From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Responsibilities of Artists (was Re: Pornography and Playboy)
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 16:58:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.155719.27291@midway.uchicago.edu> moh2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.071546.29666@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>[Talking about the artist's responsibility or lack thereof for what
>others make of his/her work]

>>	"That said, I might compare the point Mentor made to the
>>principle that `Incitement to riot is no excuse for riot.'  In other
>>words, the fact that someone gets in front of an angry crowd and
>>shouts, `Lynch the bastard!' does not absolve those who actually did
>>the deed from responsibility.  But conversely, the instigator is not,
>>himself, free from blame.  If an actress sends a harmful message (e.g.
>>that if a man can just get past a woman's protests, she can lie back and
>>enjoy a rape), certainly she doesn't decrease by one iota the blame to
>>be laid upon anyone who takes that message seriously, but neither is
>>she entirely free from blame herself.

>But Mike, given that, where do we stand?  If any writing or artwork
>that shows nudes or partial nudes or even bodies at all may lead to
>objectification and the perpetuation of non-desirable behavior, what
>do we do?  Do we stop creating the art?  Should Marie stop painting
>her nudes because somebody might look at a female body and desire it,
>and perhaps act on that desire inappropriately?  Should I stop writing
>erotic poems because it might give somebody the 'wrong idea'?

	"Well, to a certain extent it gets into the intent and
reasonable foresight of the person involved.  To get back to my
original example, I might well assign blame to someone who shouted
`Lynch the bastard!' in front of an angry crowd which then went on to
do just that.  Conversely, though, if a writer pens an article
detailing the crimes of a particular politician, and someone uses that
article as an excuse to assassinate the fellow, I'd hardly lay the
responsibility at the feet of the writer.  (Unless, perhaps, the
writer included something to the effect of explicitly encouraging
assassination).  It's not possible to go beyond one's own foresight--
if the urban legend that Charles Manson based his murder cult on
_Stranger in a Strange Land_ were actually true, I still wouldn't
claim that Heinlein could reasonably have expected that someone would
take his message from SiSL and gone from that to murdering people."

>I know you're not advocating government or societal cenorship, but if
>the artist is not free to write as he or she feels necessary, if the
>artist is afraid to say something for fear of somebody misinterpreting
>or even acting out a scene, are they not censoring themselves?  While
>that is certainly preferable to censorship from outside, I submit that
>it is extremely unhealthy for the art, and even for the society that
>spawns such a viewpoint.

	"Depends.  In a sense, an artist's judgment is self-censorship
by definition.  Artists say what they want to say with their work, at
least to an extent.  My point has less to do with fear of
misinterpretation than whether the intended interpretation is one that
the artist would feel comfortable with."

>It's a difficult question, because what does one say about really good
>movies, for example, that contain a lot of violence?  It may be that
>the amount of violence that we see on tv nowadays (just watch the news
>for half an hour) has dulled our 'shock receptors'...it just doesn't
>seem to bother us the way it should.  But as long as the violence is
>not gratuitous, how can we ask that it be removed from the work of
>art?

>Part of the purpose of art, at least in my eyes, is to push at the
>boundaries, to shock a little or a lot, to educate, to touch the
>emotions, to make the audience *feel* something - rage, pain,
>tenderness, exaltation.  If the artist doesn't create something
>because it may influence the actions of those who view it, then
>something of the purpose is lost, and the field of art is poorer as a
>result.

	"But an artist is responsible for what she intends the
audience to feel.  One might imagine two plays about the final days of
Nazi Germany in World War II, both of which focus on the pain and
confusion of the German people, who have watched their nation go from
a dominant world power to the brink of disaster.  Each could focus on
the human tragedy involved in watching one's entire world destroyed.
But there would be a difference between one in which one found oneself
feeling exalted by the triumph of the human spirit in adversity, say,
and one in which one felt exalted by a rousing speech about how
despite Jewish and Communist betrayals which led to this, one day the
Aryan master race would rise again.  (A good enough artist could make
one feel that exaltation even if one wasn't a member of the alleged
master race in fact.)

	"Similarly, there's a subtle difference between a battle scene
intended to inspire triumphant feelings because the side of right (as
defined by the artwork) is winning, and one which inspires triumphant
feelings because the enemy is suffering and dying.  (The movie
_Glory_, meanwhile, manages to inspire a feeling of triumph and
exaltation because the side of right is being allowed to fight at all,
even though, as a matter of objective fact, they're being decimated by
the enemy and ultimately lose the battle.)  A betrayal can be
used to establish that the betraying character is a bastard, or is
tempted beyone endurance-- or it can be used to show that those who
trusted him are fools.  But if an artist sets things up so that the
audience believes someone deserved betrayal for his foolish trust, the
artist should think that that trust was really foolish for some
reason; making actions which the artist really believes are noble or
generous seem stupid and ridiculous is, in some sense, a
self-betrayal.  But it's a matter of being true to one's own self-- if
an artist protests that he really meant to send a certain message, and
it's not his fault everyone else got a different one, it's difficult
to gainsay him.  He may be sincere, or he may be a liar, but he's
ultimately responsble only to his own judgment and conscience."

>>performance can stay with another permanently.  And thus an artist is
>>responsible for the messages she sends.  This is not to say that every
>>work of art should be a morality play, with good rewarded and evil
>>punished.  But nonetheless, an artist should not, I think, create a
>>narrative unless the underlying theme is one she would feel
>>comfortable expressing directly.  (Comfortable with her conscience, I
>>mean-- there's nothing wrong with using subtlety to express a theme
>>that might be dangerous to espouse openly.)

>But just because you write about something doesn't mean you advocate
>it.  I've written fantasy short stories with rape scenes - because
>such things happen, and you can't ignore them and hope they'll go
>away.  Some are painted more blackly than others...are the ones where
>the rapist is not punished and the victim gets up and goes on somehow
>contributing to the idea that rape is okay?  I'm trying to portray
>something real - must I censor myself so that somebody might not get
>the wrong idea?

	"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."

>>	"I'm rambling, and this is going on too long, anyway.  And
>>because it's not all that well thought out, it's due to be torn to
>>pieces, so I might as well lower it into the tank, hm?  :-)"

>Would we attack you, Michael dear?  Never! :-)

	"Me personally?  No, never, for you are sweet and kind (or at
least building up a rep for such so you can blow it when something big
comes along :-) ).  My insufficiently thought out and ill-defended
ideas?  Well, now, _that's_ another matter entirely... :-) "

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