my short response

In response to Dr. Schultz's blog earlier this week:

Regardless of whether we choose to write directly “about the war,” we as writers are living in a time of war, chaos, discrimination, racism, inequality, etc. and therefore, no matter what we write, these realities surface through our creations, consciously or subconsciously. None of us can say that we haven’t been deeply affected by “the war” or by “tragedies:” we are all effected by these realities; they may exist as “background noise,” but nevertheless they are a presence in our life and as artists, these feelings we experience are channeled through us into our writing, our art.
Perhaps in times of war, artists create to do a variety of things, most importantly, to stimulate dialogue and hopefully to initiate or contribute to change. If an artist doesn’t have “an effect on their culture” then maybe they should change their line of work. My belief is that art exists and is created as a reflection of the world, and as a conversation between artist, world and audience. The tone of that conversation and the relationship between artist and audience are varied and therefore, I believe it’s possible that art can be created “to console, to provoke, to think, to act, to persuade” depending on who’s writing it and who’s reading it.
I don’t have an issue with writing directly or indirectly about subjects such as “war” or “racism” or “inequality.” I don’t believe poets (whether novice or acclaimed) should have to conform to an idea about what is appropriate to write or not. Poetry is an art. True art comes from the heart. If I’m feeling it, if my body, and my soul and my heart is telling me to write it, I write it, regardless if I’ve experienced it first hand or not; isn’t that the blessing of creative writing?
In regards to activism: I’m down for poetry as activism, after all, I believe “The personal is political.” My poems come from me, personally, so yes, I see them as a medium for my activism.

Peace,
Julia