From: moh2@quads.uchicago.edu (Kateri/Mary Anne)
Subject: Re: Pornography and Playboy
Reply-To: moh2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:57:19 GMT

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'?

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.

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.

>	"Art, even bad art, does affect people's thoughts and
>emotions.  That's what it's _for_-- even the cheapest melodrama has to
>touch the audience's emotions for the duration of the show, or it
>fails, and people won't come to see it.  The extent of a work of art's
>effect on a person depends heavily on a multiplicity of variables, and
>something which can't reach one person even for the duration of the
>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?
>
>	"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! :-)

>Michael

 - Kateri
-- 
The autumn leaves are falling like rain.
Although my neighbors are all barbarians,
And you, you are a thousand miles away,
There are always two cups at my table.		 - A T'ang Dynasty poem
Newsgroups: alt.callahans