On the responsibility of artists.

[platzangst]

A topic was deleted.

Without bringing up the subject that got it deleted, I was struck that the poster was of the mind that a musician "should" be doing certain things. And this is something I've seen stated for other arts as well. It's the idea that an artist has a responsibility or obligation of some kind simply by virtue of being an artist.

However, I do not believe this to be the case.

It is my contention that an artist has absolutely no responsibility to any agency or authority, no creed or alignment, simply by virtue of being an artist. The only obligation an artist might have is to their own muse, and even that is optional.

This also means that an artist is free to use their talents in any way they like, including ways that may upset or annoy other people.

There is a dovetailing argument that suggests that art itself must have certain goals or ambitions to even be considered art; again, I do not believe this to be so.

It seems worth mentioning to me, simply because I've noticed an overall uptick in the numbers of people calling for artists to use their talents "responsibly" in some way or another, here and elsewhere. If you believe art or artists must have some particular purpose, I urge you to reconsider. It will be healthier for art in the long run.

[normen]

Totally agree there. If arts was subjected to all rules of society it would just be a reflection, not arts anymore.

[Kenni]

Definitely agree with this.

[Peter]

I deleted my own post before anybody could respond. You're right - artists do whatever they want! I just didn't want to project the negative aspects of what I was thinking. Without bringing up the subject that I deleted, I think it's completely asinine for any artist to limit access to their art because of petty worldly matters. It really is such a shame. That's what my post was about and I don't think it's a matter of irresponsibility.

[chimp_spanner]

I guess it just depends on the person really. If you're coming from a place of passion and anger, you might want to tackle things head on with your art. Or you might be more inclined to try and bring some light into the world irrespective of the darkness, and just remind people that we're humans, and we can create just as well (hopefully better) than we destroy. For as vocal as I am about certain things, I can't say I've ever channelled that into my music. Doesn't mean it's vapid or without purpose.

[Peter]

I guess it just depends on the person really. If you're coming from a place of passion and anger, you might want to tackle things head on with your art. Or you might be more inclined to try and bring some light into the world irrespective of the darkness, and just remind people that we're humans, and we can create just as well (hopefully better) than we destroy.

Exactamundo.

[Vince-Noir-99]

Interesting thoughts. I agree with platzangst 100%.
It makes me wonder about why many may confuse art and communication duties, but it appears to make sense: art has a communicative force that official communicative roles/professions wish they had hence the mixing of the two since forever. And since in contemporary west circumstances, for the less sensitive or less informed, art, and particularly music, is automatically interpreted as a vocal representation of cultural democracy, I suppose it's easy to end up linking it to a larger flow in which ideologies exist.

[Exowildebeest]

I went to an exhibition of North Korean art once. A Dutch collector had collected hundreds of paintings during his business travels in the DPRK.

What I learned there is that in North Korea, art is purely in service of social ideals, and artists are subservient to the state. Not exactly surprising, but the extent and impact of this fact made quite an impression as I looked at the paintings and read their descriptions. Social responsibility (which happens to be whatever the regime commands of course) comes before everything else, including what we know as creative freedom. The paintings are often made in factories by special workers. The result: creepy propaganda piantings that have a cold, synthetic quality, despite the use of vibrant colours and fairly good craftsmanship.

[Vince-Noir-99]

I went to an exhibition of North Korean art once. A Dutch collector had collected hundreds of paintings during his business travels in the DPRK.

What I learned there is that in North Korea, art is purely in service of social ideals, and artists are subservient to the state. Not exactly surprising, but the extent and impact of this fact made quite an impression as I looked at the paintings and read their descriptions. Social responsibility (which happens to be whatever the regime commands of course) comes before everything else, including what we know as creative freedom. The paintings are often made in factories by special workers. The result: creepy propaganda piantings that have a cold, synthetic quality, despite the use of vibrant colours and fairly good craftsmanship.

Absolutely. However let's balance that out by saying that whilst North Korea is a peculiar example of a very closed and different (anachronistic) society from the current majoritarian ones, the dynamics happening within it and any outsiders' perception of them can be, on the other hand, not different from any other regime, including the free regimes like the ones most us here live in.

[Peter]

Absolutely. However let's balance that out by saying that whilst North Korea is a peculiar example of a very closed and different (anachronistic) society from the current majoritarian ones, the dynamics happening within it and any outsiders' perception of them can be, on the other hand, not different from any other regime, including the free regimes like the ones most us here live in.

I can agree with this!

[deepndark]

Parental Advisory should get further and should be called, "It's just possible Advisory".

[platzangst]

What I learned there is that in North Korea, art is purely in service of social ideals, and artists are subservient to the state.

A similar situation existed in Soviet bloc countries. A while back I went to a Czech-Slovak museum, located in a part of Iowa where a lot of former Czechoslovakians had settled. And at the time they were running an exhibit of glassware vases. Well, you might think, vases, how ordinary, right?

But these were some of the most abstracted vases you might see, some of them could only be called "vases" by virtue of them having tiny holes where you could slip a single plant stem inside. They were examples of modern art. What made them particularly unusual is that like every other Soviet bloc country, the government of Czechoslovakia had decreed that art was to serve the state and be representative - no abstract art. But what is a vase? It holds plants and water. And some artists who were forbidden from exploring modern and abstract art in mediums such as painting and sculpture used glass as their avenue of expression. As vases, these works could exist right under the nose of the state.

[normen]

A similar situation existed in Soviet bloc countries. A while back I went to a Czech-Slovak museum, located in a part of Iowa where a lot of former Czechoslovakians had settled. And at the time they were running an exhibit of glassware vases. Well, you might think, vases, how ordinary, right?

But these were some of the most abstracted vases you might see, some of them could only be called "vases" by virtue of them having tiny holes where you could slip a single plant stem inside. They were examples of modern art. What made them particularly unusual is that like every other Soviet bloc country, the government of Czechoslovakia had decreed that art was to serve the state and be representative - no abstract art. But what is a vase? It holds plants and water. And some artists who were forbidden from exploring modern and abstract art in mediums such as painting and sculpture used glass as their avenue of expression. As vases, these works could exist right under the nose of the state.

The mockery of DaVinci in his paintings for the Vatican comes to mind here

But back to the original point about art not having to be there to change or better society it also doesn't have to actively go beyond the rules of that special society. Leni Riefenstahl and what she did for cinematic art would be an example of both working within a societies rules and working within a society that was in dire need of change. How the art coped with that (or not) is completely outside of what it did for the artform per se.

[Peter]

My logic behind this whole mess comes down to thinking that art naturally makes the world a better place - does it not? The notion that anybody would push the actual responsibility of making society better onto artists is pretty ridiculous. Oh poor you - creative person with such a big burden. Gimme a break. It happens naturally and there shouldn't be any pressure. When you're an artist who refuses to go to a country because of your self-absorbed beliefs that don't really amount to anything, it just makes you a jackass. Life is too short for that. Pathetic beings we are huh?

[Benedict]

Wow artists discussing what essentially boils down to Objectivism! That is refreshing after a decade or so of suggestion that artists are all supposed to conform to some Altruistic/Socialist ideal and make posters for Obamacare.

I strongly believe that art must express a story (or meta-story) but that should always be the story the artist needs to tell - unless commissioned by someone else. Soviet art tends to be the latter. However, as you have pointed out, art has a way to add to or even subvert the message of the commission.

The art I rail against is that that eschews story in place of pure "me too". Baywatch may not have been high art but on a Sunday evening it was enjoyable escapism, similar to the predictable and pleasant stories of Love Boat; both of which spoke to the human condition. Masterchef and The Voice are merely vampires holding up mirrors for other vampires.

[platzangst]

My logic behind this whole mess comes down to thinking that art naturally makes the world a better place - does it not?

Not necessarily.

Many years ago (this would well predate current social media entities like Facebook and Twitter) there was a bit of an outrage in some artistic circles regarding an article about an artist who (purportedly, it may have been a hoax) filmed the drowning of a kitten and called it art. As you might expect, there were a lot of people who were simply incensed by the whole concept, and in condemning it, declared it wasn't art at all.

My stance then (as it is now) is that, despite being abhorrent behavior, the film is art of a sort.

To clarify, because I know some people will already be getting their backs up: Art, to me, is what people do that is not directly related to necessity, or our animal natures. We need to eat, to drink water, to breathe air. We require shelter to survive outside of certain environments. We are also hard-wired to want to reproduce ourselves. Everything else we do that is not in pursuit of any of these things - that's art. We may need a pot to carry our water. We don't need to paint a design or picture on the side of the pot. Utility vs. aesthetics, or utility and aesthetics. Analyze any human activity and you can sort out what relates to art and what relates to survival and/or procreation.

Now, if you accept that (admittedly broad) definition of art, as I do, then a film of a drowning kitten is art. Disturbing, sad, and horrible art, yes, but art nonetheless. Those who say it isn't art do so because they have an idea that art must follow a certain moral code - as you say, to make the world a better place, or some similar sentiment. There is an urge for some to define art in such a way as to only contain what the person trying to define it likes, or approves of. By contrast, I define art as noted above, and encourage the use of adjectives to sort art into various categories - including unpleasant categories. I can condemn the film while conceding its nature as art.

And in that view, then, not all art is necessarily of benefit to the world. In large part, this idea of art also informs my stance of artists not being obliged or responsible to any particular agency or code.

[platzangst]

Wow artists discussing what essentially boils down to Objectivism! That is refreshing after a decade or so of suggestion that artists are all supposed to conform to some Altruistic/Socialist ideal and make posters for Obamacare.

I strongly believe that art must express a story (or meta-story) but that should always be the story the artist needs to tell - unless commissioned by someone else. Soviet art tends to be the latter. However, as you have pointed out, art has a way to add to or even subvert the message of the commission.

The art I rail against is that that eschews story in place of pure "me too". Baywatch may not have been high art but on a Sunday evening it was enjoyable escapism, similar to the predictable and pleasant stories of Love Boat; both of which spoke to the human condition. Masterchef and The Voice are merely vampires holding up mirrors for other vampires.

Well, see above - I don't feel art is required to have a story or even any message at all. Which is different than having art of a type one prefers over other types.

And I have nothing against people who feel strongly for a cause and want to make art that expresses that feeling - I just don't think art itself has to adhere to any such requirement in order to be art.

[Benedict]

I get ya but art without any sense of place or story seems like a sentence made of random words. Maybe that is just me tho.

[platzangst]

I get ya but art without any sense of place or story seems like a sentence made of random words. Maybe that is just me tho.

That's where the adjectives come in. Even including value judgements like "good" and "bad" (keeping in mind such things are subjective by nature).

[Peter]

To clarify, because I know some people will already be getting their backs up: Art, to me, is what people do that is not directly related to necessity, or our animal natures.

I understand your points but this is too much of a stretch for me. I think you should look up the definition of art. Human beings do a lot of shallow, self-absorbed things and if you want to call that art then knock yourself out. Have fun with that one.

[platzangst]

I understand your points but this is too much of a stretch for me. I think you should look up the definition of art. Human beings do a lot of shallow, self-absorbed things and if you want to call that art then knock yourself out. Have fun with that one.

Right at the head of a Google search of "definition of art":

1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

2. the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

None of that is out of line with what I've said. (Note words such as "primarily" as opposed to "exclusively".) Human beings have made a lot of shallow, self-absorbed art which is still art. How many pop or rap stars have made songs which are essentially bragging about how great the artist is? Do we just say "not art" simply because we disapprove?

You say "have fun with that one," but I tell you that I've wrestled with this issue for decades, and this is not a lightly-arrived-at stance.

[Peter]

How many pop or rap stars have made songs which are essentially bragging about how great the artist is? Do we just say "not art" simply because we disapprove?

Then we go back to the points in the thread about art being produced for a regime. What is the impact of pop culture (music)? I think it helps to keep the wheels of the machine turning.

[Vince-Noir-99]

I get ya but art without any sense of place or story seems like a sentence made of random words. Maybe that is just me tho.

Maybe you are referring to the universal structure used in all forms of communication, starting with mythology? (the J. Campbell Heroes archetype) But then here I said 'communication' So yeah it would apply, for instance, to songwriting fairly well, but then we have many examples of music that are effective without such meaningful structures and make their strength on more abstract 'hooks' or the phenomenology of sound.

[Vince-Noir-99]

Then we go back to the points in the thread about art being produced for a regime.

Nice. Even when it is not directly commissioned by an entity such as the Vatican or whichever organised structure is ruling like the evil Soviet Government, the majority of popular art (mainstream, consumer etc) still ends up serving an audience. The audience didn't commission the art but them consuming it means if it will exist or not, as a popular art craft. So as a striving pop artist you still have to comply to a regime, which instead of being meticulously outlined in official documents in bullet points for your own convenience, the rules are something extremely dynamic dictated by the folk's majority. Much tougher job imho.
Then, thank the gods, sometimes there's one particular piece of art that manages to impose/propose something different which will be instead followed by the consumers, and soon enough emulated by the other artists who by now have that original art as part of their guidelines. And the loops starts over again.
Maybe something like that.

[Peter]

Then we go back to the points in the thread about art being produced for a regime.

Nice. Even when it is not directly commissioned by an entity such as the Vatican or whichever organised structure is ruling like the evil Soviet Government, the majority of popular art (mainstream, consumer etc) still ends up serving an audience.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

I forgot who said that but it's one of my favorite quotes.

The rapper talking about selling cocaine and glorifying the hustle in a bling-bling music video is working for the regime. He inspires thousands of young men to pursue the nice lifestyle he pretends to have and plenty of them end up in the prison system. Those poor young men who thought they were free with all that ambition. That's just one example.