From: kwhyte@dent.uchicago.edu (Kevin Whyte)
Subject: Re: Responsibilities of Artists (was Re: Pornography and Playboy)
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:41:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.192840.8432@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>	"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.
>

   I think we just flat out disagree here ( no problem, happens all
the time ).  I consider the ability to see something I would normally
disagree with from the point of view of someone who agrees with it an
opportunity not to be missed.  Even if I still disagree afterwards, it
has given me an insight into life, and certainly makes me more tolerant.
Everybody has the responsibilty for what they believe.  I don't consider
it wrong to try to convince anybody of anything.  Society seems to have
given up the idea that people can think for themselves; it is just taken
as given that a good ad campaign can convince people of anything.  Why?
Are you suggesting that we limit exposure to ideas we find distasteful?
There were many things worth honoring and remembering in societies that
weren't perfect:  the old South, medival Europe, the USSR, etc.  Even
positive portrayals of things I find abhorrant are useful. If the artist
can get me to find whatever it is appealing, then I have learned something
about myself, and what sort of things I might do to hurt people without
thinking about it.  It is really very easy to watch a violent rape scene
and be disgusted, but it is unlikely to change my behavior.  Watching a
character I otherwise like is a borderline date-rape scene is much more
likely to convince me that I COULD do something like that, so I have 
to make sure I don't.  Of course, it is possible someone else will walk
away with the idea that the date-rape was wrong never crossing their mind.
This is not the artist's fault, but the reader/viewer/etc'er 's.  We
embrace the idea that seeing both sides of a case argued as well as 
possible is a good route to the truth ( look at our legal system ), and
no one expects lawyer's to believe that the case is a black and white 
as they will try to make it seem.  Why should artists be any different?



A great many people think they are thinking       | Kevin Whyte 
when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.| kwhyte@math.uchicago.edu 
--William James                                   | (312) 702-6045

Newsgroups: alt.callahans