Sun August 11, 2013 8:35 pm
Kevin Davis wrote:malice wrote: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.
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.
Sun August 11, 2013 9:44 pm
Kevin Davis wrote:malice wrote: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.
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.
-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."
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.
Sun August 11, 2013 10:32 pm
Sun August 11, 2013 10:53 pm
stip wrote:malice, I think the point KD is making is just that art does not absolve you of moral responsibility for your work. If you make something controversial then you own it. If it challenges society then you accept that. If it runs against social norms than own it. Be true to yourself but recognize that art is something that is produced for public consumption, and the public has the right to hold you morally responsible for your work and to judge you for it. It can't tell you what to think, what to believe, or how to express yourself, but why should the artist be exempt from society's judgement?
Sun August 11, 2013 11:23 pm
Mon August 12, 2013 1:24 am
Mon August 12, 2013 4:57 am
Kevin Davis wrote:Malice, I apologize if you thought my post came across as unnecessarily combative -- I was posting on my lunch break and was too quick to submit, I feared upon leaving that I probably came across sounding like a jerk.
Mainly, your initial reply in this thread seemed to me to advocate a complete waiving of responsibility on the part of any artist to consider the moral implication of his or her work -- if this is not what you meant to convey, then I'm sorry, but it's what came across. I don't agree with this position -- I think it's selfish, the idea that one's own personal expression is the singular thing that should be considered in something being put forth for public consumption. I'm not suggesting that one should spend hours fretting over the various ways one's work might be misinterpreted, or trying to tinker with it so as to ensure that even the fussiest individuals remain unfazed by it, but to the extent that you can reasonably predict the effect your work may have on another human being, I do think it ought to be considered. That's something I would say about an individual in every profession, because there's no instance in which I think our obligations to said profession supersedes our obligations to each other as people. Simply put, I think being considerate of others in your work speaks better of you as a person than not being considerate of them speaks of you as an artist, if that makes sense.
I respect where you're coming from as an artist -- I write essays, I record music, I generally like creating things and seeing a reflection of myself in them. But overall I don't really understand the importance of whether or not something is classified as "art" or "entertainment" or whatever -- to me there is just too much overlap between the two categories to spend too much time worrying about over which is which, or which is both. I apologize for putting words in your mouth and being condescending. It was my fault for not choosing my words more carefully.
Mon August 12, 2013 5:12 am
malice wrote:Kevin Davis wrote:Malice, I apologize if you thought my post came across as unnecessarily combative -- I was posting on my lunch break and was too quick to submit, I feared upon leaving that I probably came across sounding like a jerk.
Mainly, your initial reply in this thread seemed to me to advocate a complete waiving of responsibility on the part of any artist to consider the moral implication of his or her work -- if this is not what you meant to convey, then I'm sorry, but it's what came across. I don't agree with this position -- I think it's selfish, the idea that one's own personal expression is the singular thing that should be considered in something being put forth for public consumption. I'm not suggesting that one should spend hours fretting over the various ways one's work might be misinterpreted, or trying to tinker with it so as to ensure that even the fussiest individuals remain unfazed by it, but to the extent that you can reasonably predict the effect your work may have on another human being, I do think it ought to be considered. That's something I would say about an individual in every profession, because there's no instance in which I think our obligations to said profession supersedes our obligations to each other as people. Simply put, I think being considerate of others in your work speaks better of you as a person than not being considerate of them speaks of you as an artist, if that makes sense.
I respect where you're coming from as an artist -- I write essays, I record music, I generally like creating things and seeing a reflection of myself in them. But overall I don't really understand the importance of whether or not something is classified as "art" or "entertainment" or whatever -- to me there is just too much overlap between the two categories to spend too much time worrying about over which is which, or which is both. I apologize for putting words in your mouth and being condescending. It was my fault for not choosing my words more carefully.
I think the crux of this argument is in the words 'for public consumption' - artists have a responsibility to their audience, in whatever form, and I believe that is (functionally) best described as 'respecting the audience' - not abusing or taking advantage of the audience, but putting some artistic product out there with sincere intentions and motivation. In that, I believe moral obligation is requisite. I don't hold beliefs in extremes of any kind such as a complete waiving of responsibility because one is an artist. it's unproductive to treat everything in black and white terms like that, and I'm literally incapable of it in all aspects of my life- although it may cause me less conflict if I was able to do that.
the problem I have here is creating art is done in a vacuum to me - perhaps not with music since it's the result of a long series of processes and interactions with numerous musicians and other people, but I speak only as someone who paints and draws, which is a singular activity, so while I can get opinions and advice from people as I create, it's mainly an activity that requires no other input from the outside world, and would be unwelcome from my perspective most of the time due to the intimacy of the act itself.
I can't compare that type of experience with creating music or writing for a readership because that necessarily depends on its audience - so perhaps that's a fundamental difference in the art forms used.
I'm not fortunate nor talented enough to have an audience for my artwork but I have a hard time conceiving of a clean example of flagrant disregard for the public and harm being inflicted on audiences due to artistic products.
it sounds improbable or at least an exaggerated possibility.
I'm wondering if the sex pistols were inconsiderate of their audience - they were certainly trying to be (although I'm not claiming to be an expert, and I'm sure your musical depth out distances mine by miles) - I do have some memory of their impact on people though (I was a bit young for punk but only by 5 or 10 years so the aftershock lingered) - does that disregard speak badly of them as artists? or does it speak badly of their creator Malcolm McLaren? so maybe they were the work of art and he was the artist - was he a dick for creating them?
seems like it's all a matter of degrees to me, and in that event, I don't have a moral compass that's fine tuned enough to do me any good. but perhaps most other artists of all forms do and I'm odd man out here.
everything else - I appreciate your reply and I'm not trying to be an arrogant prick when I make comments - I am very forceful in what I have to say most of the time, and I know it comes across as an being an arrogant prick, but it's more an urgency in wanting to convey what I think and a desire to not feel I'm compromising my own opinions- which is, in itself a selfish and inconsiderate act... so there you go - I'm guilty as charged, except it's not meant to be arrogant, only honest - I'm just very blunt.
hope that clears up some of what I think.
Mon August 12, 2013 5:16 am
Mon August 12, 2013 5:19 am
Mon August 12, 2013 5:21 am
Mon August 12, 2013 5:22 am
Mon August 12, 2013 1:00 pm
Mon August 12, 2013 8:12 pm