. First, Chance is careful to
place himself in the long lineage of black musicians who have fought to
maintain control of their artistic license, a decades-long fight for agency that
ties in closely with the activist traditions we are looking at. Secondly, I immediately related Chance’s term
“free artist” to the idea raised in class last Thursday, “What does freedom
mean?” For Chance and other musicians
who follow a similar vein of thought, freedom means control of one’s artistic
process and product. For others artists,
freedom means the opportunity to chase a record deal, regardless of the
circumstances. I’m fascinated with how this
dynamic parallels the dynamic found between the different schools of thought
within black activism around the turn of the century (Integration vs.
Washington’s economic focus, etc.)
Chance’s statement, that “there’s a lot of thought that goes
into deciding…whether to be a mouth or a fist,” is really a great summation of
the tension within 19th century black activism between physical and
intellectual resistance. I noticed this
tension most clearly while reading David Walker and the Nat Turner confession a
few weeks back. When I watched Chance’s talk,
I immediately drew parallels between David Walker as “the mouth” and Nat Turner
as “the fist.” I can acknowledge that
this is somewhat of a limiting comparison, but I’m struck by how relevant
Chance’s phrase felt in relation to the tensions that we have explored in class
discussions.
I’d encourage you to watch the whole clip if you’ve got some
free time!
This reminds of Dred Scott visiting campus last semester and this strange mix of activism and art, this common ground to talk about struggles and hardships.I like to think of music and art as a place where people share lived experiences, and through those moments, we begin to see pain and sometimes oppression. I also like to think of music as this place of mediation, this place of discussion and togetherness, but it's simply not. Music is divisive. It's political, and it's heart-wrenching. Chance dividing the mouth from the fist is inane, for in music, the mouth always brings the fist. As such, whiteness throws the first punch, deeming rap music "low" art; it deems it noise and meaningless. This may be whiteness covering up its own shame by hiding itself from meaningful lyrics, but in the end, fists and mouths are never separated. They are always connected and damning.
ReplyDeleteThanks! I also drew parallels with the Dred Scott talk. I think you're making some huge generalizations (for example, defining a monolithic "whiteness" that exists in opposition to "rap" music, as though whiteness and white tastes all fall into line in opposition to rap/hip hop), but I think the overall idea that the mouth and the fist are always linked within art is well made. I also disagree with the statement that "music is divisive, it's political, and it's heart wrenching" simply because I don't think music as a whole can be contained within any statement like that. Again though, you make a great point that separating the mouth and the fist within art is quite difficult.
DeleteI would have to agree with Brad's comment that "music is divisive, it's political, and it's heart wrenching," because I think that we have to think about intent for most artists. Music, as a whole, is often used as a political statement, although the audience may not hear it as such. I think, oftentimes, whitewashing can be attributed of this notion of music in which music lacks political statement. I argue this because music either goes along with the culture or is used as a method of counter-culture. In this particular instance, rap is a great example of many black artists attempting to communicate the black struggle, but the audience, due to a degree of disconnect, being unable to identify the problem. I think artists like Chance the Rapper, Kendrick Lamar, and Kanye West (to name a few) all embody this racial struggle within music but also confront the disassociation with their white audiences.
DeleteI agree with that point in cases when an artist or group makes an explicit effort to make a political statement, especially in the case of the artists you mention.
DeleteIt seems pretty apparent that Chance is extremely aware of the massive exploitation that record labels facilitated on Mo-town artists when he intones that he "understands the struggles that came before" - The mo-town themes in his music (instrumentation, vocal style, etc.) may point to an intent to give memory and agency to these artists who so affected every strain of American music and were systematically cheated by record companies.
ReplyDelete