Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Joined: Jun 13, 2003 Posts: 177 Location: southern california
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:02 pm Post subject: Artistic Responsibility
What do you mad renderers think of this concept?
My train of thought left the station for this reason;
Recently i saw someone posted and image to an online board like this and it was a massive ethnic slur. When i called the person on their . . . idiom, they came back with a rationalization that "it's only art" and "i am not prejudice because i am (insert social minoirty of some sort here)".
i have always been sensitive to the social aspects of creative endeavors. There is a difference in producing a work which raises the level of social soncience and one that is just offensive for no reason other then to get a laugh. Just because the creator belongs to a minority or has experienced that sort of degradation on a personal level does not make it ok for them to do the same. Maybe working in an enviornment where my graphic work needs to conform to state and federal regulations has helped being this to the forefront of my mind. i honestly think that people need to be more aware of what they put out there and cultivate an attitude of social responsibility for their work.
The flip side of this of course are people who present something they see as being a positive piece of art. The example being Christian artists who regularly produce and post biblical themed works. Not being Christian (i was raised Wiccan) it really doesnt bother me as most religion says the same thing, "dont kill people and be a good person". But some of these "positive" works turn around and cast other faiths in a negative light.
i am not trying to step on anyones toes, this line of thought just hit me again today and i want to know how others feel about it. Please feel free to tell me i think too much about it or read too much into it. Granted with Mercury being in retrograde communication in general is never as clear nor as pointed as we want it to be.
Joined: Jun 13, 2003 Posts: 177 Location: southern california
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject: Re: Artistic Responsibility
Well, most places like Animotions have a TOS to define it.
A more general principal would maybe be that we need to define it for ourselves or to those around us while paying special attention to anything that may or may not land us in trouble with Big Brother or any of his little children.
In Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the character of Prof. Bernardo De La Paz is quoted below;
"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state' and ‘society' and ‘government' have no existence such as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsibility individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame ... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world ... aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."
So is self-responsibility enough for people to determine the effect of their creations? Are media icons responsible for the behavior of their fans? i think a little yes. Is an artist responsible if his/her work is offensive to the viewer. i think very yes but also very subjective. If i am posting a bdsm scene at renderotica would i worry about offending someone? Probably not. Would i post that scene here? No because it violates the TOS and may offend someone as this site is more pg-13 in general.
What gives the artist the right to step on someones toes on purpose. When is it alright for them to go out of their way to be offensive? Is it ok for them to be offensive just for the sake of offending and does their own ethnic/social/experience/ background give them grounds for rationalization? Keeping in mind that this country is lousy with lawsuits and that libel cases are painfully easy to prosecute.
Joined: May 31, 2002 Posts: 650 Location: Planet Mongo
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:28 am Post subject: Re: Artistic Responsibility
Self-responsibility of individuals for their actions in nearly every case should never be casually discarded.
If the principle had not been universally recognized, Nazi war criminals would have gone free at the Nuremberg trials. From those trials to the present, self-responsibility has been recognized as a fundamental legal principle worldwide. You can't allow a defendant to claim "the (Devil/God/Party) told me to do it", or "I was only following orders". Modern terrorists have a defense for their actions if there isn't self-responsibility.
The only case I know of which self-responsibility shouldn't have been applied to a defendant was the Patty Hearst trial. Patty was brain washed over months by the S.L.A. terrorist cell and ordered to participate in bank robberies. She was brain washed to the point of completely losing her identity.
I'm glad you recognize the need for reform in the civil courts. The worst example of an out of control court was the lawsuit against MTV for running the cartoon of Beavis burning his neighbor's house down. The media doesn't have the complete power to brain wash, therefore the media should not be held as accountable.
Keep in mind, it's important not to cloud impartial legal principles with one's personal feelings if suggesting an example for others to follow.
To answer your final question, the artist always has the right to be himself. That's what gives him the right to be potentially offensive. If you prefer not to capitalize the word "I", I would defend your right to offend elementary school grammar teachers wherever they are. You're being yourself.
Joined: Jun 13, 2003 Posts: 177 Location: southern california
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:29 am Post subject: Re: Artistic Responsibility
Blame EE Cummings for my use of a lower case "i". i do.
i remember the MTV deal with beavis and butthead. That is one of those unsure situations in my mind. i feel that ranked up there with the woman who took McDonalds to court for selling her hot coffee which she then burned herself while driving.
i am not recommending that anyone follow any course. i just want to know how people feel about posting offensive satire/art and where they draw the line for themselves and why. Contemporary readers don't think Swift is offensive but back in the day he was pretty racey. Or make it even more simple what offends you (the general you) and why?
There are people that will say, "Well if it offends you then don't look." Fair enough. The freedom of choice is a powerful thing. When something is thrust in our faces by the net because some ass clown posts it to one of our favorite places to visit then choice is negated to a certain degree. Don't get me wrong. i like racey, i like edgy, i like things that push boundries. i do not like things that inspire hate and fear or present an entire ethnic group in a negative light. Somethings are just not art, even if presented in a truly artistic manner.
When i was at art school (commercial art) one of my favorite instructors was a well known political cartoonist. When i was speaking to him about the work he produced he showed me a portfolio of beautiful illustrations (he prefers to work in pen and ink) and said that the politico stuff was not art, it just paid the bills.
Joined: May 31, 2002 Posts: 650 Location: Planet Mongo
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:33 pm Post subject: Re: Artistic Responsibility
Your instructor recognizes the difference between political regalia as something separate from other art forms. His bread and butter fits into the same category as campaign buttons, election posters, Luger pistols, and the Queen's crown, orb, jewels, and septre. All of those items have a certain allure beyond artistic merit. They're all expressions of our flaws, and weakness which don't allow us to govern ourselves without some form of leadership. Regalia becomes offensive when applied as a political or commercial tool for brain washing or denying an individual to do his own will.
Other art forms become offensive when they're an insult to another individual's appetite for cultural minutia. Jerry Seinfeld made a career of illustrating the point. We live in an era of unprecedented mass media and cultural minutia. The best way to cope with it is to adapt by being thick skinned to what offends. The internet is never going to go away, and it's too big for any government or corporation to regulate.
People who allow themselves to become offended also risk becoming part of the art in unintended ways. Andy Warhol had a bad reputation for feeding on the negative behavior of those around him. He used and abused his friends and hangers-on in his art. They became his art. Of course things changed after he was nearly shot to death by one of his factory regulars. It's fascinating what his subjects were willing to do for him on film, although I would consider much of it personally distasteful. Andy was generating internet style content before there was an internet.
Stereotypes should be regarded as distasteful, but not unethical. Elmer Fudd, or the Beverly Hillbillies, might offend me if I was an overly sensitive knee-jerk. They're not meant as depictions of reality. Offense towards one's self image can be a sign of self loathing below the surface. Also consider that there are such things as positive stereotypes that aren't always true. I've known some Japanese people who didn't conform to the phoney workaholic stereotype, and yet positive stereotypes are never considered to be a question of ethics.
Hrrm. This would have made a great topic for a round table discussion if Doug, Billy-bob, and Sharby were still doing them. ;]
"Artistic Responsibility" you say? There's no such animal.
There's only responsible individuals using the tools of artistic expression to display an concept with, make a buck with, make a political/theological/social statement with, or to have fun with.
And irresponsible individuals using the tools of artistic expression to do all of the same things.
I see no reason to sub-define "responsibility" into different types as if there's any intrinsic difference between acts of personal responsibility. Someone is either responsible and ethical - or they aren't. Tacking "artistic" on "responsible" makes a statement on a difference that ain't no difference.
digitalmagi wrote:
Recently i saw someone posted and image to an online board like this and it was a massive ethnic slur. When i called the person on their . . . idiom, they came back with a rationalization that "it's only art" and "i am not prejudice because i am (insert social minoirty of some sort here)".
Ah yes - the old "I'm not a bigot becuz I'm [insert minority group [Here]" trick.
digitalmagi wrote:
Well, most places like Animotions have a TOS to define it.
That's all well and good - execpt that we don't have a ToS for the purposes of defiing artistic responsibility.
We have a Terms of Service to 1) create the best possible balance between individual expression and some sort of orderliness as possible with as few rules as possible, 2) outline a set of policies so that the members and mods/admins both are aware of what's "Go" and "No go", and 3) cover a handful of legal issues that need to be spelled out for the terminally clueless.
"Artistic responsibility" doesn't enter into it. Personal responsibility does: I expect members to be rational and responsible adults and to act like it in public. Members have a right to expect me to be rational and reasonably honest and straightforward in how I deal with them, even when I'm being an arsehole in the course of my job. ;]
digitalmagi wrote:
What gives the artist the right to step on someones toes on purpose.
Freedom of expression coupled with the fact that there is no inherent "Right to not be offended".
You may not find that palatable, but there ya go.
digitalmagi wrote:
When is it alright for them to go out of their way to be offensive?
Whenever they choose to, as long as they're willing to accept the inevitable consequences of their actions - ie: outraged viewers, scathing reviews, social shunning, ostracism, whatever - without whining. Or alternatively, the consequences of having to look in the mirror knowing that the fame, commissions, and accolades they recieve are the direct result of that expression.
digitalmagi wrote:
s it ok for them to be offensive just for the sake of offending and does their own ethnic/social/experience/ background give them grounds for rationalization?
Yes.
digitalmagi wrote:
and does their own ethnic/social/experience/ background give them grounds for rationalization?
Anything and everything gives someone grounds for rationalizaton if they're inclined to rationalize. May wish to rephrase that one.
Extrapolating from your original post however, "No": not if they're rationalizing that it's ok to offend because they're a minority but not ok for someone else to offend equally, which is how those discussions usually run.
And that's called "Political Correctness", not "Artistic Responsibility".
digitalmagi wrote:
i just want to know how people feel about posting offensive satire/art
I find the reactions of people to offensive satire/art vastly amusing to watch.
One of my best friends on the 'Net is Legume, who is a past master of the art of the satirical and offensive image. It's always instructive to see not Legume's imagery, but the scandalised reactions of so many other arteests who pride themselves on being "free thinking", "revolutionary", and "creative".
digitalmagi wrote:
and where they draw the line for themselves and why.
How much does the commission pay?
Am I going to offend all of the right people? [Defined as hitting the target I'm aiming at]
Is there a real wrong to be highlighted through satire there - or am I just trying to hurt people's feelings to be a dickhead?
Are people going to be "Outraged! Outraged, I say!" because it's really offensive - or merely because I'm poking their favorite sacred cow or "conventional wisdom" with a sharp stick?
[If I did a political cartoon of Abraham Lincoln wearing a Stalinist Uniform and delivering the Gettysburg Address from a podium with a Hammer and Sickle behind it to an audience of unfreed slaves in the north and the border states, is it really obscene, or am I shocking because I'm upsetting the conventional stereotype?
Would you find it shocking or irreverant?
Would you support someone who did if they demanded it be removed from public view?
Would you support them calling for a law to make it illegal to make Abe The American Stalin imagery?
Think carefully: I can back up my assertion of Lincoln as The American Stalin in this example.]
digitalmagi wrote:
So is self-responsibility enough for people to determine the effect of their creations?
Yes.
digitalmagi wrote:
Are media icons responsible for the behavior of their fans?
No.
digitalmagi wrote:
Is an artist responsible if his/her work is offensive to the viewer.
Yes and No.
Yes: they're responsible for making the choices that go into creating an offensive image: if they're not, then they're not doing it on purpose and whatever it is, it probably ain't "art". Art happens on purpose, and offense happens on purpose - without itent, it may be a faux pau, but only an embarrassing accident.
No. The viewer is responsible for his/her own reactions. AND for how they express them.
digitalmagi wrote:
Would i post that scene here? No because it violates the TOS
And that's the key there regardless of offensiveness or considerations for the viewers: No, because either I or Sharby or theImmortal or Billy-bob would yank it and slap you on the wrist via PM, and possibly ban you if you responded by reposting it or similar atifacts.
Has nuthin' to do with "artistic responsibility", it has to do with "This is private property and one behaves within the precepts of the property owners or goes elsewhere".
That interpretation is contained within the "If i am posting a bdsm scene at renderotica would i worry about offending someone?"
Obviously not, so "offense" doesn't enter very highly on your list for not posting it here - consequences do.
There would be few if any negative consequences for posting it at 'Rotica or RaunchyMinds, so wether it offended anyone is irrelevant.
digitalmagi wrote:
Keeping in mind that this country is lousy with lawsuits and that libel cases are painfully easy to prosecute.
That ain't "artistic responsibility", it's "fear of consequences".
I'd be a lot more impressed with the concept of "artistic responsibility" if it didn't seem to always boil down to "Ok, we need a good excuse to stop people from saying what we don't want them to say even if we have to use the Government to do it".
If in your original example the posting was made on a board that has terms in its ToS against those sort of statements, then it sounds like it's time for the Staff there to excercise some job responsibility and do theirs.
If it's on a private site that the poster owns, it's your responsibility to hit the [Back] button and un-ass that part of the web if it bothers you.
It's really not an "artistic responsibility" issue. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject: Re: Artistic Responsibility
digitalmagi wrote:
Recently i saw someone posted and image to an online board like this and it was a massive ethnic slur. When i called the person on their . . . idiom, they came back with a rationalization that "it's only art" and "i am not prejudice because i am (insert social minoirty of some sort here)".
Quite frankly, I don't think they needed any reason to be offensive.
Look at the result of their "offence". Discusion, understanding, exchange of ideas. This is why offensive speech should not only be permissable, but engouraged. Everyone got a better understand of each other because they talked out the offence.
Words have never actually hurt anyone. They never will. It is action that hurts, and action that should be punished.
My only tip toward accepting censorship is doing away with spam. It's not protecting free speech to allow the use of my computer, my bandwidth, and my nuerons in my brain, so you can advertise your product to me. If i haven't granted you that use of my property explicitly, it's a form of theft to take it without my permission. You've come onto my property without my permission or compensation.
Other than that. I say everything is fair.
Hell, if YOU get to decide what I can and cannot say because it offends YOU!!! I should be able to decide what YOU can and cannot say because it offends ME!!!!
You might not like that since I find religion, and any concept of manditory social responsibility offensive. By your rules, you would have to give up your right to complain about offencive speech because I find your complaining offensive.
If it's such a good idea to censor speech under those rules... show me by censoring yourself first. Lead by example.
No one EVER takes that offer.
Before you tell me to STFU, think about what I might make you STFU about in return.
When I don't like something, I ussually ignore it, unless I consider it a group ganging up an individual to impose their collective will.
Drama attracts drama, while silence attracts nothing. If I try to offend and no one responds, I'm going to get bored and move on.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Profile
Search
Memberlist
Log in to check your private messages
Usergroups
FAQ & TOS
Log in
