Statements of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Meeting with Cultural and Artistic Figures

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

I sincerely welcome all of you dear ones. I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to participate in the gathering of the wise individuals of the arts - albeit in a limited capacity. Among you are distinguished artists in various fields and noble individuals. I will suffice with this welcome for now and await the friends - who have organized this session - to carry out their program; later I will present my remarks.

Thank you.

It was a valuable opportunity for me; not only because I heard truths regarding various issues related to art and the artistic community from their own voices; but also because our session demonstrates that contrary to the perception of some friends, culture, art, and literature are by no means sidelined in the country; rather, they are completely at the forefront. The very presence of you here, which I welcomed, and this relatively lengthy session we had together, along with the topics you expressed, all affirm this truth. In any case, I am very pleased that this opportunity arose and I benefited from this session.

The points made by friends - which were examples and one can infer some unspoken matters in light of these statements - are sometimes among our fundamental issues that I undoubtedly must take some responsibility for addressing; of course, some are also among the executive matters. Fortunately, the esteemed Minister of Culture and his colleagues are present here and have heard the remarks; I will also emphasize that they should address some of the problems and issues that are of concern in execution, and God willing, they will resolve them. Of course, jurisprudential questions - discussions regarding statues or the limits and regulations of local music, etc. - are another matter that requires specific attention.

What I would like to express overall is that the issue of art and the artist is among those matters that are both delicate and extremely sensitive and precise, and there are difficult boundaries in this area. If we are inattentive to these boundaries, we may err and act contrary to what is appropriate; of course, this pertains to us. The discussion about the boundaries that the artist must observe is a different matter. We, who are faced with the issue of art and the artist - with this important subject in the administration of the country - must correctly recognize the boundaries so that we can judge correctly and act based on that judgment.

Of course, every artist is a world unto themselves, and this is an artistic quality inherent in them. If one had the opportunity to sit sorrowfully at the hearts of artists, they would see a strange and beautiful world; a mixture of sorrows and joys; hopes and worries and ideals; but unfortunately, this opportunity does not exist. One of the friends described art as a white jewel. Indeed; art is a very precious gem whose value and preciousness is not solely due to the fact that it attracts hearts and eyes - many things that are not artistic may attract eyes and hearts - no, this is a divine gift and blessing. The essence of art - any type of art - is a divine gift. Although the manifestation of art is in the manner of expression, this is not the entirety of the essence of art; prior to expression, there exists an artistic perception and feeling, and the main point lies there. After a beauty, a delicacy, and a truth are perceived, from that, a thousand subtleties arise that sometimes non-artistic individuals cannot even grasp a single point of it; the artist, with that artistic spirit and with that light of art that has been kindled within them, expresses the subtleties, nuances, and truths. This becomes true and genuine art that arises from a perception, a reflection, and an expression.

In fact, art is a divine gift and a very noble truth. Naturally, anyone who has received this gift from the Creator - like all other wealth - must also bear a burden of responsibility for themselves; that is, God's gifts come with duties. These duties are not necessarily all religious and legal; they are duties that many of them arise from the heart of a person. When you have sight, this is a blessing that some individuals do not have; however, this sight naturally imposes a duty on you beyond the pleasures and benefits it provides - "When you see that there is a blind person and a pit" - this duty is due to the sight you possess. It is not necessary for religion to tell a person, or for a verse of the Quran to be revealed about it; this is understood by your heart. Or there is no one in the world who would not reproach a wealthy person - even if that wealth was acquired through their own hard work and sweat - when they see that they are indifferent and unconcerned towards the needy. While that wealthy person may tell you that they earned this wealth and it is theirs; however, you do not accept that. When there is wealth and a blessing and an achievement, there will also be a duty in return.

Of course, art is not among the wealth that is entirely acquired through hard work and sweat. Unless there is artistic talent and ability within you, no matter how hard you work, you will still remain in that first bend. That talent is not your work or achievement; it has been given to you. God gives all blessings to humanity; although the channels for that are society, parents, environment, and other things. You have worked hard, but God has also given you the opportunity and determination to work hard, so that you could elevate art within yourself.

Some say that in committed art, the first word contradicts the second word. Art, meaning that which is based on the free imagination of humans, and committed, meaning chained; how can these two coexist!? This is a perception; of course, it is not a correct perception. The discussion of the responsibility and commitment of the artist goes back to their being human before being an artist. Ultimately, an artist is a human being before they are an artist. A human cannot be without responsibility. The first responsibility of a human is towards other humans. Although a human has commitments towards nature, earth, and sky, their great responsibility is towards other humans. At the same time, the artist, due to their very distinguished characteristics, has a separate commitment beyond what I previously mentioned.

The artist has a commitment both regarding the form and structure of their art and regarding the content. Someone with artistic talent should not settle for a low level. This is a commitment. A lazy and unambitious artist, an artist who does not strive for the elevation of their artistic work and creativity, has, in fact, not fulfilled their artistic responsibility regarding the form. The artist must constantly strive. Of course, it is possible for a person to reach a point where they cannot strive any further - that is not the issue - but as far as they can, they must strive for the elevation of the artistic form. This commitment regarding the form, without a sense of passion, love, and responsibility - of course, this passion and love are also a responsibility; that is a strong hand that compels a person to act and does not allow feelings of laziness and complacency to deter them from work - cannot be achieved.

In addition, there is a commitment regarding the content. What do we want to present? If a human is respected and dear, their heart, mind, and thoughts are also respected and dear. One cannot give just anything to the audience, merely because they are sitting and listening to us. We must see what we want to give them. Of course, the discussion of which political category we enter or do not enter - the statements that some friends make - are matters that you must have transcended. These are not the subject of discussion; the subject of discussion is ethics and virtue. I recall a statement - I believe - attributed to "Romain Rolland" who said that in a work of art, one percent is art, ninety-nine percent is ethics; or cautiously, let us say: ten percent is art, ninety percent is ethics. I believe this statement is not accurate. If asked, I would say one hundred percent art and one hundred percent ethics. These do not contradict each other. One must present the work one hundred percent with artistic creativity and fill it one hundred percent with a noble, elevating, and virtue-building content. What concerns some caring individuals in the field of art is that we should not, under the pretext of freedom of imagination or artistic freedom, engage in virtue-destroying and moral degradation. This is very important. Therefore, committed art is a correct term.

The artist must consider themselves committed to a truth. What is that truth? It is that the artist is at what level of thought to be able to see and recognize all or part of that truth; this is another discussion. Of course, the higher the level of thought, intellect, and rational understanding, the more qualitative that artistic perception can be. Hafez Shirazi is not merely an artist; rather, there are lofty teachings in his words. These teachings cannot be obtained merely by being an artist; rather, a philosophical and intellectual foundation is necessary. There must be a support or starting point of lofty thought that supports this artistic perception and then artistic expression. Of course, not everyone is at the same level; it is not expected that they should be. This applies to all artistic fields. From architecture to painting and design, sculpture, cinema, theater, poetry, music, and other artistic fields; this meaning exists in them. At one time, you see an architect who has an idea; at another time, an architect who is ideologically bare and without identity and is not based on any thought. If they want to create a building, they will design it in two completely different ways. If the construction of a city is entrusted to two such individuals, one half will be entirely different from the other half. In any case, this commitment is necessary.

Committed and dedicated art is a truth, and we must acknowledge it. One cannot pursue art freely, carelessly, and without thought, with daily motivations that are sometimes low, base, or unhealthy, and be proud; because that joy that exists in the artist - the artist has a special joy that differs from ordinary happiness and is not seen in non-artists at all - will truly come into existence only when they know what they are pursuing and what they want to do, so that with their artistry, they feel satisfaction and joy in performing that work. In this case, human ethics, virtues, and lofty religious and divine teachings must be considered.

Another point that I have noted and has been raised in the statements of the gentlemen is the discussion of religious art. I want to express that religious art is by no means synonymous with sectarianism and hypocritical religious display, and this art does not necessarily arise from religious vocabulary. It is possible for an art piece to be one hundred percent religious, yet use secular and non-religious vocabulary. One should not assume that religious art is one that must depict a religious story or speak of a religious topic - for example, spirituality, etc. Religious art is that which can disseminate the teachings that all religions - and above all, the pure religion of Islam - have endeavored to spread among humanity, and for which pure souls have sacrificed their lives in the dissemination of these truths, making them eternal and memorable in minds. These teachings are lofty religious teachings. These are truths that all divine prophets bore heavy burdens to bring into human life. We cannot sit here and disregard the efforts of the most distinguished individuals in the world - who were reformers, prophets, and warriors of the path of God - and remain indifferent to them. Religious art disseminates these teachings; religious art introduces justice in society as a value; even if you do not mention any name of religion, any verse of the Quran, or any hadith regarding justice in your art. For example, there is no necessity for the name or a symbol of religion to exist in cinematic dialogues or theater for it to be considered religious; no. You can present the most resonant words regarding justice in the performing arts. In this case, you have paid attention to religious art.

What is of utmost importance in religious art is that this art should not serve lust, violence, debasement, and the dissolution of human and societal identity. Our society, after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, felt its identity; that is, it regained its personality. We, as the ninety-ninth part of the waves of global movements, were drowned and lost. The revolution revived us and gave us personality. The revolution taught us that a nation can have a voice and position on the most fundamental global issues and express it clearly and without regard to what the powerful and tyrants of the world want, and stand by it. The value of a nation in the international community lies in these matters, not in blindly following; and not even blindly following good things, but rather negative points. For a nation, being a yes-man to the more powerful, stronger, and wealthier governments is not a value; this is what the revolution gave us; this came to us by the grace of Islam. Today, with all our might, the Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation are present on the global stage as a brave nation that has ideas on various issues. At the same time, let us not constantly brush aside this meaning with our art, or taint it with various words and filth. Is this correct? Art should not be directed in this way.

Religious art should not be confused with sectarian and reactionary art - and in the words of our friend, following the methods of a certain ignorant and foolish group. Do not falsely accuse yourselves. Religious art is that which can embody and present the ideals of the religion of Islam - which are, of course, the highest ideals of divine religions. These ideals are those that ensure human happiness, the spiritual rights of humans, the elevation of humanity, piety, and the justice of human society.

Of course, there is no obligation or compulsion that this should be done or not done. Those who are familiar with my views in these areas know that I do not believe that art is created through decrees and orders and commands and such things. This is one of those things that cannot be achieved through command; there must be motivation; although there are also impure motivations. Of course, what I am expressing are my own views and does not mean that if the Ministry of Culture issues a decree in a certain area, it should not be paid attention to.

Another topic that I will briefly mention is revolutionary art. The revolution's expectation from art and the artist is based on an aesthetic perspective regarding art, which is not an excessive expectation. A nation came to the battlefield with all its being in an eight-year defense. Young people went to the front and welcomed sacrifice for the values they held - of course, mainly for religion; although some may have also sacrificed for the defense of the homeland and the borders of the country - mothers, fathers, spouses, and children who worked behind the front also created a different epic. You should review the memories of the eight years of sacred defense; see if you can find anything more beautiful for an artistic perspective on the state and quality of a society than this? You admire and praise a human's sacrifice in the highest dramatic works of the world. When a film, song, painting, the life of a revolutionary - for example, Joan of Arc - or a devoted soldier of a certain country is depicted for you, in your heart and conscience, you cannot help but admire their actions. Thousands of events far more valuable and significant than what is shown in this artistic work occurred during the eight years of sacred defense and in the revolution itself, in your own home. Is this not beauty? Can art remain indifferent to this issue? The revolution's expectation is this, and it is not an excessive expectation. They say, why is beauty not seen! Someone who is indifferent to this issue does not want to see this beauty?

My dear ones! Some of you are well acquainted with history. I am also familiar with history. I have repeatedly read line by line the pages of history from seventy, eighty years ago and before that. We have truly been one of the most afflicted nations in the grip of the tyranny and bullying of global powers. I have conducted extensive studies on the Indian subcontinent and have written a book on this subject. When I compare the situation of Iran with that of the subcontinent, I see that although there was direct British colonialism there, in terms of human pressure on a country from the forces of the world's evil powers, our situation was worse than theirs. They were not betrayed, hypocritical, or corrupt by their own native forces. A handful of Englishmen had entered that country. Their own were Gandhi, Nehru, Maulana Muhammad Ali, Maulana Shaukat Ali, Jinnah, and others. They fought against the English and suffered greatly; however, our situation was not like that. The English brought Reza Khan as a puppet to power to carry out their desired agenda. These statements are undeniable; there is no need for me to say them; these statements are among the obvious facts of history that both reporters have written and documents published after thirty or forty years testify to. Just a few days ago, I read in a document of this kind that in a meeting where Seyyed Zia, Reza Khan, and English agents were present, Reza Khan said that he was not knowledgeable about politics and was not familiar; whatever you order, I will obey! And so it was; but the moment they felt that even a slight inclination of his obedience had wavered and he had developed a tendency, not towards true independence, but towards Hitler's Germany - naturally, when Reza Khan looks at Hitler, he becomes excited and delighted - they removed him and brought his son to power. These are the realities of the country.

Iran, with all these deep cultural characteristics that you mention and you are right, and I also believe in them, was humiliated. For fifty or sixty years, those who ruled over us were brought in not by us - because in Iran, the governance of the people in this manner had no precedent - but rather, it was not due to their own bravery either. I wish if they were dictators, at least like Nader Shah with their own strength, or like Agha Mohammad Khan with their own cunning, they had come to power; but it was not like that. Others came and imposed them on this nation and plundered all the material and spiritual resources of this nation. With much suffering and hardship, a great movement occurred against this ominous phenomenon and was able, by sacrificing lives and exposing chests against the treacherous dagger of the enemy, to reach a point. Is this not beautiful? How can art remain indifferent to these matters? This is the expectation of the revolution. The revolutionary art that we have been requesting since the beginning of the revolution is this. Is this an excessive expectation? Music, film, theater, painting, and other artistic fields must address this issue; these are necessary things. The expectation of the revolution from art and the artist is not an unreasonable and excessive expectation; rather, it is based on the same aesthetic foundations of art. Art is that which understands beauty. These beauties are not necessarily flowers and nightingales; sometimes, throwing someone into the fire and enduring that is more beautiful than any flower and nightingale. The artist must see this, understand it, and explain it with the language of art.

Of course, I do not deny that after the revolution, in the field of religious art - as far as I have the opportunity and understanding; there are valuable works that I sincerely thank those who worked in these areas; whether actors who played excellent roles excellently; whether those who directed; whether those who wrote the screenplays; or other contributors who were truly involved in various artistic works. In painting, calligraphy, design, etc., valuable works have been created that it is absolutely inappropriate for a person to overlook; but the expectation I mentioned has always existed and still exists.

I will also say a few words regarding art and politics. This dear friend - who is like our child - says I do not want to be in this faction, nor in that faction; but they do not let go of me! My constant advice to artists and those who deal with artistic work is that they should not be drawn into factional and political games. This is not the issue now; from the time I was president, whenever I faced the ministers of culture and various officials, I would say this point. I had specific recommendations regarding various individuals that were all in the direction of not allowing political lines and factions to come in and seize this matter; because in that case, everything will be ruined. But do not be mistaken; where it comes to preserving values and continuing them, or when it comes to the erosion of values, there is a demarcation line; you cannot say I am neither on this side nor that side. Can it be? This would be identitylessness. Can a person be both committed to a value and not committed to it; can they uphold a value and not uphold it? Here, a person must choose a position and stand by it. Of course, I do not deny; a person may make a mistake; in that case, a person corrects the error; just as I have, in some cases, expressed critical opinions to some friends who presented their works to me or I saw those works through other means - whether in performances, dialogues, or some scenes - I told them. Of course, some corrected, and some did not. We thanked those who corrected; however, we never complained to those who did not correct that why did you not correct it; let alone anything beyond complaint. In any case, there are limits here. Can one be indifferent to these limits? Just as I said at the beginning, one cannot be indifferent to values. This should not be attributed to the political line or faction "A" or "B". During my presidency, in a speech where both factions were present, I said you are like two tribes - tribe "A", tribe "B" - your disputes are tribal. Today, that tribalism - albeit in its bad forms - has continued, which is not the place to discuss; I will discuss it with them.

However, there is one point, and that is this: see, my dear ones! Politics in today's world misuses art. If we say it does not, it is a sign of ignorance. Not only does it use it today, but it has used it in the past as well. A few days ago, I translated a document from the published documents of the U.S. State Department regarding the events of the 28th of Mordad coup. Of course, at the time of this incident, I was not very old - I was fourteen or fifteen years old - I remember very little; however, I have heard a lot from various sources and read extensively in works; but such detail has not existed anywhere. Those who were involved in this event wrote these documents and sent them to the State Department and the CIA. These documents belong to the Americans. Of course, the operation was a joint effort between the Americans and the British, which is fully reflected in this report. The part that caught my attention is: "Khim Roosevelt" says when we came to Tehran, we brought a large suitcase full of articles that had been written and needed to be translated and published in newspapers, as well as caricatures! Just think about it, the CIA's apparatus for overthrowing a government that was incompatible with them and did not serve their interests; a government that was based on the votes of the people - unlike all the governments of the Pahlavi era, this was a national government that came to power legally and with the votes of the people - under the pretext that the Iron Curtain might go behind it, used all tools - including the tool of art - against it. Of course, the cartoonist who would be useful to them and could be trusted must not have existed; thus, they brought ready-made caricatures with them! In those documents, it is stated that we commissioned the artistic section of the CIA to prepare these things! Incidentally, two or three years ago, Italians wrote a book that has also been translated into Persian; it also refers to the existence of the artistic section of the CIA and its various activities. Politics uses art in this way. What do you want to do here? If all the politicians and arrogant powers and tyrants of the world came and swore by their holy books that they would not use art, one could find some comfort and say very well, thank God, art is free; but they use art. What do you want to do? Do you want to not utilize this tool in the face of the interests they achieve through art? Is this wise? No; this is not wise.

You should know that to this date, no government has existed like the current government of Iran, which is based on the will and affection of the people; I say this with certainty and can prove it. Of course, there have been governments that had admirers; however, praising is one thing; having the faith, belief, and affection of the people in the hands of a government is another thing. This belongs to the Islamic Republic; this is due to the grace of the revolution and reliance on the people. It is the same today; I express this with all pride.

Here, the people's favor has not been accompanied by the tyranny and sense of superiority of the rulers. I, who am speaking to you now, do not feel an ounce of arrogance in myself - thanks be to God - other officials of the country do not either; the President does not have it, the Speaker of the Parliament does not have it, the head of the judiciary does not have it; there is absolutely no such thing. Our officials know that the trust of God is in their hands; it exists for a few days, but it will not exist tomorrow. Officials consider duties upon themselves; this pertains to this country.

This system, which is popular and humble and serves the goals of the people, has one great and unforgivable sin, and that is that it does not submit to the demands that serve the interests of the great powers in this region. When I say it does not submit to their interests, this is a statement they explicitly make. You see that America, for example, deploys forces in the Persian Gulf or in a certain area. If it is asked why it does this? It says my interests are at stake! That is, its interests must be secured in the Persian Gulf thousands of kilometers away; even if the interests of the country that lives in this region are not secured! These powers do whatever they do in any country because those transnational interests must be secured. The crime of the Islamic Republic is that, unlike all countries in the world, it does not yield to these interests and does not secure them. It says I want to secure my own interests; I do not care about your interests. The claim that the Islamic Republic is at war is not true; America does not have a warlike stance towards us; we are one way, they are another way. We have never intended to fight America; we have never said such a thing; but we do not intend to submit and we say we will not submit to you at any cost. This is the crime of the Islamic Republic. In various matters and the Palestinian issue, it is the same. For the crime of a nation not submitting to the arrogant desires of global powers, this nation is condemned to be fought against with all tools - including artistic tools. As I mentioned, the CIA has an artistic section, and the films made against us and against Shia and Islam after the revolution are numerous. You, who are a filmmaker, a cinema and theater actor, a musician, and a composer, and you perceive this reality and injustice, what is your duty? Is there no civic duty?

I have heard that during the events of World War II in Russia, the song "Shur-e Aliyev" - a famous song that I have neither heard nor know what it is; the gentlemen know - had the greatest impact in motivating people to enter the battlefield; that is, it served the goals of the people. Naturally, this expectation exists from the artist of any country; therefore, how can one remain indifferent to this issue while the enemy uses the tool of art?

Let me also tell you this; these statements that sometimes one hears that we are accused of being violent are not statements that intelligent and astute individuals would accept or utter. To undermine a nation, the best way is to continuously accuse it and remove it from the field with a barrage of dense propaganda; constantly accuse it and put it in a defensive position; this is a well-known method. They accuse us of violence. Who are the ones doing this?

One or two years ago, one of the leaders of European countries came here. You know that in high-level international meetings, many statements are general, usually courteous, and ideologically driven. He spoke about peace, saying that yes, we are advocates of peace. I took on a student-like demeanor outside the usual protocols of such meetings and said you Europeans start wars and then talk about peace! The greatest wars in human history were initiated by you Europeans, and so many people were killed. We, who were on this side of the world, suffered so much damage from your wars; now you come and talk about peace! "Self-talk and self-laughter, you are a true artist." I said we do not have a problem called war. None of the Islamic countries desire war. You speak of war while you also come and shout peace!

They produce all these weapons and give them to the whole world. Therefore, the truth of the matter is that they themselves commit the most violence. They speak of terrorism; but what they mean is why the Islamic Republic supports the Palestinian fighters who defend their homeland. From the perspective of global media, supporting terrorism means supporting Palestinian fighters! Destroying a Palestinian's home over their head by an Israeli tank and killing a few-month-old child is not terrorism; but when a cruel, criminal military is killed in an incident, they separately publish a photo of his wife, a separate photo of his child - crying and wailing - and a separate photo of his burial; to show that this side is committing violence! These are the propaganda actions they undertake. The point is that we must look at art and politics a bit deeper; we cannot be simplistic.

I hope that the value of art will be regarded in its true place, first by the artists themselves, and that they will pay attention to the valuable cargo that exists within them and respect it. Respecting it means spending it in a worthy place. Imam Sajjad (peace be upon him) says in a hadith: the soul and existence of a human being is the most valuable thing; nothing but the promised paradise of God can be the price of this soul; do not give it to anything other than God's paradise. Art is part of the most noble and valuable aspects of human existence; it must be valued and spent for God. Of course, when we say spend it for God, let not the mind go towards that state of sectarianism and hypocrisy.

The issue of economics in art is an important matter; it is a point that pertains to the executive bodies, and I particularly emphasize that friends in the Ministry of Culture pay attention to it. They are right - both filmmakers and other artistic sectors - in addition to the fact that the living conditions of artists are not particularly distinguished and in many places are not at an acceptable level; those who invest in artistic fields often cannot achieve financial returns when they adhere to certain things. Certainly, they must be assisted; if assistance is not provided, they will turn towards anything that can bring money to them and support them - as cinema people say, "box office orientation" - which, of course, is not always a good thing. The inclination towards sexual and lustful matters and the like in cinema is partly due to this. They want the film to attract an audience, so they gather a bunch of specific individuals. Unfortunately, this is a major flaw that is seen in many of our films. The examples that friends mentioned are completely unacceptable; they are entirely rejected. Of course, I have not seen any of the few films that the gentlemen referred to. This is not a matter of censorship; it is a matter that we should not give anything to the mind and heart of the youth that leads them towards sin and corruption. This is different from allowing freedom of thought for choice in a matter. You know that emotional matters do not give anyone the opportunity to choose; they lead a person in a direction without allowing them to have the power of choice. I do not approve of these. One observes in many films and performances that to enhance the work, they use sexual attractions; in music, it is one way; in some other arts, it is another way. It should be such that the artist can freely present their art without this compulsion I mentioned - the compulsion towards customer-seeking - so that the art emerges correctly and completely.

We hope that God willing, both I and all officials and you dear artists who are present here will be among those who receive divine guidance and mercy, and may God's help support and assist us. I once again thank you dear friends and brothers and sisters who have worked hard and come here; you have given me this precious opportunity to meet with you up close, and although limited and few, I have benefited from the opinions of some of you. I express my respect and admiration for those who selflessly, responsibly, and committedly strive in the field of art, and I thank them, as well as those who have presented brilliant and valuable works - whether our esteemed veterans or our blossoming youth. God willing, all of you will be successful and supported. I sincerely thank the brothers in the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance who prepared this opportunity.

Peace be upon you and God's mercy and blessings.