Should an artist be under any obligation to consider the impact of his work on society and possibly alter it because of that? With the usual stories of sex and violence in media, and mass shootings and what not, I was wondering if RM could get to the bottom of this for me.

I say fuck that noise! (I'd lay it out more fully but I've been doing it all day and I'm tired.)

Not inherently, but consider that not all art is intended for the same purpose. I believe that art that is meant to educate or aid in education, for example, has a greater deontological charge than something that is solely meant to entertain. This is not to say that entertainment can't be harmful, because it certainly can be, but that's not the question you asked.

Oh heavens, no.

Art is art and the artist is just the medium.

If moral responsibility or any other outside influence plays a role, it fucks with the art

don't fuck with the art

I don't think I can hold an artist responsible for what another entity ("society" probably isnt the best term here) does with his work, independent of his original intention. Especially if that entity is not part of his intended audience. It can all get pretty debilitating, for fear of the lowest common denominator being negatively influenced by the work or, worse, intentionally exploiting it for ill. Expression should be free of that.

I can mostly get behind this (the original intention/intended audience stuff), but if a piece of art does promote some reasonably obvious message/takes a moral stance/encourages a certain action or behavior than I think the artist does bear some moral responsibility for what they did. Why are we not morally responsible for our art when we might be responsible for our speech or other expressive actions?

I think it's extremely difficult to pinpoint the exact effect that a work of art might have (or has had) on any kind of real-life happenstance, and in general I feel that, most of the time, blame ought to lie with actual offending parties rather than with people who may have influenced said offending parties. To the extent that an artist is aware of the direct, immediate impact his work may have on the lives of other human beings, I think he is under obligation to consider it (this seems like basic common sense that would apply to any facet of life, I'm not sure why art would be exempt), but it's such a dubious, unpredictable thing that it almost becomes moot to consider in the first place.

That said, I think there's a lot of art that's despicable on moral grounds (most of it such because of poor taste, not necessarily because it directly contributed to some terrible event), and in general I find the stock "it doesn't matter who you hurt as long as the art is pure" platform to be one of the most asinine, juvenile, transparently idiotic arguments that otherwise reasonable grown people make on a regular basis.

wait....what is art?

art serves exactly two functions in society (I should say "when done right" as there's a host of bad art in the world which is little more than a device for manipulating the general population for the purposes of greed, propaganda, and band wagon 'cashing -in' on a preexisting phenomena within a culture)

1) self expression from the artist which cannot help but be a reflection of the culture in which that artist lives, and therefore provides an opportunity to the viewer (or listener etc) of that expression for changing or expanding their own perception of the culture
2) provoke cultural change in the form of reaction by the viewer of the artwork - outrageous works of art are only outrageous due to an arbitrary set of standards that a society imposes on itself - exposing the standards of the society through works of art ultimately changes the society

when the artist compromises their work by altering or holding back on their desired outcome for fear of having a negative impact on the society, I don't know that it's really art anymore. it's more... entertainment? which is a completely different animal than art.

so, yeah, fuck that noise, basically

the brave artist, the rare human being who we admire for the strength of their convictions that they will never face any moral consequences for. It takes a lot of courage to say what you want knowing no one will ever hold you accountable for what you say or do.


We treat our two year old pretty much the same way.

china still imprisons artists who stick the the strength of their convictions, so that seems like a rather inaccurate statement on your part (or at least short sighted and somewhat pompous) -
you think artists don't get held accountable for anything they do?
like they're some pampered children that get to skip merrily through life smearing shit on the walls?

I'd assume afghanistan, iran, the UAE, and more also regularly "hold accountable" artists who stick to their convictions too- btw

this question was about moral responsibiltiy. Are they morally answerable for their art. What you are describing is whether or not they can in some way be held legally accountable, which is trickier (i would almost always say they shouldn't but I am sure I can think of examples where it might be appropriate)

legally accountable? really?

stip, I generally respect your perspective on subjects in N&D, but the idea that it's about what's legal or not or what actions are taken under the law... that's ridiculous, it's not about legal accountability, it's about the impact that a work of art (or body of work from an artist or a movement) can have on a society, and the moral implications that includes - I mention places like China because they oppress free expression, and it's not a knee jerk reaction to a sense of law and order, it's because the ruling bodies of places like China understand that art can be dangerous to the status quo. "legality' may be the banner under which it's shoved when an artist has expressed themselves in some way undesirable to the people in power, but it's fear of change that's implicit in the 'law' - or if China isn't a good example (since I'm not a historian nor a professor) -how about North Korea?

exactly what moral accountability is acceptable/respectable from your point of view?

explain moral accountability and in what way it should applied to an artist, ideally - or realistically?

Whether or not artists can be locked up is a legal question, malice, and I pretty much agree with you. You are talking about whether artists can be locked up, imprisoned, civilly punished for their art. That's a VERY high threshold, and not all that interesting a question for the most part because the threshold is so high. In almost all cases the answer would be no.

Moral accountability is whether the artist has to take moral ownership for the message of the work, and what it inspires people to do in its name. Are they answerable in the moral sense. Easy example: if you believe that pornography is a kind of social violence against women, are pornographers morally responsible for helping to perpetuate that violence. Maybe that's not art in the way you defined it earlier (although I wouldn't agree with your definition). think about when Michael Richards or Rush Limbaugh or Don Imus all faced social approbation for racist and sexist comments. Bracketing the loss of sponsers/etc. I think it is right to ask that they take moral responsibility for what they said.

Think about the Dixie Chicks and the backlash against their music for criticizing president bush. I didn't agree with the backlash, and hated what it said about our country, but I also would not insult the Dixie Chicks by saying 'you should say what you believe and stand up for what you think is right, and if society doesn't like what you have to hear they are wrong to judge you for it.' Art has the value you want it to have in part because the artist is willing to be judged for it. It's the willingness to be judged, to take responsibility for it, that makes the art courageous and challenging in the first place.

In On Liberty, the most robust defense of free thought and expression I've ever read, Mill still makes the argument that your right to express yourself does not invalidate the community's right to judge, and that in large measure this expression has value insofar as the expression is a moral act--an expression of self. If you are not morally owning it then it isn't really part of you.

Why should artists have a higher or lower moral responsibility for their work than members of any other profession?

I bet Salman Rushdie used to feel this way.

No it isn't. Get as high and mighty about it as you want, but art is entertainment--or at least, it is one of entertainment's many subsets. Just because you can process it in some kind of intellectual way doesn't mean it isn't still, at heart, something you do primarily for fun. This notion that somehow we should be less concerned with society deteriorating and more concerned with whether or not we have "good art" is the kind of pretentious bullshit that I'm stunned makes its way off college campuses and into the real world. I'm not in favor of people being locked up for speaking their mind, but come on--your overall position makes it sound as though, even if I knew that releasing a piece of art into the world was going to directly result in hundreds of deaths, I shouldn't concern myself with it for fear of it cutting into my precious, precious "expression of self."

I guess the way I feel about it is, why is art the one area where it's okay to disregard the consequences your actions may have on other people? I mean, making a ton of money is surely as important to the CEO of Wal-Mart as "self-expression" is to most artists--why should the CEO of Wal-Mart be considered a slimeball for putting his own interests over the interests of others, while the artist is considered some kind of brave, fearless warrior for doing the exact same thing?

The reason it's not sensible to hold artists accountable for this sort of thing is because it's usually difficult if not impossible to identify the ways in which art directly affects the state of the world, not because they're in a profession that's nobler than the rest and therefore exempt from all responsibility as a result.

The intent can be morally judged, at least as much as anything else can. Art is essentially communication, after all.

What about when a group misinterprets a work or is otherwise influenced in a way not intended? Supposedly anti-war movies that marines watch before going into battle are a great example. Nietzsche's influence on the Nazis would be another. Is J. D. Salinger morally responsible for the death of Lennon?

'Morality' or 'moralism' is an artistic choice. Some artists will be more predisposed to think about it, but nothing should be imposed from outside. If the artist looks through a somewhat moralistic lens, so be it; if they do it well, why not? Certainly quite a bit of my poetry is on the social justice / equality angle, but that's just because it's what I'm compelled to write as the person I am. It also means I can't really avoid the political. The trouble (as well as the interesting thing) with 'morality' is that it's subjective.