Monday night our book club had the rare opportunity of having an author in attendance. Tamas Dobozy was with us as we discussed his acclaimed book Seige 13. The book narrates the experiences of the Hungarians who endure the brutal occupation of Budapest in 1944. Dobozy spoke of his experience as a child of a survivor, and as a member of the Hungarian expat community in Canada. He gave us some background to the book, and as we queried him on the occasion of its writing, and the manner of its genesis, he spoke eloquently of the strange place of being in a community that has known trauma, and knows how to suppress it.
He spoke of the power of narrative as a tool to orient survivors of horrors. He spoke of the gratitude of his community for his telling of the tale. He, and we all, spoke of the manner in which communities suppress how they both have been done wronged and what they have done wrong. Regarding the latter, he spoke of the manner in which Jews, the Roma, and homosexuals were betrayed in the era under consideration. Evil endured and evil perpetuated – alike – were left unspoken.
Along the way, I asked him about the role of song, and the role of artists in the time leading up to the siege, and the time after. He spoke of the heroic example of Bartók, who eloquently and passionately bore witness to the wrong of abuse both endured and perpetuated by the Hungarian people. Bartók refused to be honoured by any plaque, or street name, or bust in his home country as long as fascists or communists were in charge. During the war he escaped to the USA, where he died.
As I walked home afterwards, I wondered: how is it that artists are so often able to see clearly what others cannot, or refuse to see? How is it that they find the courage to speak out when others keep quiet in the face of what they know should not be countenanced? What well-spring of courage do they access that others of us seem to miss out on? What do they imbibe while working at the arts, at what many consider to be decorative excess to the real stuff of life?
Of course there are always many unsung heros in times of siege and reigns of terror. Quietly, many a mite has gnawed at the might of empires. This must be recognized, but still, still, we do well to listen to our bards; to look deeply into the masterpieces of our contemporaries; to pay attention to our poets. All of these have courage with their ear to the ground. Here they hear slow trains coming, some of which have designs on deportation.
stillvoicing 
You raise some great questions regarding the artist and his role as observer? prophet? iconoclast? Maybe it has something to do with the innate nature of a creative person and the desire for freedom from constraints. Good post.
Prophet, now I like that! Yes freedom from external constraints but somehow significantly tied to a vision, or an intuition… really an ability to see what other miss. Thanks!
This is a very interesting post, Allen. My thoughts are that poets and writers can only free themselves from horror through prose. Singers will sing about it, but others just stay quiet and I suppose it depends on the personality and the individual way we each cope with grief.
Yes, that makes sense. Artists need to speak, paint, sing what they feel, whereas others deal with it differently. Thanks Dianne!
That would be interesting to have an author there. To your questions, I really like what Dianne wrote about writing being a release.
It was interesting indeed! I wish we could do it every time, but alas is unlikely. Yes, I too agree, writing is a release, and a potent one at that.
It’s so true – we discount our artists at our own peril. Sensitivity and clarity of vision are of value in every society, if we will but listen.
I like what you say about clarity of vision. i have an artist friend who speaks of art as an exercise in seeing. I think you could add hearing to that, and so artist hear and see what others of us miss.
I wonder if artists’ ability to see and their willingness to speak out might be rooted in the fact that they’re often consigned to the edges of society themselves. Sometimes, they reject the values of their society on a personal basis, and that might contribute to a certain freedom when it come to critiquing society.
Orthodoxy isn’t only for the church, after all, and even the hippies were a pretty conforming bunch. Yes, they were weird, compared to the rest of society — but compared to one another? It might as well have been suburbia.
Sometimes I think it boils down to this. We say, “I’m going to write this, and I hope you like it.” The artist says, “This is how I see the world. Deal with it.”
I had to chuckle at the comparison between hippies and suburbia, but I think you are spot on. it is hard work (for most of us anyhow) to go against the grain. Artists – or some anyways – seem to live on the edge, as you say, and so have less to lose, at least in terms of status. Lots to think about…