Artists and morality (that old chestnut again)

[hester_prynne]

God, Bennie, I love that picture. I want to make an avatar out of it. I wish I knew how. (My knees have gotten awfully sore this past couple of weeks....heh)

And Les, I don't mean by any means to become unaware. I don't think that would be possible at this point for alot of us.

But awareness in such huge unawareness, living in it, trying to survive in it as authentically as I can is unsettling to me, I get frustrated!
I get hammered down for such long periods of time, there is a frailty in me anymore because of it.....
thick-skinned to thin can happen so fast when there are folks telling you to pipe down because the truth might, "hurt" a few "important" people so live with the untruth, the status quo, don't be "impolite". This angers me to no end, to be stifled when I have legitimate things to say.
Or this familiar scenario, "while your letter to the editor is quite true Miss Spracklin, and very well written too, we are not comfortable with printing it right now...."
And when I ask them who would be uncomfortable, they say the people buying ads would be! This kind of shit really just immobilizes me.

Do you know what I mean about that word frailty?
Too long gettin nowhere? Do you ever feel that way?

But no, I won't give up. I resent the truth being hidden or delayed too much.

I like your quote. That's certainly one to post on the fridge door, in the daily affirmation section.
Might help with the frailty attacks...not to mention the apathy I'm feeling more of than I ever have before, in all my 51 years on this planet.

H

[bennie]

I think the size limit is 80 pixels? well this is 80 pixels tall.

It's a tiny wee thing but there it is.

[stilltrucking]

'The blood jet is poetry,/ There is no stopping it':

Yes, woman, such logic will lead
to loss without death. Or say what you meant,
you coward...this baby that I bleed.

writing in baby blood,
everyday the news is soaked with baby blood,
it greases the wheels of commerce
Moloch Inc. I do believe in spooks
Vampires with brief cases
war famine pestilence
good growing weather of the house of morgan
where are the corporate raiders of monty python when we need them.

a hysterical hostile take over
John galt makes the holy sign
makes me wish I was a Hindu

[e_dog]

what Diderot should have said: Religion is more injurious to God than atheism.

on the Relation betwixt Art and Morality:

Morality is what is left when a drama is stripped to its bare bones and then turned into an idol, to be worshipped with sacrifices before it.

Hence, morality is an offshoot of art. The artist cannot be beyond good and evil because good and evil are an artistic creation. However, new artists form new values and new critics defile old artistists and old artists beget new ones.

[Maple Leaf Up]

I am new to the forum and thought I’d chime in with my two bits (for all you Kerouac & Looney Tunes fans). Great post – an interesting and important discussion that will undoubtedly lead to a number of subsidiary points of discussion.

First of all, I think it best if there were some acceptable working definitions to utilize. That is to say, what are these so-called morals that apparently restrict artists? In fundamental terms, morals are customary rules and accepted standards of behaviour that guide a society’s notions of good and right.

Secondly, what is art? Arriving at a clear, concise definition seems like a daunting task. Any dictionary will tell you that art is a product of human imagination and skill that appeals to, well not surprisingly, the imagination of our fellow humans. And what is imagination? Simply, it is the creative power to form ideas or shape ideas in a novel manner (Ouch! My fucking skull is splitting already…my fingers trot across the desk in search of something blunt to numb the bulbous, throbbing pain just above the ears). If you permit, I shall use the aforementioned as a springboard into the grey, murky depths of ethical limbo. Needless to say, there are no lifeguards on duty.

I agree that artists play a crucial role in society. They are reflections of our existence. They are an answer – profound or pitiful – to our ceaseless yearning to discover why we are here (One may also argue art is about identity but there is no need to delve into such a concept now). If we accept that art is a product of our ability to create and shape ideas in interesting, thoughtful ways, then I believe we do society a disservice by censoring artists and their work.

Of course, it isn’t as simple as it may seem. For me, it is important to recognize that artists, despite claims to the contrary, do not operate independent of society. In other words, no one lives in a vacuum. Every action, whether in the name of art or not, has a consequence. It is not enough for an artist to simply state I create what is within me and then extract him or herself from any responsibility for the act of creation and its consequences.

Subsequently, I do not believe in censoring my fellow citizens, whether they are iconoclastic artists or members of the local Optimist club, regardless of accepted standards of behaviour, right or good. Nevertheless, we are responsible for our ideas even if we feel compelled to express them at any cost. Criticism, however seemingly harsh or undeserved, is as justified as art itself (though, I realize censor and censure are two different things). I also recognize that my statements are woefully inadequate in addressing some of the more contentious aspects of art; particularly where the subject may not be a willing participant in the art form – please see below.

Incidentally, I think that your initial query also touches upon one of the more controversial aspects of art, namely performance art (child pornography also falls into this category). At last year’s Toronto International Film Festival, a documentary exploring the nature of modern performance art was vehemently opposed by a minority of activists. If I recall correctly, the film in question related to a so-called performance art piece where “artists” were taped mutilating and skinning a cat alive. The filmmaker did not advocate calling such acts artful but merely attempted to understand the motivation behind these acts and wonder aloud if they truly qualified as art. I have yet to see the film but draw inferences from the numerous pieces written, both for and against, its selection at the festival.

I wonder if certain acts, particularly acts that, at least superficially, appear thoughtless, cruel, and uninspired qualify as art. Are such actions actually expressions of our imagination? Or are they merely symptoms of psychosis? There has always been a dark side, forgive me Lord Vader, to human nature. However, are supposed acts of art engaging in cruelty and/or violence imaginative? Or are they psychotic indulgences? Is there are distinction between the two? Are imagination and violence diametrically opposed? Is there such a thing as creative destruction?

Oh, my fucking melon aches. Thanks the fuck a lot, you fucking asshole. Right, right: Responsibility…responsibility…responsibility…where’s that fucking, big, heavy three-hole punch.

Once again, great discussion; I’ll leave it at that for now!

P.S. Occasionally, you may find my arguments are like a chess match at a bawdy house – sophisticated yet vulgar but always a whole lotta’ fun!

[e_dog]

Maple Leaf wrote:

First of all, I think it best if there were some acceptable working definitions to utilize. That is to say, what are these so-called morals that apparently restrict artists? In fundamental terms, morals are customary rules and accepted standards of behaviour that guide a society’s notions of good and right.

It might be best if there were "acceptable working definitions." Or it might not be best -- certainly discussion would be pretty trivial or boring if every term was predefined acceptably to all the participants -- no? you have hit on an importnat point: what do we mean by "moral(ity)"? we could be talking of the customary morality of a society, inwhich case the idea of the artist gettin beyond the standards of good and evil makes sense -- the iconclast creator or the Nietzschean Ubermensh. or we could define morality in more Kantian terms, as the right values, a product of intellectual critique rather than what is simply given in the culture: in which case it may be questionable as to whether it makes sense to want to go beyond it -- unless we want to give up the language game of right and wrong, better and worse, which seems indispensible for meaningful, or responsible, action.

again, Maple:

Secondly, what is art? Arriving at a clear, concise definition seems like a daunting task. Any dictionary will tell you that art is a product of human imagination and skill that appeals to, well not surprisingly, the imagination of our fellow humans.

I am beginning to arive at the position that the definition of art is not merely a daunting task, like say, rolling a boulder up a hill but, rather, an impossible task resulting from conceptual confusion, like squaring the circle. the role of the concept of art is itself performative and maybe even relative, rather than quasi-scientific.

the link between art and imagination is crucial, but we might think that it is more tenuous than essential. that is, imagination is involved in a range of things not specificaly artistic, and art can be minimally concerned with images or the imaginary. this is a logical quibble. but my main quibble is over the definition of imagination in terms of "ideas." i think that what specifically distinguished the imagination from reason is precisely that the latter is more concerned with ideas and the former with images. but i spose that ideas is not a rigorous concepot and has been used in all manner of ways to denote mental constructs and percepts, but i would distinguish between at least a few modalities of imagination: the imagistic sort, the inventive sort, the fantastical sort.

about art and cruelty and violence. the boundaries between art and cruelty are not very clear, as the boudaries between religion and cruelty are not either. pornography in general, not simply child porn, make this clear. what one person regards as art celebrating the nude form of the human, another person will regard as an exploitation and insult to the dignity of the woman. etc.etc.

violence is often a theme or content of art, for example in much tragic drama and action-adventure, horror or historical film and painting.

Artaud thought that cruelty and art were connected, and so devised the concept and practice of the "theatre of cruelty" which later was extended and combine with other radical, avant-gardist notion to creat various forms of guerrila theatre which verged on real violence rather than theatre.

there is no inherent contradiction between violence and artistry. certainly there is a pagentry and culturre spohistication in many games of sport which is not wholy unlike the arts, and we know that the ancient roots (not to mention in tamer variety, the current manifestations) of sports are violent and deadly indeed. one might even regard medicine as an art, indeed a performing art, or an art of healing.

the critical point might not be whether we label something art or not, but rather whether we regard it as an unacceptable form of violence or not.

regarding creative destruction, that sounds a lot like the so-called Dionysian force described by Nietzsche in the Birth of Tragedy, perhaps the best text on art ever written in the modern era.

[Trevor]

Hello all,

Interesting discussion so far. I don't have a lot of time or energy tonight to comment on all said up to this point, so I'll just blurt out some thoughts on the interesting points in the last couple of posts. My apologies ahead of time for not really giving this a lot of depth.

Maple Leaf:

"Every action, whether in the name of art or not, has a consequence. It is not enough for an artist to simply state I create what is within me and then extract him or herself from any responsibility for the act of creation and its consequences. "

I agree with you here, but also would like to add, that too often artist's are made responsible for the misinterpretation of their work. Half of art is the creation, half is the interpretation. (And I'm sure there are other "halves" I'm forgetting to mention as well.) One can hardly fault The Beatles for Manson's Helter Skelter inspired killing rampage. Or suicide attempts by kids listening to heavy metal music. Or a bank robbery resembling one from a movie. So where is the divisible line between an artist's and the audience's responsibility? If in fact any interpretation of art is valid, like so many people claim, how can responsibility rest so heavily upon the artist's shoulders? Should Nabokov be responsible for the glorification of child pornography because a pedophile masturbates while reading "Lolita"? Or should he be considered a brave artist for tackling a subject of that nature? Or both? Or neither?

"If I recall correctly, the film in question related to a so-called performance art piece where “artists” were taped mutilating and skinning a cat alive. "

I remember that well....a few years prior to that, as a performance art piece a man vomited on someone else's painting at a gallery and called it art. For me the difference seperating art and reality in that situation is perhaps depiction. And what I mean by that is, is an artist doing or showing? There is a big difference between murdering someone and a murder mystery novel. I guess for me, art has always held a somewhat voyeuristic feel about it from a creationist standpoint. Bringing a homeless person on a stage can hardly be called art, though a painting of one can be. The difference being, one is the reality and one is the interpretation of reality by the artist and subsequently by the audience through the art. Perhaps that is the most divisible line between art and reality, one is "fact", and one is a creative interpretation of "fact". One is reality, and one describes a reality (or fantasy, etc.). Personally I think its egotistical for a person to think if they name a reality art, then *poof* it becomes art. Look, I shot something - oh that's just "gun art"....Oh I stepped over a homeless person - oh that's just "money art"...and so on.

"Are such actions actually expressions of our imagination? Or are they merely symptoms of psychosis?"

Just because someone expresses imagination through action, doesn't necessarily qualify it as art...just as a lack of imagination in a piece doesn't necessarily disqualify it as art. Although I believe pushing boundries is a healthy excercise, I also think realizing boundries can be healthy as well. I think the filming of a cat being murdered crosses the line from imagination into psychosis when thought by its creator as art...however writing, filming, song writing, painting, about the madcap creator killing a cat could be considered art or a journalistic form of art. I dunno, is journalism art? Perhaps a lesser form because it is supposedly unbiased?

"Are imagination and violence diametrically opposed? Is there such a thing as creative destruction? "

Hmmm good questions. The first sentence seems an easy one to answer, then you go into the oxymoron of creative-destruction which had me thinking. Again I would have to say that if an artist is interpretating a portion of reality, rather than doing the act itself, then there can really be no destruction, only creation dealing with destruction. Clancy writing about terrorists is not a destructive force. However, terorists flying a plane into a building is. We can hardly call what happened in New York a performance piece about American foriegn policy.

"Oh, my fucking melon aches. Thanks the fuck a lot, you fucking asshole. Right, right: Responsibility…responsibility…responsibility…where’s that fucking, big, heavy three-hole punch. "

Classy, reallll classy...lol..jk

Edog:

"about art and cruelty and violence. the boundaries between art and cruelty are not very clear"

I think there are noticeable differences between the two and a somewhat clear division. As i was saying to Maple Leaf, there is a difference between killing someone, and writing a murder mystery. One is action within a reality, the other is an interpretation of that reality (which is action as well but not a direct interaction with the deed itself). Artistic endeavoring of words, sounds and images may depict, interpret or express certain ideas or factions of the imagination, but they are never truly that which the expressive result of. Just as the word "good" is not actually a moral, but rather the expression of a moral idealogy. Art, in my opinion, is not meant to replace reality, but rather give an interpretation of it.

"as the boudaries between religion and cruelty are not either"

I don't think religion and cruelty, and art and cruelty, are closely related. I think they have certain similar elements, but that's about it. Religion and art, for me, are not cut from the same cloth. Therefore I don't really see the connection you are trying to make with religion and art interchanging on the same point. I already stated my points on another thread regarding this very same matter, so I won't go into much depth other than say the gist of my point was -- religion is trying to define reality and be reality...basically an ignorant science in my opinion; whereas art is only trying to creatively express a reality, somewhat realistically or more so imagined.

"pornography in general, not simply child porn, make this clear. what one person regards as art celebrating the nude form of the human, another person will regard as an exploitation and insult to the dignity of the woman. etc.etc. "

For me, this is where I stumble on thought. but I'm leaning towards -- simply putting a camera in front of something should not be the determining factor between art and non-art. Filming someone fucking is no different than filming someone robbing a bank, or even eating lunch in the park. There is no real interpretation being done, perhaps only a journaling of sorts. However filming the fictional story of star crossed lovers with graphic scenes of physical intimacy, is an interpretation of a love story. Just as there may be a difference between nudie photos, and a photographers interpretation of the contours, shadows, structure etc. of the naked human form. Perhaps the very fact that we often use image, rather than imagination to express creativity, that so often there is a more difficult area to interpret. Saying, "naked body" will never get the response of the artistic picture of a naked body - though using different forms and subjects, we are essentially expressing the same thing. With the written word, the interpretation is more open...when I say "naked body" you may think of a lover's warm nurturing body laying on your bed, but when I show you a picture of a naked body, the image is there and its not of your lover's body. The interpretation is narrowed. And when interpretation is narrowed, there is a greater chance of it offending someone because of a more direct imposition of ideas.

"the critical point might not be whether we label something art or not, but rather whether we regard it as an unacceptable form of violence or not."

Very interesting thought especially when you mentioned this in terms of sports and such. But I do think sports, though similar to art, is not an art. In my opinion, playing a game is different than the expression of people playing a game. One thing that comes to mind is entertainment, or what is entertaining. Sports is entertaining to many, just as the theatre or a good book is to others. And even though sports and art share this similarity, I don't think they should be classified in the same category. If not, then lets just start calling gym class -- auditorium art class. Personally, I'm tired of people just pointing at things and deeming it art because they noticed it and had a few thoughts on it....ala John Cage. Not to get off topic, but is that really even clever anymore?

Anyways, interesting stuff. My apologies to all involved that I didn't mention a lot of the great points raised and sort of came at this half assed.

Trev

[e_dog]

consider: socio-cultural monism -- all the various forms of culture (art, sport, religion, politics, science, etc.) exists along a multidimensional continuum. art blends together with religion on one dimension (alegorical painting, stained glass in a church), and with sport on another (figure skating, competitive diving); though there are clear or pure cases of each (cubism, hockey, a protestant minister).

Trevor:

I don't think religion and cruelty, and art and cruelty, are closely related. I think they have certain similar elements, but that's about it. Religion and art, for me, are not cut from the same cloth. Therefore I don't really see the connection you are trying to make with religion and art interchanging on the same point.

and, Trev again:

Again I would have to say that if an artist is interpretating a portion of reality, rather than doing the act itself, then there can really be no destruction, only creation dealing with destruction. Clancy writing about terrorists is not a destructive force. However, terorists flying a plane into a building is.

i don't think it is tenable to accept Maple Leaf's claim that artists are responsible for the cponsequences of their actions or works and to also hold that there is a clear cut division between writing about violence and violence itself. if, for example, a terrorist gets an idea for a terrorist plot from a Clancy novel, then one of the consequences of his writing is increased violence. there is moreover, no clear cut distinction between fiction, propaganda, and military plans and orders. it may well be that apocalyptic fantasies bring about the apocalypse.

this is not meant as a plea for censorship but rather and awareness of ethical considerations when dealing with volatile subjects, even if the information is conveyed through "entertainment" as wel as dry and pretty words.

[Trevor]

"consider: socio-cultural monism -- all the various forms of culture (art, sport, religion, politics, science, etc.) exists along a multidimensional continuum. art blends together with religion on one dimension (alegorical painting, stained glass in a church), and with sport on another (figure skating, competitive diving); though there are clear or pure cases of each (cubism, hockey, a protestant minister). "

Well technically speaking then lets just hypothesize that everything exists along this continuum since we can speculate all societies, when traced far back enough, probably started from the same point, therefore every aspect of our society stems from a single point as well...technically speaking, you can say there is no clear division between any aspect of any society because there will always be an overlapping of everything with everything in our societies (but is this really a functional way to look at it?)....Furthermore, logically speaking, if there are "pure cases of each" -- as you have said, there is in fact clear cut division points between them. Something can not exist with, and seperate from, at the same time.

Just because someone painted a nifty portrait of a white Jesus and hung it in a church, doesn't mean all of a sudden we should consider religion an art or that the two have melded. You don't need to believe in the afterlife to paint a picture of heaven. I do not think art inspired by religion is religion itself. Much like a painting of God is not really God. Furthermore, just because there are artistic elements within something, does not make it art. That would make football an art form because someone did the jitterbug after making a touchdown.

Figure skating; well perhaps it should be considered an art form instead of a sport -- much like ballet it uses the human body set to music to express with movement a certain theme. Some elements of gymnastics also does this. Perhaps certain sports do blend art and physicality seamlessly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that art and religion, or art and other factions of society don't ever blend or meld. But is it fair to say sports in general or religion in general, blend with art in general, when it many cases it is false, and a few cases it is true. I think specifically, in certain cases, the two blend, but generally speaking, they are easily divisible.

"i don't think it is tenable to accept Maple Leaf's claim that artists are responsible for the cponsequences of their actions or works and to also hold that there is a clear cut division between writing about violence and violence itself."

Well I did also say there is a certain amount of responsibility by the audience in regards to interpretation as well. I also did say "If in fact any interpretation of art is valid, like so many people claim, how can responsibility rest so heavily upon the artist's shoulders?" I think that's an important aspect that shouldn't be overlooked. The way I interpreted Maple Leaf's statement of artist's being responsible for the consequences of their actions was -- if an artist paints a picture of Jesus being shot by an SS officer, he should know that the consequences of his actions will be a lot of angry Christians. However, that does not mean there is no division between a tasteless painting and the beating of the painter who created it.

"for example, a terrorist gets an idea for a terrorist plot from a Clancy novel, then one of the consequences of his writing is increased violence. "

Increased violence? Or a change in the way they carried out a violent attack? Clancy did not organize these terrorists or ask them to seek out a cause and fight against that cause in a violent way. They would have done something violent regardless of what they read, and just because they snagged an idea from a fictional book that takes place in the year 2008 in a country that does not exist, doesn't mean the writer's work is responsible for their actions. Remember, Clancy is writing about terrorists, not them acting upon him. So I guess increased journalism coverage of war causes more war? Perhaps we should hold CNN responsible for the war in Iraq going on as long as it has. Those damn terrorists just keep getting the idea of attacking the American and Iraqi police because its in the news. The actions of insane, misguided, violent people should not be the responsibility of a novel or novelist. The consequence of an insane person reading "Catcher in the Rye" may be a bell tower shooting spree...but then again, is that the consequence of a book or insanity? What if it was a broken glass of milk that set off a murderous rampage...could we then start saying there are no clear divisions between spilt milk and violence, or a no division between violence and broken kitchen ware? Perhaps the biggest responsibility of an audience when viewing art is to remember that what they are viewing, is not "real" but rather an interpretation, or expression that may or may not have realistic qualities to it. I'm not saying there is never inspiration whether it be good or bad, but being inspired by something to have a new thought, isn't the same as being physicaly controlled by it to act out on that thought. If there is a division of thought and external action, then there is a division of art and violence.

"there is moreover, no clear cut distinction between fiction, propaganda, and military plans and orders. it may well be that apocalyptic fantasies bring about the apocalypse. "

You can't be serious about this? So there is no clear distinction between "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" and planning out an invasion of China while being in control of armed forces? Even generally speaking, written literature by an author, intentionally untrue (fiction) which is published for the sake of entertainment or a quick buck, is very very divisible between a Dictator planning D-day operations in order to secure a foothold in an opposing country. The distinction is very very very easy to see. I think often you make some really great points E-dog, however, this is not one of them. Perhaps a person dreaming of ending the world may one day end the world (makes sense), however, I don't think we should blame "Mad Max" movies or "The Day After".... what ever happened to someone simply being crazy...and that being the responsibility of themselves, genetics and an abusive environment? A good indication of the difference between, and the relationship of art and violence is the origins....art is a result of wanting to tell stories about such things as murder, injustice, weather, love and soooo on. It did not create these things and is not responsible for them, they existed before art, without art and seperate from art. There are better excuses for poor human behaviour then saying art had something to do with it.

"this is not meant as a plea for censorship but rather and awareness of ethical considerations when dealing with volatile subjects, even if the information is conveyed through "entertainment" as wel as dry and pretty words."

I know you aren't advocating societal censorship but it seems like you are swaying towards self censorship. Or am I interpretting that wrongly? My suggestion would be for more education over more censorship...if people have trouble in realizing batman isn't real, nor should you attempt to do what he does, then there are greater problems at work in society than comic books.

[e_dog]

Trevor:

Furthermore, logically speaking, if there are "pure cases of each" -- as you have said, there is in fact clear cut division points between them. Something can not exist with, and seperate from, at the same time.

think of colors as a counter example. wavelength x is pure red or a clear case of red. wavelength z is clearly orange. but wavelength y is bounderline.

Trev:

Just because someone painted a nifty portrait of a white Jesus and hung it in a church, doesn't mean all of a sudden we should consider religion an art or that the two have melded. You don't need to believe in the afterlife to paint a picture of heaven. I do not think art inspired by religion is religion itself.

and i suppose the production of communion wafers should be considered mere cooking or nutrition science rather than religious? gospel music is just music? indeed, why not consider religious sermons to be an exercise in rhetoric or public speaking. the Bible is just a text of literature. (actually that's an admirable position, but for other reasons.) however, if you follw this route, there seems to be nothing left of the essence of religion - except, maybe . . . God?

perhaps we differ only in emphasis and angle of perception, so to speak. when you say:

But is it fair to say sports in general or religion in general, blend with art in general, when it many cases it is false, and a few cases it is true. I think specifically, in certain cases, the two blend, but generally speaking, they are easily divisible.

my response is to reverse it: i think the "blend" is dominant (or general, as you say) and the divisible purities are relatively rare instances.

regarding the hypothetical cases were a terrorist copycats a scene from a novel, Trev writes:

They would have done something violent regardless of what they read, and just because they snagged an idea from a fictional book that takes place in the year 2008 in a country that does not exist, doesn't mean the writer's work is responsible for their actions.

but the point is that by learning a new or 'better' technique that they didn't know before, their act could be more effective, i.e. more violent. otherwise they would have no need to use the idea from the book. in any event, i did not say the writer would be responsible for their actions; just responsible for his action od writing that book, with all the attendant risks which are foreseeable.

Trev:

So I guess increased journalism coverage of war causes more war? Perhaps we should hold CNN responsible for the war in Iraq going on as long as it has.

journalism can, intentionally or not, serve propagandistic purposes. i think that the Spanish-American War and WWI prove this point quite amply. and yes perhaps nthe major media is in part responsible for the prolongation of this war, but for not covering enough of the violence perpetrated by all sides, so as to reveal vividly the reality of war. instead, outlets like CNN have opted to go along with the role of 'embedded' journalists asigned to them by the U.S. military and government.

Trevor:

What if it was a broken glass of milk that set off a murderous rampage...could we then start saying there are no clear divisions between spilt milk and violence, or a no division between violence and broken kitchen ware?

a great line. but the point for me is whether the dangerous consequences are predictable. copying a crime plot or attempting to realize fantastic sci-fi machines is in our world predictable to occur. there is no rational conection between random events of spilt milk and technological or practical actions.

finally, Trev:

Perhaps a person dreaming of ending the world may one day end the world (makes sense), however, I don't think we should blame "Mad Max" movies or "The Day After".... what ever happened to someone simply being crazy...and that being the responsibility of themselves, genetics and an abusive environment? A good indication of the difference between, and the relationship of art and violence is the origins[...]

but the origins can be the same. or the end of one can originate the other. the example of movies you selected are not good ones. the relavant choice would be one where a character in the plot does something that brings about a catasgtrophic event that could be mimiced by others. soan example would be the Terminator, where we can certainly imagine present dsay scientists being inspired to build killer cyborgs; or Clancy's Sum of All Fears (which i haven't seen but i understand it is about a story) in which there is detonation of an atomic weapon in a populated urban center. these are not kids stuff and unless you believe that viewers are totally unaffected by viewing (or in the case of video games, actively participating)n then it is to be expected that the 'ebtertainment' comes with side effects. perhaps violence.

[Trevor]

Hi Edog,

"think of colors as a counter example. wavelength x is pure red or a clear case of red. wavelength z is clearly orange. but wavelength y is bounderline"

I understood the point you were trying to make in your previous post, and I agree that somethings do fit into the borderline...the grey area, the blended area or whatever it shall be called....but I think the majority of things, if for nothing more than general functionality, are clearly divisible. But then again, perhaps there is no division between anything, just linguistics and perception and attempts at finding working definitions in order to relate ideas to others for commonality or functionality....or something like that...more or less me just thinking out loud with that one.

"and i suppose the production of communion wafers should be considered mere cooking or nutrition science rather than religious? gospel music is just music?"

No of course not. Like I stated in my last post, I do agree there are times where different aspects of society overlap and blend...and I have to admit, these are good examples of when this does occur, especially the gospel music reference...however considering the majority of most religious ceremonies is not singing or eating holy waffers, or drawing murals, or glass work, the overlap, in my opinion, is of a small amount. Not to mention the mass production of glow in the dark rosaries (yes they do exist because I had one for communion..lol) can hardly be called a religious endeavor even though the use of the rosaries could. There is still a blend, but the division is large, not small in my opinion...or perhaps a better way of saying that is, the division is more clear than murky.

"my response is to reverse it: i think the "blend" is dominant (or general, as you say) and the divisible purities are relatively rare instances. "

Yes I do think this is probably where we differ the most. I think a lot of different factions of society use art for certain purposes, for example, a fancy football team logo to help bolster sales is unfortunately a somewhat artistic endeavor, however that does not mean there is no divisible point between a team logo and the game of football or the business of sports and so on. A school may offer a couple art courses, however I don't think it should be called a school of art because its role is minor and divisible.

"but the point is that by learning a new or 'better' technique that they didn't know before, their act could be more effective, i.e. more violent"

But it could also result in a backfire, the very idea presented in a novel has failed them...does this mean we should consider the novel as a saving grace? Then by that standard should we say art and preventative measures against terrorist violence are closely related and non-divisible?

"in any event, i did not say the writer would be responsible for their actions; just responsible for his action od writing that book, with all the attendant risks which are foreseeable. "

I agree with you here, and that was the point I was trying to get across as well. I think a good example is Rushdie and "Satanic Verses"... he knew the consequences of his book - the angering of a large population of Muslims. He also knew there could be danger to his life. He shouldn't be held responsible if they had murdered him, that would be their actions, however he should be responsible for writing a book that he knew would put himself in danger. The divisible line between violence and art would be his expression, and their reaction. The expression of something does not make the expressed so, where as the act of doing something, does.

"journalism can, intentionally or not, serve propagandistic purposes."

Perhaps, and if we differ here its probably only in semantics. I don't consider journalism to be propaganda, though it's nearly impossible not to slant reporting, at least a little bit, toward a certain predisposition or agenda. With that said, I think there is very little journalism going on in the world....maybe the obituaries is the closest thing to pure journalism right now. I think propaganda is the attempt to intentionally influence people with decietful statements or half truths, whereas journalism should try to give ample factual information pertaining to an event while letting the reader come to their own moral conclusions. But lets face it, newspapers would be boring as hell if they didn't push our buttons.

"yes perhaps nthe major media is in part responsible for the prolongation of this war, but for not covering enough of the violence perpetrated by all sides, so as to reveal vividly the reality of war."

I have to disagree with you, (though for the record i agree that news, especially in the West, is pretty sugar coated). Many countries do show harsh images of war and violence, yet still participate in war and violence. Al Jezair (sp?) is a good example...they are fairly candid with showing a body count, though focusing more on dead civillians then dead soldiers, yet war and violence is still practised by a lot of their viewers even though before participating, they can see the gruesome reality of such.

"a great line. but the point for me is whether the dangerous consequences are predictable. copying a crime plot or attempting to realize fantastic sci-fi machines is in our world predictable to occur."

Sure it is predictable to occur, just as predictible as someone insane will do something crazy....however these things occured long before we wrote about them. The first guy who walked into work with an uzi and slaughtered his co-workers didn't pick that out of a book....Another example is the city where I'm from, they long ago stopped reporting about the suicide jumpers from a certain bridge or people throwing themselves in front of the train or subway, yet these things still occured on a regular basis...in fact the bridge in question, was used so frequently for suicide attempts, they had to build a special fence to prevent it....that's when the general public became aware these events were going on and then they finally reported on the subject. So things will still occur even if we stop writing about them in the exact same fashion that is being censored. So for me, that spells out a division between the two. One can exist freely without the other. Regardless of what we write about, a person will plot to murder someone or build something, just as jumpers may flock to a location without writing about it. So to go back to the predictability of an occurance, if one thing can exist freely from the constraints of external influence from another thing, then how predictable does it become? Now all of the above paragraph is nothing more than me spewing thoughts out and playing devils advocate because I do agree with you that an artist should consider the consequences of their creation, though I think we differ on what constitutes a predictible danger and the division line between endangering acts and art. I mean, how could Salinger know that the modern day nutbar would carry around a copy of "Catcher in the Rye"? At the same time, "Jesus Christ Superstar" is allowed to freely play packed houses...I mean where is the justice!! If anything in the art world is responsible for violence, it should be a tap dancing Jesus keeping time with Webber's tunes and not Holden bitching about the world he lives in!!! LOL...sorry I got carried away there..lol

...here's a different slant ...perhaps novels are the saving force. People who read the murder mystery novels are more adapt at sniffing out plots against their life because they know more angles and motives for murder. Perhaps we do not give enough credit to mankind for operating outside of art's influence. I doubt the homocide rate or the originality in which we kill would increase or decrease much if we stopped showing violent programs or writing violent literature, etc. As the comedian David Cross pondered, "What was the name of that video game Hitler played?"

"there is no rational conection between random events of spilt milk and technological or practical actions."

Then again, I could claim that random events do not occur...lol...but I won't, that would just be too many cans of worms crawling around at once. But nonetheless I get the gist of what you were saying.

"but the origins can be the same. or the end of one can originate the other. the example of movies you selected are not good ones. the relavant choice would be one where a character in the plot does something that brings about a catasgtrophic event that could be mimiced by others."

True, I agree they weren't very good choices to illustrate my point. So I 'll choose "Dr. Strangelove..." the Slim Pickens scene where he rides the nuke like a bull as it falls to earth...lol

"these are not kids stuff and unless you believe that viewers are totally unaffected by viewing (or in the case of video games, actively participating)n then it is to be expected that the 'ebtertainment' comes with side effects. perhaps violence."

As I tried to briefly point out in my last post, perhaps if a person is violent after reading or watching fiction, the problem does not lie in what they were viewing. Since the vast majority of people who saw Terminator did not desire to build killer robots, and the vast majority of people who saw the Clancy movie, did not aspire to detonate a WMD inside an urban center, we can predict with reasonable assurance, that the negative effects of watching these films are mild, if any. I think in a lot of cases of conflicting ideas - such as well being vs. building killer borgs, human nature simply takes over, logic clicks on, and we do what we believe to be right or follow the "proper" conduct of members of society. Not to say that there is no influence by media, I mean billions of corporate dollars spent on advertising can't be totally wrong, but I think in cases of morality, or accepted behaviour, or human instinct, it is not an over-riding force. Sure it may influence us on what shoes to buy, but it probably won't convince us that we should kill someone to have them.

Anyways, I'm gonna split, you raised a lot of interesting points. Thanks.

Trev

[Maple Leaf Up]

To ‘edog’ & Trevor – excellent responses!

First of all, regarding my “classy” comments earlier. Humour is like a dartboard – you don’t always hit the bull’s-eye. But I’m certain you are aware of this predicament. That said, I’ll do my best to address the numerous important concerns the both of you have raised. Forgive me, if my reply is wanting in any area.

I’ll touch briefly on the necessity of definitions. With all due respect, whenever people engage in lively discussion (or even the most mundane) nearly all terms are “predefined acceptably to all the participants”. If not, then we would spend most of our time contesting our respective use of the language. Definitions provide words with potency; absence of acceptable definitions renders our language ineffective. Undoubtedly, some words are more clearly defined than others but that does not mean there is no truth to accepted definitions of the more contentious words we use. Simply, it means there are limitations to our understanding and our ability to communicate; thus, terms, such as “art” or “love” are difficult to define but there is still truth (or truths) to our definitions. And because some definitions, such as “art” or “morality” suffer under the limitations of our understanding, I feel it is important that we have a basic, though not necessarily complete, grasp of terms that are difficult to define in order to have thoughtful discourse. While I appreciate a response to my aforementioned proposition, I feel it is unfair to the original authour if we delve too deeply into this concept in this particular thread (I’d gladly expand this point of discussion in a separate thread).

I agree the link between art and imagination is crucial; though, I suggest it is essential not tenuous. Even if the imagination is “involved in a range of things not specifically artistic”, it does not diminish its importance in art. It only demonstrates imagination, intelligence, and their relationship may not be as limited as we once believed.

I also agree that the boundaries between art and violence are not always clear; nonetheless, I do believe there are some clear distinctions. For example, let us briefly examine child pornography. The picture of say, a naked child running through a field, is not necessarily obscene or violent. Generally speaking, parents consent to the photography and the photograph is more concerned with the imagery than the subject per se. However, photographs where children are engaged in sexual acts with adults or other children are, in my opinion, obscene and violent. A child simply does not have the capacity to comprehend the gravity of the situation and, therefore, an unwilling participant. As far as I understand, this is not fanciful speculation on the nature of children but a scientific recognition of the human development process. Subsequently, child pornographers engage in obscenity and violence since they are concerned not with imagery or imagination but solely the exploitation of the subject for personal gratification.

Conversely, I would not consider impressionistic or expressionistic renditions from victims of sexual abuse as obscene (though it still may be violent), even if they were suggestive of undesirable behaviour. The artist is attempting to create an imaginative depiction of an unfortunate circumstance. It is an interpretation of ideas about the subject, not exploitation of the subject for base gratification. (Trevor stated notions of depiction and reflection were important. I agree that filming people engaging in sexual acts, however skillfully lit, is not necessarily art. Rather, it is more likely an unimaginative account of the event). So, as I stated above, while I agree that distinctions between art & violence are not always clear, there are still some clear distinctions.

Returning to the responsibility of artists, it is interesting Nietzsche was mentioned. I never intended to allude to his work with my query regarding “creative destruction”; yet, he seemed to be somewhat concerned with similar ideas. From the fire and ash do new flowers bloom? Once Man rid himself of the ancient trappings of God, religion, superstition, etc. – a new Man, a Superman or Ubermensch, free from oppression (and compassion) would be born. Unfortunately, men such as Hitler, Himmler, and Frick, took Nietzsche’s metaphors to irrational extremes. Is Nietzsche partly responsible for the rise of National Socialism? His radical ideas were highly influential in Germany; however, I wonder if he truly recognized the inherent dangers if others understood his work purely in literal terms (some parallels here to evangelical Christianity). If I am not mistaken, Nietzsche eventually went mad.

Subsequently, though I neglected to mention it, I wholeheartedly agree the viewer or audience must also accept responsibility when engaging art. For me, it is an extension of our society. That is to say, we are all citizens of society and, therefore, responsible (to varying degrees) for our fellow citizens – even artists dabbling in radical or abstract concepts. So, while we may not hold a controversial authour responsible for every reader’s actions, he or she ought to be aware that his or her ideas might be dangerous to some. And though the authour may, indeed, recognize the inherent dangers in their work, he or she ought not to be responsible for every reader that fails to grasp its intricacies.

Both of you have made fine points regarding, if you will, “melding” points. Presently, I am uncertain if lines of division are rare, as ‘edog’ seems to believe, or more common, as Trevor seems to suggest. However, I do know some of the lines may be easily confused. Perhaps, such melding points result in the indifference or ignorance of art & responsibility in our society at large. Since there may not always be clear distinctions, people might ignore or fail to recognize that action has consequence. Thus, people consciously or unconsciously extricate themselves from their responsibilities (and absolve themselves from any later guilt, etc.).

Finally, concerning the viewer being affected, or unaffected, by what he or she views: If I am not mistaken, there is no credible evidence to support the notion that children or adults who “kill” in video games are motivated or compelled to kill people. People who model acts of violence from films, books, video games, music, and so forth are already mentally ill. However, I think several studies indicate that frequent video game participation, particularly violent video games, appears to lead to more aggressive behaviour in children.

Looking forward to continued discussion.

[mousey1]

Just taking a little piddle in the pool....I mean paddle in the pool...no, who am I kiddin', I mean piddle. I'm in the shallow end so ignore me if you must.

Writers and artists can lie with impunity.
Exaggeration is our friend.
If we can think it, express it imaginatively so that it is appealing on some level, it becomes art in the mind of that beholder.

Artistic freedom is becoming, maybe always was, a way of legitamizing weirdness. Label anything art and people immediately look at it in a different way. What once was a pile of shit suddenly becomes "interesting" with fine qualities of depth and form, palpable, imbued with hidden meaning. Crazy man!!!!

Throwing up on a painting is not art, it is a statement about art. I am sure we all can muster some rather eye-catching, mind-bending, phantasmagorically, kaleidoscopy splatterings and splashings with our digested gastronomical delights. That doesn't make it art...won't ever make us "artists". Same applies to the paintings done by elephants or chimps or the puppy dog with a no. 9 sable brush tied to it's tail. Random conglomerations. Hardly art! (Or is it?!!! My interior jury still debates.)

Nothing is ever as cut and dried as flowers or meat. There's always room for interpretation, but common sense dictates that merely calling something art does not make it so, and not only that but the acceptance of it as such denegrates real art.

As for the fellow (I would only call him an artist at knifepoint!) who tortured and skinned a cat alive...... I would personally like to create my own little art endeavour by stretching his scrotum sac (redundancy stressed for effect) up and over his head and ears and stapling any spare bits to his ass!!!!! (Picture that if you will!!!)

I've got a hardon(and not in a good way) for anyone stupid enough to consider even for a millisecond that an act like skinning a cat is artistic in any way, shape, or fucking form. The filmmaker is as big a dork as anyone.

Art is becoming a sham and a scam to some. Portray anything in the guise of being art and it legitamizes the thing. It becomes a means to cash in on the novelty factor or more often than not to perfume up some weirdness or perversion so that it suddenly becomes acceptable, examples being child porn, the pedophile who when caught "dirty handed" with the pictures calls it "artistic expression". Ya, in a pig's eye! Or the sadistic, masochistic jerk who gets his jollies torturing pets, who in his own defense cries "performance art". In a pig's eye again! And there's always some gullible fragment of the population (frequently in the legal profession) willing to give them the benefit of the doubt! Christ!!!!!

If we refused to give these jokers the time of day, stopped validating them, maybe they'd slink back under the rocks from whence they came, or at the very least get a whiff that their shit is just that, shit, and unacceptable, not only as art but also in a morally reprehensible way.

Some people give art a bad name. And it's our bad if we allow it. It's not about censorship. I'm all for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, but there are obvious limits. And my limit is reached when some sick bastards use these freedoms to exonerate their behavior, smooth over their psychosis.

Ya, there's a lot of muddy gray areas in the moral grounds of artistic freedoms, but there are some incredibly crystal clear ones too. Sure, write, paint, photograph whatever you want, no taboos in your freedoms of expression.....make your statements! But there are consequences, there are always consequences, and you are free to suffer those as well....and sometimes so you should!!!

Anyway, my points may have no intrinsic value to this completely intelligent discussion but I enjoyed writing this sooooo....here it is.....submit.

And whether I've said anything at all I leave to your interpretation!

[e_dog]

Maple,

blaming Nietzsche for Nazism is a bit like blaming Christ for the Crusades or Marx for Stalinism. [edit: wouldn't the consonation be much better poetically if i had said "Maoism" 'stead o "Stalinism"?]

Mouse,

Statements about art can be art. At least, that's what a lot of Duchamps dadaists works were, in part.

Art in the avant garde mode is supposed to shock you out of your normal habits of perception and mores of living. It can go too far, but who is to say in advance what is too far?

I agree, no animals should be harmed in the production of an artwork (so the torture of a cat is unacceptable and would I am sure be considered a crime). Likewise, vandalism of another's work is not acceptable, so throwing up intentionally on someone's painting -- assuming it is not owned or licensed for this purpose -- is not cool. But if, say, you throw up on your own painting, then i don't see what's wrong with that (other than the smell, and possible public health hazard) and i don't see why we shouldn't call it art -- even if we also cal it 'bad art' -- since for all we know the pattern of regirgitation might produce an interesting instance of abstract expressionism or action art (a la Pollock).

Or what if (to throw out another name) the vomit forms the basis for a paranoid interpretation like those of Salvador Dali, who would find eerie images in other persons' photographs turned on their side or otherwise altered pictures.

[mousey1]

Exactly!!!!!!!! We're legitamizing weirdness!!!!!

Zokay tho.......I love weird.......

It would certainly be a pretty boring world if people didn't leap out of the box every now and then to display their antics
Seeing in different ways, being drawn into someone elses mind, their vision of things is good for sure. Innovators, experimenters, those not afraid to step up and do their artful thing 'swunnerful.

But an arsehole's still an arsehole by any other name so it bugs me when I see them on center stage being lauded by those who wouldn't know a toilet from a teacup. Cup of pee anyone? (Statements can be art....but can sentences? Why, yes, just look at my fine examples! )

Anyway, I've used up the last of my brain cells as you can plainly see. I'm really enjoying this discussion though and hope there's more of it.

I've never read Nietzsche, the only dada I know was my ol' da. Am I a lost soul. Should I dabble? If I read these things will it make me a better person?.....certainly smarter!....that would not be a bad thing. Would it put an end to this babble? I think not....

edog I would've said "Maoism" 'stead of "Stalinism". It's all about the poetry of the thing....the roll off of the tongue, the smooth mouthing achieved....nothing like a smoooooth mouthing! 'Course I also don't know the difference between Mao and Stalin....is that Mao tse tongue? Then definitely go with Mao he's already got the tongue part down! Heh Heh!

ps: I've thrown up on my own paintings....it definitely made a statement....it said...."This art is crap....no, this art is vomit"....and you know what? it improved the thing....eh....go figure....