In Travesties, Stoppard delves into the question of whether there should be a link between art and politics. The characters in the play express diverse opinions on this issue. By presenting these opposing viewpoints, Stoppard ensures that no single perspective dominates. Lenin argues that art should serve an educational purpose rather than simply being beautiful. In his work "Literature and Art," which Carr reads, Lenin maintains that modern literature must tackle the issues of the Communist Party, becoming "part of the common cause of the proletariat, a cog in the Social democratic mechanism."

Cecily passionately supports Lenin's view. In a conversation with Carr, she claims that literature must act as a social critique or else it is meaningless. She backs her argument with historical references, stating that since society is shaped by corrupt economic forces, individuals must take responsibility to instigate change, which is best accomplished through significant literature.

Carr and Joyce often counter the arguments put forth by Lenin and Cecily using logical reasoning. In response to Cecily, Carr champions art that is not didactic and lacks a specific function, arguing that it is valuable because "in some way it gratifies a hunger that is common to princes and peasants." When Cecily argues that art should transform society, he disagrees, asserting that it is society that transforms art.

Joyce shares Carr's viewpoint but adds that great art does indeed serve a purpose. He believes that art should not aim to alter society through political propaganda. Instead, it justifies and chronicles history by reconstructing from its ruins "a corpse that will dance for some time yet and leave the world precisely as it finds it."

As the characters delve into the intersection of art and politics, they also examine the essence and function of art and the artist. Stoppard offers multiple perspectives without endorsing any particular one, leaving readers unsure of the author's personal views on these matters. Tzara presents the most extreme perspective on the art-artist relationship through his explanation of Dadaism. He argues that artists should "jeer and howl ... at the delusion that infinite generations of real effects can be inferred from the gross expression of apparent cause." His poems are crafted by randomly choosing words, allowing chance to dictate the outcome. When discussing the artist's role, he comments, "Nowadays, an artist is someone who makes art mean the things he does." He exemplifies this with, "A man ... may be a poet by drawing words out of a hat," which mirrors his own method of creating poetry.

Joyce and Carr oppose Tzara's concepts. Carr contends that an artist is "someone who is gifted in some way that enables him to do something more or less well which can only be done badly or not at all by someone who is not thus gifted." He tells Tzara he rejects the idea "that the word Art means whatever you wish it to mean" and insists that "it is the duty of the artist to beautify existence."

Tzara, on the other hand, critiques Joyce's complex and obscure writing style, claiming that "making poetry should be as natural as making water." He accuses Joyce of turning literature into a "religion" that is "as dead as all the rest." Tzara calls for "vandals and desecrators" to break down the concept of the artist's superiority. Joyce, recalling his earlier discussion with Cecily about art and politics, counters by asserting that artists are magicians who deserve admiration for capturing humanity and history through their creations. He stresses, "if there is any meaning in any of it, it is in what survives as art."

The main...