Love what we do?
Become a member for unlimited access to EIP digital and print issues, attend Slow Factory’s Open Edu, and support us in continuing to create and publish.
Join us today.
You’re logged in, but don’t have an active membership.
Join Us
All memberships give full digital access, online and in-person events, and support climate justice, human rights, and freedom of expression.
Annual memberships available too!
$20
Member —
All digital access (suggested amount)
$40
Benefactor —
Receive a monthly(ish) printed journal
$100
Movement Builder —
Become an ambassador
Question? Ask us anything!
On Art, Life & Activism
Nan Goldin, photographed by Mohamad Abdouni, interviewed by Céline Semaan

I encountered Nan Goldin’s work in person at the age of eighteen while studying art in Paris. Her work was exhibited at the Centre Georges Pompidou where I spent most days after school. It was my sanctuary; having just left Lebanon, I often felt lost in Paris. But I knew my way to museums where I would sit in silence for hours, absorbing art with my entire being. At eighteen, broke yet hopeful to pursue a career in the arts in spite of the odds or my own family’s desire for me to forgo this endeavor, meeting Nan’s work transformed me. I’m sure it has transformed millions of people, yet my connection to it felt personal. The intimacy, the composition, the use of color, the honesty her work conveyed gave the viewer permission to exist, not as a product in society, but as a human. Every day after school, the photographs, the stories, the life Nan Goldin captured became part of my intimate experience of living in Paris, my existence between countries, identities and religions; her art planted a seed within me.
Nan’s work spans decades: from the HIV epidemic in the eighties, to the harm of predatory pharmaceutical companies, to documenting and celebrating queer experiences from the seventies over fifty years to today, her work always centered the intimate and personal experiences that allows us to connect with the larger social context, and understand that everything is political.
Years later, at a dinner at a friend’s house in New York City, I noticed she was there. My heart stopped. I approached her and asked: Nan Goldin? She smiled while eating her last bite of dessert. She gave me an inviting look that welcomed me to sit by her. I sat uncomfortably at first, a little star struck, but as soon as we started talking, I felt as though we had met many times before. I readjusted my position and shared my teenage encounter with her work. We dove right into discussing the situation in Palestine, it was after all hundreds of days into this harrowing genocide. We were both invited to explore ways that art, culture and our collective efforts could be mobilized to end the violent occupation of Gaza. We stayed in touch.
On another occasion, we had lunch on a terrasse in Brooklyn and a vision came over me. As we were discussing the reality of the art world with Palestine and Lebanon, the work of Mohamad Abdouni came to my mind. I had brought Nan an issue of Everything is Political where Mohamad’s work was featured: Treat Me Like Your Mother. Nan carefully looked at the images, and there, a thought escaped my mouth, I asked her: “Would you like to meet Mohamad? His work is directly connected to your legacy and I could see this encounter not only as a magical moment between two artists, but as a wrinkle in the fabric of reality: Lebanese queer artists meeting a New York icon that has opened up his world and imagination.” The idea made her smile, then we smoked a cigarette together before her cab picked her up. As I was driving back home that day, I couldn’t help but feel as though time was folding, my eighteen year old self, my world in Lebanon and the world I had built in NewYork were finally connecting. That connection sparked new possibilities, a meeting of cultures. From that moment I began inquiring about inviting Mohamad to fly to NewYork, for the first time in his life, and sort out this possible meeting of the minds. I let the idea guide the process, and completely surrendered to the possibility of connecting art worlds together. When I texted Mohamad about it, we immediately jumped on a call—his first words were “you made my week”.
Months later, we walked up to Nan’s apartment, arms filled with cookies, flowers, lunch, cameras, newspapers. Little did we know we were about to spend a magical afternoon bridging cultures and experiences in such a rewarding way. While waiting for her to join us in the living room, we saw the gorgeous sunlight travel across the art on the walls of her rich collection of sculptures and paintings by friends who once were like family. Once Nan entered the room, Mohamad, Charlie (Mohamad’s best friend and muse), and myself exchanged stories on politics, drag queens in Lebanon, Syria and Palestine, queer culture during the war, all stories captured in Mohamad’s book “Treat Me Like Your Mother”.
The conversation kicked off around cigarettes, coffee, cookies and exchanging books and signatures between both photographers.

CÉLINE: Nan, You are an icon in the art world, were you surprised to know you were an icon for queer artists living in Lebanon and Palestine?
NAN: Actually I had no idea that my work had traveled there. I’m deeply gratified to know this. I hope it helps make queer people there feel visible.
CÉLINE: Your advocacy for Palestine didn’t start this year. When we met, you shared that you used to be aware and active for the cause in the 70’s and 80’s in New York. Can you share more about how you got involved?
NAN: In the 70’s when I was a teenager, a boyfriend of mine showed me a book about the camps for displaced people in Palestine, and I was outraged. From then on I refused to go to Israel or let my work be shown there. I was on my own cultural boycott. Later, I worked in a bar in Times Square and the woman who owned the bar, Maggie Smith, was my political mentor. She was deeply involved with the Puerto Rican Liberation Movement and prisoner rights. It was during this time that I went to a few PLO meetings. In those days there was no internet so you had to find these things out, by word of mouth. For a few years leading up to October 7th, I was going to Pro-Palestine protests here in New York.

CÉLINE: Your speech in Berlin was shared by millions of people. Before you left, you were concerned about the gallery potentially censoring you. How did it go? What can you share about censorship in the art world and what you think about the artist’s role in these times?
NAN: It was my mountaintop speech, I’m thrilled that it’s gone viral.
The museum did try to censor me. Without my knowledge, the Director of the museum, Klaus Biesenbach, set up a symposium with panelists that were almost entirely Pro-Zionist. The intent was to disprove my position. It was very bizarre that a director of a museum would go so far to disavow an artist he was showing in his museum. So he gave a speech right after mine that was drowned out by the voices of STRIKE GERMANY who orchestrated a powerful action.
I also gave an interview to Hanno Hauenstein who reported about the censorship that had occurred at the Neue National galerie. We made a new credit slide for the analogue slideshow of The Other Side and The Ballad of Sexual Dependency, that reads “In solidarity with the people of Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. And the Israeli civilians killed on October 7.” They had coerced us to take the slides out and we had, but I decided it had to go back in and they wouldn’t allow it. When they reached out to the paper to say that they hadn’t censored me, I wrote to thank them and asked when I could put the slide back in. I’m happy to say the credits are in the exhibition now.
It’s abhorrent that Germany has censored about 200 artists, writers and academics, about a quarter of them Jewish, since October 7th. It’s crazy that Germans think it’s okay to tell Jews they’re anti-semitic in support of Palestine. There’s a policy in the German government that criminalizes boycotting Israel or showing support for Palestine. The policy is called Staatsräson- a key part of German foreign policy which views Israel’s security linked to German national interest, and a “logical consequence of Germany’s responsibility for the Holocaust.” meaning that the German state can not exist without supporting Israel. Which is meant to assuage their guilt about the Nazi holocaust. It’s illegal to make a comparison between the Nazi holocaust to what’s happening in Gaza. The conflation of anti-zionism and anti-semitism is very dangerous as it empowers the extreme right wing who are truly anti-semitic.
CÉLINE: Reclaiming silence was powerful. Since all phones were off while it was happening, that part wasn’t shared with the world. What was it like in person?
NAN: Good question. Actually Céline, it was your idea and it was brilliant. I asked the whole audience to observe silence. I extended the silence to four minutes which represented one one-hundredth of a second for the 44,757 people “officially” killed in Palestine by Israeli forces, half of them children, and the 3,516 people killed in Lebanon by Israeli forces and the 815 Israeli civilians killed on October 7th. The silence was also in honor of the at least 10,000 people buried under the rubble. I wanted people to feel uncomfortable so they could feel what it would be like to have their bodies hijacked for a minute. The audience of a thousand people maintained the silence, which was so moving. Everyone put away their phones so I haven’t found any footage. As I said in my speech, these numbers are a gross undercount and certainly not up to date today, two months later. The Lancet reported that the numbers were closer to 186,000 people. The killing didn’t cease with the ceasefire.
For me the extended silence was the most powerful part of the speech.

CÉLINE: It’s hard to cope with everything that is unfolding in real time, on our screens, the level of evil is just at another threshold. We also have a change of administration in the US, one that is on the far right and deeply invested in fascism. Do you see a parallel with the past elections, even going as far as when Bush was elected? How do you think this will affect the art world and our basic freedoms?
NAN: We’ve entered into the most dystopian of times that could ever be imagined. We’ve feared the encroaching fascism in the political structure of America for decades but now it’s full fledged. It’s terrifying. In 2000 I left America for a decade after Bush stole the election. I believe this was the beginning of the erosion of the meaning of truth. Trump has cemented this into the concept of “Fake News” which has been extremely dangerous. But leaving the country was a meaningless way to resist.
Now I’m trying to find a way to engage meaningfully with what’s here to stay. I find it hard to breathe here.
I fear that nobody is safe. I fear for Palestine, I fear for the people who’ve been working so hard to support Palestine. I fear for all the people who’ve been fighting for freedom and justice. What’s especially terrifying is that anywhere you look, evil policies are being put into place. The planet is rebelling against us. AI is creating even more sophisticated surveillance in social media. Trump is talking about moving people from Gaza to Indonesia and opening his hotels on the land. Elon Musk gave a Nazi salute but the ADL defended him and called it an “awkward gesture”. It’s absolutely terrifying that we’ve arrived here. I also hold Biden and Harris responsible, for their legacy of genocide. Maybe if they stopped sending billions of dollars worth of weapons, they would have gotten more support.
CÉLINE: Many of us are at risk during this upcoming presidency. Do you feel that art, the power of images, has the power to change the way things are going to be? In other words, does art still hold the kind of power that changes politics?
NAN: About Art, I wish I could say yes. I don’t expect it to change policies or the government, but my hope is that there are gestures made that are strong enough to open people’s minds.
Artists have always been the ones who speak out. If more artists had publicly supported Palestine, the people who spoke out wouldn’t be so blacklisted. There would be more of a sense of unity. The collective voice is stronger. The more of us there are, the more of us there are.

In Conversation:
Photography by:
Topics:
Filed under:
Location:
Keep reading:
Global Echoes of Resistance:
Artists Harnessing Art, Culture, and Ancestry
Samar Younes
{
"article":
{
"title" : "On Art, Life & Activism: Nan Goldin, photographed by Mohamad Abdouni, interviewed by Céline Semaan",
"author" : "Nan Goldin, Mohamad Abdouni, Céline Semaan",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/nan-goldin-mohamad-abdouni-celine-semaan",
"date" : "2025-02-04 15:33:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/nan-cover.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "I encountered Nan Goldin’s work in person at the age of eighteen while studying art in Paris. Her work was exhibited at the Centre Georges Pompidou where I spent most days after school. It was my sanctuary; having just left Lebanon, I often felt lost in Paris. But I knew my way to museums where I would sit in silence for hours, absorbing art with my entire being. At eighteen, broke yet hopeful to pursue a career in the arts in spite of the odds or my own family’s desire for me to forgo this endeavor, meeting Nan’s work transformed me. I’m sure it has transformed millions of people, yet my connection to it felt personal. The intimacy, the composition, the use of color, the honesty her work conveyed gave the viewer permission to exist, not as a product in society, but as a human. Every day after school, the photographs, the stories, the life Nan Goldin captured became part of my intimate experience of living in Paris, my existence between countries, identities and religions; her art planted a seed within me.Nan’s work spans decades: from the HIV epidemic in the eighties, to the harm of predatory pharmaceutical companies, to documenting and celebrating queer experiences from the seventies over fifty years to today, her work always centered the intimate and personal experiences that allows us to connect with the larger social context, and understand that everything is political.Years later, at a dinner at a friend’s house in New York City, I noticed she was there. My heart stopped. I approached her and asked: Nan Goldin? She smiled while eating her last bite of dessert. She gave me an inviting look that welcomed me to sit by her. I sat uncomfortably at first, a little star struck, but as soon as we started talking, I felt as though we had met many times before. I readjusted my position and shared my teenage encounter with her work. We dove right into discussing the situation in Palestine, it was after all hundreds of days into this harrowing genocide. We were both invited to explore ways that art, culture and our collective efforts could be mobilized to end the violent occupation of Gaza. We stayed in touch.On another occasion, we had lunch on a terrasse in Brooklyn and a vision came over me. As we were discussing the reality of the art world with Palestine and Lebanon, the work of Mohamad Abdouni came to my mind. I had brought Nan an issue of Everything is Political where Mohamad’s work was featured: Treat Me Like Your Mother. Nan carefully looked at the images, and there, a thought escaped my mouth, I asked her: “Would you like to meet Mohamad? His work is directly connected to your legacy and I could see this encounter not only as a magical moment between two artists, but as a wrinkle in the fabric of reality: Lebanese queer artists meeting a New York icon that has opened up his world and imagination.” The idea made her smile, then we smoked a cigarette together before her cab picked her up. As I was driving back home that day, I couldn’t help but feel as though time was folding, my eighteen year old self, my world in Lebanon and the world I had built in NewYork were finally connecting. That connection sparked new possibilities, a meeting of cultures. From that moment I began inquiring about inviting Mohamad to fly to NewYork, for the first time in his life, and sort out this possible meeting of the minds. I let the idea guide the process, and completely surrendered to the possibility of connecting art worlds together. When I texted Mohamad about it, we immediately jumped on a call—his first words were “you made my week”.Months later, we walked up to Nan’s apartment, arms filled with cookies, flowers, lunch, cameras, newspapers. Little did we know we were about to spend a magical afternoon bridging cultures and experiences in such a rewarding way. While waiting for her to join us in the living room, we saw the gorgeous sunlight travel across the art on the walls of her rich collection of sculptures and paintings by friends who once were like family. Once Nan entered the room, Mohamad, Charlie (Mohamad’s best friend and muse), and myself exchanged stories on politics, drag queens in Lebanon, Syria and Palestine, queer culture during the war, all stories captured in Mohamad’s book “Treat Me Like Your Mother”.The conversation kicked off around cigarettes, coffee, cookies and exchanging books and signatures between both photographers.CÉLINE: Nan, You are an icon in the art world, were you surprised to know you were an icon for queer artists living in Lebanon and Palestine?NAN: Actually I had no idea that my work had traveled there. I’m deeply gratified to know this. I hope it helps make queer people there feel visible.CÉLINE: Your advocacy for Palestine didn’t start this year. When we met, you shared that you used to be aware and active for the cause in the 70’s and 80’s in New York. Can you share more about how you got involved?NAN: In the 70’s when I was a teenager, a boyfriend of mine showed me a book about the camps for displaced people in Palestine, and I was outraged. From then on I refused to go to Israel or let my work be shown there. I was on my own cultural boycott. Later, I worked in a bar in Times Square and the woman who owned the bar, Maggie Smith, was my political mentor. She was deeply involved with the Puerto Rican Liberation Movement and prisoner rights. It was during this time that I went to a few PLO meetings. In those days there was no internet so you had to find these things out, by word of mouth. For a few years leading up to October 7th, I was going to Pro-Palestine protests here in New York.CÉLINE: Your speech in Berlin was shared by millions of people. Before you left, you were concerned about the gallery potentially censoring you. How did it go? What can you share about censorship in the art world and what you think about the artist’s role in these times?NAN: It was my mountaintop speech, I’m thrilled that it’s gone viral.The museum did try to censor me. Without my knowledge, the Director of the museum, Klaus Biesenbach, set up a symposium with panelists that were almost entirely Pro-Zionist. The intent was to disprove my position. It was very bizarre that a director of a museum would go so far to disavow an artist he was showing in his museum. So he gave a speech right after mine that was drowned out by the voices of STRIKE GERMANY who orchestrated a powerful action.I also gave an interview to Hanno Hauenstein who reported about the censorship that had occurred at the Neue National galerie. We made a new credit slide for the analogue slideshow of The Other Side and The Ballad of Sexual Dependency, that reads “In solidarity with the people of Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. And the Israeli civilians killed on October 7.” They had coerced us to take the slides out and we had, but I decided it had to go back in and they wouldn’t allow it. When they reached out to the paper to say that they hadn’t censored me, I wrote to thank them and asked when I could put the slide back in. I’m happy to say the credits are in the exhibition now.It’s abhorrent that Germany has censored about 200 artists, writers and academics, about a quarter of them Jewish, since October 7th. It’s crazy that Germans think it’s okay to tell Jews they’re anti-semitic in support of Palestine. There’s a policy in the German government that criminalizes boycotting Israel or showing support for Palestine. The policy is called Staatsräson- a key part of German foreign policy which views Israel’s security linked to German national interest, and a “logical consequence of Germany’s responsibility for the Holocaust.” meaning that the German state can not exist without supporting Israel. Which is meant to assuage their guilt about the Nazi holocaust. It’s illegal to make a comparison between the Nazi holocaust to what’s happening in Gaza. The conflation of anti-zionism and anti-semitism is very dangerous as it empowers the extreme right wing who are truly anti-semitic.CÉLINE: Reclaiming silence was powerful. Since all phones were off while it was happening, that part wasn’t shared with the world. What was it like in person?NAN: Good question. Actually Céline, it was your idea and it was brilliant. I asked the whole audience to observe silence. I extended the silence to four minutes which represented one one-hundredth of a second for the 44,757 people “officially” killed in Palestine by Israeli forces, half of them children, and the 3,516 people killed in Lebanon by Israeli forces and the 815 Israeli civilians killed on October 7th. The silence was also in honor of the at least 10,000 people buried under the rubble. I wanted people to feel uncomfortable so they could feel what it would be like to have their bodies hijacked for a minute. The audience of a thousand people maintained the silence, which was so moving. Everyone put away their phones so I haven’t found any footage. As I said in my speech, these numbers are a gross undercount and certainly not up to date today, two months later. The Lancet reported that the numbers were closer to 186,000 people. The killing didn’t cease with the ceasefire.For me the extended silence was the most powerful part of the speech.CÉLINE: It’s hard to cope with everything that is unfolding in real time, on our screens, the level of evil is just at another threshold. We also have a change of administration in the US, one that is on the far right and deeply invested in fascism. Do you see a parallel with the past elections, even going as far as when Bush was elected? How do you think this will affect the art world and our basic freedoms?NAN: We’ve entered into the most dystopian of times that could ever be imagined. We’ve feared the encroaching fascism in the political structure of America for decades but now it’s full fledged. It’s terrifying. In 2000 I left America for a decade after Bush stole the election. I believe this was the beginning of the erosion of the meaning of truth. Trump has cemented this into the concept of “Fake News” which has been extremely dangerous. But leaving the country was a meaningless way to resist.Now I’m trying to find a way to engage meaningfully with what’s here to stay. I find it hard to breathe here.I fear that nobody is safe. I fear for Palestine, I fear for the people who’ve been working so hard to support Palestine. I fear for all the people who’ve been fighting for freedom and justice. What’s especially terrifying is that anywhere you look, evil policies are being put into place. The planet is rebelling against us. AI is creating even more sophisticated surveillance in social media. Trump is talking about moving people from Gaza to Indonesia and opening his hotels on the land. Elon Musk gave a Nazi salute but the ADL defended him and called it an “awkward gesture”. It’s absolutely terrifying that we’ve arrived here. I also hold Biden and Harris responsible, for their legacy of genocide. Maybe if they stopped sending billions of dollars worth of weapons, they would have gotten more support.CÉLINE: Many of us are at risk during this upcoming presidency. Do you feel that art, the power of images, has the power to change the way things are going to be? In other words, does art still hold the kind of power that changes politics?NAN: About Art, I wish I could say yes. I don’t expect it to change policies or the government, but my hope is that there are gestures made that are strong enough to open people’s minds. Artists have always been the ones who speak out. If more artists had publicly supported Palestine, the people who spoke out wouldn’t be so blacklisted. There would be more of a sense of unity. The collective voice is stronger. The more of us there are, the more of us there are."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Ziad Rahbani and the Art of Creative Rebellion",
"author" : "Céline Semaan",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/ziad-rahbani-creative-rebellion",
"date" : "2025-07-28 07:01:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/2025_7_for-EIP-ziad-rahbani.jpg",
"excerpt" : "When I turned fourteen in Beirut, I came across Ziad Rahbani’s groundbreaking work. I immediately felt connected to him, his words, his perspective and his unflinching commitment to liberation for our people and for Palestine. My first love introduced me to his revolutionary plays, his unique contributions to Arab music and very soon I had listened to all of his plays and expanded my understanding of our own culture and history.",
"content" : "When I turned fourteen in Beirut, I came across Ziad Rahbani’s groundbreaking work. I immediately felt connected to him, his words, his perspective and his unflinching commitment to liberation for our people and for Palestine. My first love introduced me to his revolutionary plays, his unique contributions to Arab music and very soon I had listened to all of his plays and expanded my understanding of our own culture and history.Ziad Rahbani’s passing marks more than the end of a brilliant life—it marks the closing of a chapter in the cultural history of our region. His funeral wasn’t just a ceremony, it was a collective reckoning; crowds following his exit from the hospital to the cemetery. The streets knew what many governments tried to forget: that he gave voice to the people’s truths, to our frustrations, our absurdities, our grief, and our undying hope for justice. Yet he died as an unsung hero.Born into a family that shaped the musical soul of Lebanon, Ziad could have taken the easy path of replication. Instead, he shattered the mold. From his early plays like Sahriyye and Nazl el-Surour, he upended the elitism of classical Arabic theatre by placing the working class, the absurdity of war, and the contradictions of society at the center of his work. He spoke like the people spoke. He made art in the language of the taxi driver, the student, the mother waiting for news of her son.In his film work Film Ameriki Tawil, Ziad used satire not only as critique, but as rebellion. He exposed the rot of sectarian politics in Lebanon with surgical precision, never sparing anyone, including the leftist circles he moved in. He saw clearly: that political purity was a myth, and liberation required uncomfortable truths. His work, deeply rooted in class consciousness, refused to glorify any side of a war that tore his country apart.And yet, Ziad Rahbani never lost his clarity on Palestine. While others wavered, diluted their positions, or folded into diplomacy, Ziad remained steadfast. His support for the Palestinian struggle was not an aesthetic position—it was a political and ethical commitment. And he did so not as an outsider or savior, but as someone who understood that our futures are intertwined. That the liberation of Palestine is integral to the liberation of Lebanon. That anti-sectarianism and anti-Zionism are not contradictions, but extensions of each other.He brought jazz into Arabic music not as a novelty, but as a defiant act of cultural fusion—proof that our identities are not fixed, but fluid, diasporic, ever-evolving. He blurred the lines between Western musical forms and Arabic lyricism with intention, not mimicry. His collaborations with his mother, the legendary Fairuz, carried the weight of generational dialogue, but his own voice always broke through—wry, melancholic, grounded in the everyday.Ziad taught us that being a revolutionary doesn’t require a uniform or a slogan. It requires listening. It requires holding complexity, laughing in the face of despair, and making room for joy even when the world is on fire. He reminded us that culture is the deepest infrastructure of any resistance movement. He refused to be sanitized, censored, or simplified.As we mourn him, we also inherit his clarity. For artists, for organizers, for thinkers: Ziad Rahbani gave us a blueprint. Create without permission. Tell the truth. Fight for Palestine without compromising your own roots. And never forget that the people will always hear what is real.He was, and will always be, a compass for creative rebellion."
}
,
{
"title" : "Saul Williams: Nothing is Just a Song",
"author" : "Saul Williams, Collis Browne",
"category" : "interviews",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/saul-williams-interview",
"date" : "2025-07-21 21:35:46 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/EIP_SaulWilliams_Shot_7_0218.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Saul Williams: Many artists would like to believe that there is some sort of sublime neutrality that art can deliver, that it is beyond or above the idea of politics. However, art is sometimes used as a tool of Empire, and if we are not careful, then our art is used as propaganda, and thus, it becomes essential for us to arm our art with our viewpoints, with our perspective, so that it cannot be misused. I have always operated from the position that all my work carries politics in it, that there are politics embedded in it. And I’ve never really understood, if you are aiming to be an artist, why you wouldn’t aim to speak directly to the times. Addressing the political doesn’t have to take away from the personal intimacy of your work.",
"content" : "Collis Browne: Is all music and art really political?Saul Williams: Many artists would like to believe that there is some sort of sublime neutrality that art can deliver, that it is beyond or above the idea of politics. However, art is sometimes used as a tool of Empire, and if we are not careful, then our art is used as propaganda, and thus, it becomes essential for us to arm our art with our viewpoints, with our perspective, so that it cannot be misused. I have always operated from the position that all my work carries politics in it, that there are politics embedded in it. And I’ve never really understood, if you are aiming to be an artist, why you wouldn’t aim to speak directly to the times. Addressing the political doesn’t have to take away from the personal intimacy of your work.Even now, we are reading the writings of Palestinian poets in Gaza and the West Bank, not to mention those who are part of the diaspora, who are charting their feelings and intimate experiences while living through a genocide. These works of art are all politically charged because they are charged with a reality that is fully suppressed by oppressive networks and powers that control them.Shakespeare’s work was always political. He found a way to speak about power to the face of power, knowing they would be in the audience. But also found a way to play with and talk to the “groundlings,” the common people who were in the audience as well.Collis Browne: Was there a moment when you realized that your music could be used as a tool of resistance?Saul Williams: Yeah, I was in third grade, about eight or nine years old. I had been cast in a play in my elementary school. I loved the process of not only performing, but of sitting around the table and breaking down what the language meant and what the objective and the psychology of the character was, and what that meant during the time it was written. I came home and told my parents that I wanted to be an actor when I grew up. My father had the typical response: “I’ll support you as an actor if you get a law degree.” My mother responded by saying, “You should do your next school report on Paul Robeson, he was an actor and a lawyer.”So I did my next school report on Paul Robeson. And what I discovered was that here was an African American man, born in 1898, who had come to an early realization as an actor that the messages of the films he was being cast in—and he was a huge star—went against his own beliefs, his own anti-colonial and anti-imperial beliefs. In the 1930s, he started talking about why we needed to invest in independent cinema. In 1949, during the McCarthy era, he had his passport taken from him so he could no longer travel outside of the US, because he refused to acknowledge that the enemies of the US were his enemies as well. He felt there was no reason Black people should be signing up to fight for the US Empire when they were going home and getting lynched.In 1951, he presented a mandate to the UN called “We Charge Genocide.” In it he charged the US Government with the genocide of African Americans because of the white mobs who were lynching Black Americans on a regular basis. [Editor’s note: the petition charges the US Government with genocide through the endorsement of both racism and “monopoly capitalism,” without which “the persistent, constant, widespread, institutionalized commission of the crime of genocide would be impossible.”] When Robeson met with President Truman, Truman said, “I’d like to respond, but there’s an election coming up, so I have to be careful.”Paul Robeson sang songs of working-class people, songs that trade unionists sang, songs that miners sang, songs that all types of workers sang across the world. He identified with the workers and with the working class, regardless of his fame. He was ridiculed by the American Government and even had his passport revoked for his activism. At that early age, I learned that you could sing songs that could get you labeled as an enemy of the state.I grew up in Newburgh, New York, which is about an hour upstate from New York City. One of my neighbors would often come sing at my father’s church. At the time, I did not understand why my dad would allow this white guy with his guitar or banjo to come sing at our church when we had an amazing gospel choir. I couldn’t understand why we were singing these school songs with this dude. When I finally asked my parents, they said, “You have to understand that Pete—they were talking about Pete Seeger—is responsible for popularizing some of the songs you sing in school.” He wrote songs like “If I Had a Hammer,” and he too was blacklisted by the US government because of the songs he chose to sing and the people he chose to sing them for, and the people he chose to sing them with. I learned at a very early age that music and art were full of politics. Enough politics to get you labeled as the enemy of the state. Enough politics to get your passport taken, or to be imprisoned.I was also learning about my parents’ peers, artists whom they loved and adored. Artists like Sonia Sanchez, Amiri Baraka, and Nikki Giovanni, all from the Black Arts Movement. Larry Neal and Amiri Baraka made a statement when they started the Black Arts Repertory Theatre School in Harlem that said essentially that all art should serve a function, and that function should be to liberate Black minds.It is from that movement that hip-hop was born. I was lucky enough to witness the birth of hip-hop. At first, it was playful, it was fun, but by the mid to late 1980s, it began finding its voice with groups like Public Enemy, KRS-One, Queen Latifa, Rakim, and the Jungle Brothers. These are groups that started using and expressing Black Liberation politics in the music, which uplifted it, made it sound better, and made it hit harder. The first gangster rap was that… when it was gangster, when it was directly challenging the country it was being born in.As a teenager, I identified as a rapper and an actor. I would argue with school kids who insisted, “It’s not even music. They’re just talking.” I would have to defend hip-hop as music, sometimes even to my parents, who found the language crass. But when I played artists like KRS-One and Public Enemy for my parents, they said, “Oh, I see what they’re doing here.”When Public Enemy rapped, “Elvis was a hero to most, But he never meant shit to me you see, Straight up racist that sucker was, Simple and plain, Motherfuck him and John Wayne, ‘Cause I’m Black and I’m proud, I’m ready and hyped plus I’m amped, Most of my heroes don’t appear on no stamps,” my parents were like Amen. They understood. They understood why I needed to blast that music in my room 24/7. They understood.When the music spoke to me in that way, suddenly I could pull off moves on the dance floor like doing a flip that I couldn’t do before. That’s the power of music. That’s power embedded in music. That’s why Fela Kuti said that music is the weapon of the future. And, of course, there’s Nina Simone and Billie Holiday. What’s Billie Holiday’s most memorable song? “Strange Fruit.” That voice connected, was speaking directly to the times she was living in. It transcended the times, where to this day, when you hear this song and you understand that the “strange fruit” hanging from Southern trees are Black people who have been lynched, you understand how the power of the voice, when you connect it to something that is charged with the reality of the times, takes on a greater shape.Collis Browne: Public Enemy broke open so much. I grew up in Toronto, in a mostly white community, but I was into some of the bigger American hip-hop acts who were coming out. Public Enemy rose to a new level. Before them, we were only connecting with punk and hardcore music as the music of rebellion.Saul Williams: Public Enemy laid down the groundwork for what hip-hop is: “the voice of the voiceless.” It was only after Public Enemy that you saw the emergence of huge groups in France, Germany, Bulgaria, Egypt, and across the world. There were big acts before them. Run DMC, for instance, but when Public Enemy came out, marginalized groups heard their music and said, “That’s for us. Yes, that’s for us.” It was immediately understood as music of resistance.Collis Browne: What have you seen or listened to out in the world that has a clear political goal, but has been appropriated and watered down?Saul Williams: We can stay on Public Enemy for that. Under Secretary Blinken, Chuck D became a US Global Music Ambassador during the genocide in Gaza. There are photos of him standing beside Secretary Blinken, accepting that role, while understanding that the US has always used music as a cultural propaganda tool to express soft power. I remember learning about how the US uses this “soft power” when I was working in the mid-2000s with a Swiss composer, who has now passed, named Thomas Kessler. He wrote a symphony based on one of my books, Said the Shotgun to the Head, and we were performing it with the Cologne, Germany symphony orchestra, when I heard from the head of the orchestra that, in fact, their main financier was the US Government through the CIA.During the Cold War, it was crucial for the American Government to put money into the arts throughout Western Europe to try to express this idea of “freedom,” as opposed to what was happening in the Eastern (Communist) Bloc. So it was a long time between when the US Government started enlisting musicians and other artists in their propaganda campaigns and when I encountered this information.There’s a documentary called Soundtrack to a Coup d’État, which talks about how the US Government used (uses) music and musicians to co-opt movements and propagate the idea of American freedom and democracy outside the US in the hope of winning over the citizens of other countries without them even realizing that so much of that art is there to question the system itself, not to celebrate it. Unfortunately, there are situations in which an artist’s work is co-opted to be used as propaganda, and the artist buys into it. They become indoctrinated, and you realize that we’re all susceptible to the possibility of taking that bait."
}
,
{
"title" : "The Culture of Artificial Intelligence",
"author" : "Sinead Bovell, Céline Semaan",
"category" : "interviews",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/sinead-bovell-on-ai-artifial-intelligence",
"date" : "2025-07-20 21:35:46 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/sinead-bovell-headshot.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Céline Semaan: It is being reported that AI will make humans dumber than ever, that it is here to rule the world, and to subjugate us all by bringing on a climate apocalypse. Being an AI and tech expert, how can you help people better understand AI as a phenomenon that will impact us but that we shouldn’t necessarily fear?",
"content" : "Céline Semaan: It is being reported that AI will make humans dumber than ever, that it is here to rule the world, and to subjugate us all by bringing on a climate apocalypse. Being an AI and tech expert, how can you help people better understand AI as a phenomenon that will impact us but that we shouldn’t necessarily fear?Sinead Bovell: It depends on where you are… in the Global North, and particularly in the US, perspectives on artificial intelligence and advanced technologies are more broadly negative. When you look at regions in the Global South, when you look at regions in Asia, AI is seen in a much more positive light. Their societies tend to focus on the benefits new technology can bring and what it can do for their quality of life. The social media ecosystem thrives on negative content, but it really does depend on where you are in the world as to how negatively you’re going to view AI. When it comes to the actual fears and the threats themselves, most of them have some validity. Humans could become less intelligent over time if they’re overly reliant on artificial intelligence systems, and the data does show that AI can erode core cognitive capacities.For example, most of us can’t read maps anymore. If you are in the military and your satellite gets knocked down and you need to understand your coordinates, that might be a problem. But for the average person, not reading a map has allowed us to optimize our time; we can get from A to B much more quickly. What do we fill the time with that AI gives us back with? That’s a really important question.Another important question is: How do we purposely engineer cognitive friction into the learning and thinking environment so we don’t erode that core capability? That’s not something that is just going to happen. We are humans, we take the path of least resistance, like all evolutionary species do. If you look at the printing press, the chaotic abundance of information eventually led to the scientific method and the peer review. Educators, academics, scientists, and creators needed to figure out a way to sort through the valuable information and the nonsense, and that led to more cognitive friction. Those pathways haven’t been developed yet for AI. How we use and assimilate AI depends on the actions we take when it comes to the climate apocalypse, for instance. As of now, how AI uses water and energy is nothing short of a nightmare. However, it’s not really AI in isolation. It’s our social media habits in general. When you look at them in aggregate and globally, our digital habits and patterns aren’t good for the climate in general. And then AI just exacerbates all of that.AI is not a technology that you are going to tap into and tap out of. It’s not like Uber where maybe you don’t use the app because you would prefer to bike, and that’s the choice that you make. AI is a general-purpose technology, and it’s important that we get that distinction, because general-purpose technologies, over time, become infrastructure, like the steam engine, electricity, and the internet. We rebuild our societies on top of them, and it’s important that we see it that way, so people don’t just unsubscribe out of protest. That only impedes their ability to make sure they keep up with the technology, and give adequate feedback and critiques of the technology.Céline Semaan: I recently saw you on stage and heard your response to a question about whether AI and its ramifications could be written into an episode of the TV show Black Mirror. Would you be able to repeat the answer you gave?Sinead Bovell: The stories we see and read about AI are usually dystopian. Arguably, there are choices we continue to make over and over again that we know will lead to negative outcomes, yet we don’t make different choices. To me, that’s the real Black Mirror episode… can we rely on ourselves? In some circumstances, we continually pick the more harmful thing. Most of the big challenges we face are complicated but not unsolvable. Even with climate, a lot of the solutions exist, and actually most of them are grounded in technology. What isn’t happening is the choice to leverage them, or the choice to subsidize them so they become more accessible, or the choice to even believe in them. That scares me a lot more than a particular use case of technology. Most of the biggest challenges we face are down to human choices, and we’re not making the right choices.Céline Semaan: Are you afraid of AI taking over the world and rendering all of our jobs useless? How do you see that?Sinead Bovell: There’s AI taking over the world, and that’s AI having its own desire and randomly rising up out of the laptop or out of some robot. I’m not necessarily concerned about that. You can’t say anything is a 0% chance, right? We don’t know. There are so many things you can’t say with 100% certainty. I mean, are we alone the universe? It’s really hard to prove or disprove those types of things. Where I stand on that is… sure allocate research dollars to a select group of scientists who can work on that problem. However, I am quite concerned about the impact AI is going to have on the workforce. We can see the destruction of certain jobs coming. It’s going to happen quickly, and we’re not preparing for it properly. Every general-purpose technology has led to automation and reconfiguration of the shape of the workforce. Let’s look at the first industrial revolution which lasted from approximately 1760-1840. If we were to zoom in on people working in agriculture, by the end of the 19th Century, around 70-80% of those people were doing something different. That is an astounding change. People had jobs, they just looked very different from working on the farm. But what if that happens in seven years rather than 80 years? That’s what scares me. I think the transition will be quite chaotic because it’s going to be quite quick, but it doesn’t have to be. History isn’t a great predictor of the future, but it does give you a lot of examples of what you don’t need to do again.The reason the industrial revolution turned out to be a good thing in the end, in terms of the life we all live, is that, for instance, we have MRIs and don’t have to have our blood drained to see if we’re sick. But people were just left to fend for themselves. It was chaos, and it turned into this kind of every person for themselves. Kind of figure it out. Get to the city. Bring your family. Don’t bring your family. It was really chaotic. How are we going to not repeat that? I don’t know if we are putting the security measures in place to make sure people are protecting that transition.The most obvious one to me is health care in the United States. I don’t know the exact number, maybe it’s around 60% of people, but don’t quote me on that, are reliant on their job for health care. That’s where their insurance comes from. What is going to happen to their insurance if their job goes away or if they transition to being self-employed? How do we help people transition? People don’t even dare go down that road, but those are the types of conversations that need to happen.Céline Semaan: In 10 years from now, will we look at AI as just another super calculator. And we will be asking the same questions that we are asking today, meaning that the change we’re seeking is not necessarily technological, but philosophical and cultural. How do you see that?Sinead Bovell: AI will look like much more of a philosophical, cultural, and social transition than solely a technological one. This is true of a lot of general-purpose technologies.The inventions in technology lead to how we organize our societies and how we govern them. If you look at the printing press, it led to a secular movement and gave power to that engine. You get big social, philosophical, cultural changes, and revolutions in society when you experience this scale of technical disruption. I think we will look back on the AI inflection point as one of the most pivotal transitions in human history in the past couple 100 years. I would say it’s going to be as disruptive as the printing press and maybe steam engine combined. And we made it through both of those. There was a lot of turmoil and chaos, but we did make it through both of those.We are a much more vibrant, healthy society now. We live longer and, relatively speaking, we have much more equality. There is a path where it works out, but we have to be making the decisions to make that happen. However, it’s not practical that a subset of the population makes the decisions on behalf of everyone. And that’s why I think it’s so important for people to get in the game and not see AI as this really technical device or technology, but instead, as a big social, cultural and philosophical transition. Your lived experience qualifies you to participate in these conversations; there’s nobody who can carry the weight of this on their own."
}
]
}