I'm a big believer in,'If anyone can understand my politics
I'm a big believer in,'If anyone can understand my politics, I've failed.' If you can get a sense of which side of the fence I'm on, then I'm not doing a service. I'm preaching, and that's not my job.
In the words of Taylor Sheridan, “I’m a big believer in, ‘If anyone can understand my politics, I’ve failed.’ If you can get a sense of which side of the fence I’m on, then I’m not doing a service. I’m preaching, and that’s not my job.” we hear not the voice of one fleeing responsibility, but of one who seeks higher ground. Sheridan, the storyteller of the American frontier, understands that the work of the artist is not to divide but to reveal; not to lecture but to awaken. The ancients knew this well: the poet does not tell you how to live, he shows you life in all its beauty and brutality, and from this vision, wisdom is born in the listener’s heart.
The essence of Sheridan’s words lies in the refusal to wield art as a weapon of propaganda. He knows that when a man bends his tale to serve his ideology, he ceases to be a creator and becomes a servant of faction. His story grows thin, his characters mere shadows, and the flame of truth gutters. True art, like fire, must illuminate all sides, casting light on the noble and the cruel, the innocent and the guilty, without telling the beholder which face to love and which to hate. To show without preaching—that is the sacred duty of the dramatist.
Consider the example of Sophocles, the great tragedian of Athens. When he penned Antigone, he did not declare: “Obey the king,” nor did he thunder: “Follow the law of the gods.” Instead, he gave us both Creon and Antigone, each bearing truth, each bearing folly, and left the judgment to us. This is the power of restraint: he did not wield the play as a banner for one cause, but as a mirror of the human soul. For twenty-five centuries, men and women have argued over who was right—and in that endless dialogue, wisdom has blossomed.
So too, Sheridan teaches us that if the audience can easily discern his politics, then he has betrayed his craft. For then the work becomes sermon, and the audience passive disciples, nodding or scoffing. But when the artist hides his banner, when he weaves complexity, contradiction, and humanity into his tale, then the audience becomes active, wrestling with truth, carrying the weight of thought beyond the walls of the theater. That wrestling is the seed of growth, the furnace of understanding.
There is danger, however, in this path. Many are tempted to use their platform to shout their beliefs, to plant their flag so clearly that none can mistake it. But the ancients remind us: wisdom does not grow from being told what to think, but from being shown the vastness of the human struggle. Recall the parable of the Buddha, who when asked direct questions about metaphysics—about the heavens, the soul, the eternal—often remained silent. Not because he did not know, but because to give one answer would limit the questioner. In silence, the mind was compelled to journey inward, to wrestle, to seek. Sheridan’s silence on his politics is much the same: an invitation to think for ourselves.
What lesson, then, must the listener take? It is this: do not force your convictions into every tale you tell, nor into every word you speak. Instead, let your life, your art, and your deeds reveal truth through balance, depth, and complexity. When you teach, guide by story and example, not by decree. When you listen, seek not only the voices that echo your beliefs, but those that challenge and disturb you. For in this wrestling, your soul is sharpened.
And as for practical action: when you read a book, watch a play, or listen to a tale, ask not, “What side does the author serve?” but instead, “What truths about humanity are revealed here?” When you yourself create—be it words, actions, or choices—ask not, “How shall I win others to my cause?” but rather, “How can I reveal life as it is, so that others may find their own wisdom?” In this way, you will walk the path of Sheridan, the path of Sophocles, the path of all who sought to stir souls without shackling them.
Thus, remember: to preach is easy, but to awaken is divine. And the one who hides his politics may in truth be offering the greatest gift—a story unbound, a mirror to the human spirit, and a fire that burns for all, not for one side alone.
LLLong Le
Sheridan’s idea of not wanting his politics to be obvious in his work is an interesting take on storytelling. However, I wonder—doesn't every artist, no matter how hard they try, end up reflecting their own worldview? Can a story ever be completely free of any ideological influence? Should the goal of an artist be to get people to think critically about the world, even if that means revealing their own political leanings subtly?
LTLe Thuy
Taylor Sheridan’s quote about keeping his politics vague in his work makes me think about the role of the artist in society. Should art be political, or is its primary role to tell stories that stand on their own? But how can one avoid embedding personal values and beliefs in their work? Is it truly possible to create something completely neutral, or is every piece of art, by nature, a reflection of the creator's perspective?
TTPham thanh tien
Taylor Sheridan’s perspective about not wanting his political views to be easily understood is intriguing, but it raises a larger question: if politics influence our worldview, how can we create art that is truly free from political bias? Can we really detach ourselves from our own values when crafting narratives? Is there a way to create art that feels unbiased and still speaks to real-world issues without becoming a vehicle for preaching?
TCTu Cam
I love how Taylor Sheridan challenges the idea of using art as a platform for political preaching. It makes me wonder—can an artist really be completely neutral in their work? Is it even possible to separate politics from art when the world we live in is so politically charged? Does Sheridan’s statement reflect a deeper concern that audiences might miss the true message of a story if it's too politically obvious?
PLPhuong Lythi
Taylor Sheridan’s view on politics is interesting and somewhat provocative. He seems to suggest that if his audience understands his political stance too clearly, he's not doing his job as a storyteller. I get that he wants to avoid preaching, but can you truly separate personal politics from art, especially in storytelling? Isn't there always a hint of an artist's views in their work, even if they try to remain neutral?