From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Responsibilities of Artists (was Re: Pornography and Playboy)
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 19:28:40 GMT

In article <!6jmcsj.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.165812.29009@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>	"Not at all.  To take your example, if an artist feels that
>>rape is wrong, that doesn't mean that it's wrong to include a rape
>>scene in a work of art.  Nor does it mean that the villain must be
>>caught and punished inevitably.  It's even possible for a sufficiently
>>good artist to portray the character as ultimately sympathetic or good
>>(though it would be a hell of a challenge).  But it should be clear
>>that the character is sympathetic or good _in spite_ of being a
>>rapist, rather than because of it, or as if it didn't matter.  This
>>isn't something that needs to be done in an explicit or heavy-handed
>>manner, but if rape is treated as a good or irrelevant part of the
>>character's makeup, _then_ I think the artist is doing something
>>wrong."

>Why?  What is wrong with taking a character who loves to rape others,
>who glories in the feeling of power it gives them, and creating a piece
>of art that almost allows us to live those feelings?  If the character
>believes that rape is good, why shouldn't an artist produce a work that
>completely and totally follows the character's viewpoint?

	"Depends what is meant by following the character's viewpoint.
It's possible for an author to write in the first person while not
implying that a protagonist's actions are laudable, even while the
protagonist continues to think they are, or not to care.  The isolated
case that I'd characterize as wrong is following the character's
viewpoint to such an extent that the author a) intends the reader to
identify with the character, and b) portrays that aspect of the
character's personality as one of the reasons to like and identify
with him.  This isn't something that can be identified or measured,
but that's one of the many reasons it has to remain a personal
evaluation.

	"Again, it gets back to the question of the effects which art
can be expected to have.  Art is supposed to manipulate the emotions
and attitudes of the person experiencing it, even if it's at the basic
level of "Fun!" or "Pretty!"  If one takes on the responsibility of
doing that sort of manipulation, which any artist does, one is
responsible, I think, for the results which one can reasonably expect
to result.  Hence, portraying the act of rape (as opposed to the
person who commits it) in a positive light is morally equivalent to
writing a piece of nonfiction encouraging rape and giving reasons,
with the added fact that the better an artist is, the more cleverly he
can work beneath the rational level to manipulate one into favoring
something which it would be much more difficult to rationally argue
one into.  This is partly because the artist can sketch in the
background of the world to suit her, and for the duration of
experiencing the work, if she does her job well, the viewer or reader
will accept the background as given.

	"Let's go back to my perennial example, _Gone With the Wind_.
Now, rationally, in everyday talk, I consider the Union victory in the
Civil War and the freeing of the slaves to have been good things.
While the South had legitimate grievances, and the North's primary
interest was not abolition, the fact that the North _did_ abolish
slavery as a result of its victory makes the South's claims ring
hollow to me.  (I'd rather not go off on the Civil War tangent, if
everyone doesn't mind-- just take my opinions as given for the sake of
discussion.)  That's where I stand, and I've defended that opinion in
rational argument many times.

	"Nonetheless, when watching GWTW, I can get as misty-eyed for
the lost nobility of the Old South as anyone.  This is because the
universe of the movie does not show, explicitly, what it took to
create and maintain a slave society.  Nor does it show those outside
the planter aristocracy except as "white trash", with morals and
manners to match the term.  Blacks are either loyal to the old order
(to the point of willingly and enthusiastically helping to fortify
Savannah as Sherman closes in) or clearly villainous (the group of
blacks in "Darktown" who attempt to assault Scarlett before she is
saved by one of her old field hands).  So good a job of manipulation
does this movie do that in one scene, when Melanie and Scarlett and
Rhett Butler formulate an alibi for several men (including Ashley
Wilkes) shot at by Union men in the wake of a "secret meeting", the
viewer finds himself drawn to their side, hoping they're successful--
yet on any reflection, it's obvious that the "secret meeting" was a
night raid by the Ku Klux Klan.  (They make clear that they went to
Darktown to avenge Scarlett's assault, and that they lynched at least
one person there.)

	"Sure, critical thought allows me to reassert my original
views later, and recognize what was really being portrayed in the
scene-- but I'm no _more_ likely to be convinced by a KKK tract.  Less
so, in fact, since a KKK tract doesn't even penetrate my first level
defenses; if I know something is from the KKK, I'll treat it with less
credibility because of that.  So, if it's wrong to write a pamphlet
which directly calls for secret meetings, night raids, and lynchings,
why is it less wrong to make those actions to seem heroic in fiction?
(You could, of course, chop my question with the "if" clause, but I'd
say knowingly encouraging wrongful behavior is wrong itself, and that
was implicit [and possibly explicit] in my original formulation.)  In
short, I support the right to create whatever art one wishes just as I
support the _right_ to say whatever one wishes on political, social,
or ethical subjects in non-fiction.  But one is always _responsible_
for what one says, and simply making something "art" does not absolve
one of responsibility for the creation.

	"Fiction deals with imaginary events (or imagined real events),
but fiction asserts truths nonetheless-- truths about human nature,
about the world, about what is just, wise, or funny.  Dickens, in
writing _A Tale of Two Cities_, is asserting that Sydney Carton's last
act _is_ a noble one, and he has only succeeded with the book if he
can convince the reader, if only for the moments he is reading it,
that it is.  (He may later decide that Carton was a fool, but if he
thinks it _during_ the climax, he's unlikely to think much of the
book.)  _1984_ suggests that anyone, placed under enough stress, can
be broken.  One may agree or disagree with this point, but if it
doesn't come across in reading the book, then Orwell has made himself
insufficiently clear.  And I simply think that an author is
responsible for the truths she asserts.  I don't think, "it's only a
story" necessarily excuses making things which one would not normally
recommend look praiseworthy or true.

	"I foresee some difficulty in distinguishing between those
things which an artist is asserting as true, and those which she
assumes for the sake of the artwork.  But I think there is a
distinction-- fore example, J.R.R. Tolkien did not believe in wizards
or magic rings, or even, I think, in inherently evil races, but he
believed very much in power leading to corruption and the nobility of
self-sacrifice, and I think there's a difference between the ways he
portrayed those things which he considered fantastic and those which
he considered real.  If I _can't_ convey the idea of this distinction,
then I think it would be difficult to continue this line of thought,
as I would appear that I was arguing that, say, H.G. Wells believed in
and was trying to convince his audience of the existence of time
travel, which he wasn't, in suggesting that he believed in and was
trying to convince his audience of the evils of Victorian capitalism,
which he was (the Morlocks and the Eloi being the alleged logical
conclusion of the divergence between the working and leisure classes)."

	Michael stops and takes a sip of his Diet Coke, wondering if
he's succeeded in clarifying anything, or just muddled what he was
saying even more.  :-)

Michael
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Workers of the world, forgive me.
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 You had more to lose than I thought."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Karl Marx (1990) as imagined by
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Jim Koncz (konc@midway.uchicago.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans