![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaI'm not sure if I believe this: "Art isn't an action," I told ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lunulet in regards to her post saying she feels cast in the dominant position when people view her Harry/Snape chan fanart (with a sub Harry). It's a very novel concept for me, participating directly with one's audience this way. When I make something, I go through a period of incubation, a period of angst and semi-painful separation, and then it's gone-- we're two different entities, the piece and I. Whatever happens through it, to it or because of it may please me or upset me, but ultimately I don't feel responsible for it.
Do I have some sort of responsibility to my viewers or readers, as an artist?
I've seen this question raised often enough, and I've always brushed it off. It's ridiculous, really: how can I ever control people's possible reactions and potential actions, and why would I want to? When this question is raised in regards to children, it doesn't make it any easier for me. And I'm talking about personal ethics here, not whatever stupid arbitrary laws some particular country feels like erecting. I'm a law-abiding citizen as far as that goes, but it's not because I actually -believe- in "the law". Mostly, the law is general common sense, and when it isn't, I can't be bothered to care more than half the time, so.
I will come out and say, however, that I don't believe in the concept of protecting children from ideas or from any sort of imagery whatsoever. Children have their own filtering methods-- generally consisting of simply ignoring or misinterpreting what bothers/boggles them-- and they also have parents and peers to give them necessary context. I am who I am and I do what I do-- I cannot possibly worry about all possible effects my very existence may have on some Puerto Rican boy 2 years from now who's got homophobic tendencies or something. Like, whatever, man.
Covering one's ass is understandable-- but honestly believing there's something worthy of hiding in erotic art or any other sort of art is another thing entirely. I may be interpreted as doing something by drawing a bloodied headless chicken pecking Draco's eyeballs out, for instance. I may be seen as wanting to squick people, or being a whore for shock value, or simply being insane. If I draw purple flowers waving gently on the breeze, a whole different set of possible conclusions may be drawn. The thing is, I can't possibly be responsible for any of those conclusions.
Art is both self-expression and communication, yes. But it's not necessarily -conscious- communication, and it's not necessarily -directed- at anyone-- and of course, sometimes it is. How can one account for all these instances?
Some people seem to imply that erotic art is implicitly directed at a "mature audience", sort of like an aeronautics textbook is directed at engineers. I was going to say "like a children's book is directed at children", but clearly that's a whole 'nother can of worms. I don't think the creator's intent always matters-- or possibly, ever matters. If some other audience feels drawn to it, it will appropriate it (witness the HP books for a great example)-- and its original audience will be helpless to do anything whatsoever, and likewise the creator.
Personally, much as I talk about the "right audience", I don't really have any clue what the individuals in that audience would possibly have in common except possibly intelligence. What I'm basically saying is, audiences are self-selecting. The author can't dictate who'll like their stuff, and the fringe elements of an audience can't dislodge the main body or vice versa. There's a very real sense, it seems to me, in which art simply cannot be possessed, and that's the end of the story. You can't ever fully control it, and that's what makes it so powerful. To me, therefore, it's folly to try (though clearly, such power is frightening to those whose domain it threatens and so they'll keep fighting it).
It may seem pompous to ever compare revolutionary art with erotica, but by separating the two, it seems that more harm than good can be accomplished. In the end, all art is revolutionary, at least in potential. It has the power to intrigue, to seduce, to change, to frighten, disturb, enthrall, amaze, inspire, and fill with utter despair. How could you really control all that? Why would you want to? How could you predict which of these endless reactions any particular person will experience? And why is it the artist's responsibility if the reaction is a negative one? What would it mean for art if the only permissible art for "the impressionable sort" (i.e., children) had to be "safe" art, art which can be predicted and suitably used by society?
And if you're about to say I'm comparing apples and oranges by talking about "real" art and fanart, I would ask you to think about what the consequences would be of such segregation. Once you start classifying and labeling, where does it stop? When does it stop being self-expression and start being indoctrination?
I'm not about to go into the difference (or lack thereof) between "original" and "derivative" (i.e., fanwork). Suffice it to say, I think there's a practical difference, yes, but not a theoretical one in terms of the creative process. The "for fun" vs. "for real" distinction (i.e., "but fanfiction is just not serious, it's just fanfic") is simply ludicrous because art is play even if you have someone pay you, just like hockey is play even in the national leagues. Which is to say-- it's never serious and always serious-- and to me, this paradox seems central to understanding the matter.
I think the issue of artist's responsibility is related, in a way, to whether you see the arts as teachings. The teacher has responsibility to the student to... what? Well, I think they have a responsibility to encourage the student to think for themselves, to ask questions, to improve their facility at what they excel at and what they struggle with, both. The responsibility of the teacher as I see it is not to lie and not to mislead about the extent or origin of the knowledge being offered, and not to stifle the student's initiative but to encourage rigor in thinking and follow-through.
Art is much more oblique than this-- it's not purely an arrow-like communication, like teacher---->student is. The student may teach the teacher, of course, but that would be incidental and always subordinate to the main dynamic, which is one-way. With art, there -is- no such one-way dynamic, so the issue of responsibility is simply moot. Who is teaching whom, and how? How to definitively always pin down what is being said, and how to distinguish that from what is being inferred and what is being projected and what is being seen in context?? How could you be certain enough of your "message" being seen in some consistent way enough to assign responsibility to yourself as the artist?
Besides all of which, and perhaps most importantly, censorship in any way, shape or form pisses me right the fuck off. In the end, art has to be free because otherwise I feel like I can't breathe, like the walls are closing in. My imagination is my freedom, and I cannot-- simply cannot but also will not-- be tied to my theoretical audience. Maybe some 12-year-old boy will see something naughty I one day draw/write and get a boner-- or maybe he'll want to throw up, right. So what?? This is in context of -his- particular life & circumstances, and it's just one drop in the buckets upon buckets of information everyone processes every day. By treating children like mindless machines to be programmed recklessly by unthinking grown-ups, we're doing us all a disservice.
And by all means, disagree with me wildly-- that is your right and I will fight for it myself. But try to censor me and I will protest for as long as I have breath left in me.
So no, art isn't an action, if only because it cannot be fully defined. It is both a verb and a noun and an adjective-- art is creative & creation & created. It has a different sort of life in different contexts within different people. Art is a virus, perhaps, and the creator is simply the original carrier. Does that make us responsible? No, because transmission depends on compatibility~:) Nifty how that works, isn't it :>
~~
Needless to say, I am avoiding finals-and-things like a mofo, therefore this ramble. I've gotten to the point where I have a good working knowledge of the actual timeline behinddracolicious & boywholives, which is just sad... and... sad. Apparently, I have this nasty case of addiction to H/D RPGs. Not all, but some, and oohhhh when they get me, they get me good. But anyway, er. Wanted to fangirl, slightly, heeee. <3333333, etcetc. I can never get tired of a good soap opera, man. So sad. But you guys are So Good! Squeeeeee!! >:D *melts*
lunulet in regards to her post saying she feels cast in the dominant position when people view her Harry/Snape chan fanart (with a sub Harry). It's a very novel concept for me, participating directly with one's audience this way. When I make something, I go through a period of incubation, a period of angst and semi-painful separation, and then it's gone-- we're two different entities, the piece and I. Whatever happens through it, to it or because of it may please me or upset me, but ultimately I don't feel responsible for it.Do I have some sort of responsibility to my viewers or readers, as an artist?
I've seen this question raised often enough, and I've always brushed it off. It's ridiculous, really: how can I ever control people's possible reactions and potential actions, and why would I want to? When this question is raised in regards to children, it doesn't make it any easier for me. And I'm talking about personal ethics here, not whatever stupid arbitrary laws some particular country feels like erecting. I'm a law-abiding citizen as far as that goes, but it's not because I actually -believe- in "the law". Mostly, the law is general common sense, and when it isn't, I can't be bothered to care more than half the time, so.
I will come out and say, however, that I don't believe in the concept of protecting children from ideas or from any sort of imagery whatsoever. Children have their own filtering methods-- generally consisting of simply ignoring or misinterpreting what bothers/boggles them-- and they also have parents and peers to give them necessary context. I am who I am and I do what I do-- I cannot possibly worry about all possible effects my very existence may have on some Puerto Rican boy 2 years from now who's got homophobic tendencies or something. Like, whatever, man.
Covering one's ass is understandable-- but honestly believing there's something worthy of hiding in erotic art or any other sort of art is another thing entirely. I may be interpreted as doing something by drawing a bloodied headless chicken pecking Draco's eyeballs out, for instance. I may be seen as wanting to squick people, or being a whore for shock value, or simply being insane. If I draw purple flowers waving gently on the breeze, a whole different set of possible conclusions may be drawn. The thing is, I can't possibly be responsible for any of those conclusions.
Art is both self-expression and communication, yes. But it's not necessarily -conscious- communication, and it's not necessarily -directed- at anyone-- and of course, sometimes it is. How can one account for all these instances?
Some people seem to imply that erotic art is implicitly directed at a "mature audience", sort of like an aeronautics textbook is directed at engineers. I was going to say "like a children's book is directed at children", but clearly that's a whole 'nother can of worms. I don't think the creator's intent always matters-- or possibly, ever matters. If some other audience feels drawn to it, it will appropriate it (witness the HP books for a great example)-- and its original audience will be helpless to do anything whatsoever, and likewise the creator.
Personally, much as I talk about the "right audience", I don't really have any clue what the individuals in that audience would possibly have in common except possibly intelligence. What I'm basically saying is, audiences are self-selecting. The author can't dictate who'll like their stuff, and the fringe elements of an audience can't dislodge the main body or vice versa. There's a very real sense, it seems to me, in which art simply cannot be possessed, and that's the end of the story. You can't ever fully control it, and that's what makes it so powerful. To me, therefore, it's folly to try (though clearly, such power is frightening to those whose domain it threatens and so they'll keep fighting it).
It may seem pompous to ever compare revolutionary art with erotica, but by separating the two, it seems that more harm than good can be accomplished. In the end, all art is revolutionary, at least in potential. It has the power to intrigue, to seduce, to change, to frighten, disturb, enthrall, amaze, inspire, and fill with utter despair. How could you really control all that? Why would you want to? How could you predict which of these endless reactions any particular person will experience? And why is it the artist's responsibility if the reaction is a negative one? What would it mean for art if the only permissible art for "the impressionable sort" (i.e., children) had to be "safe" art, art which can be predicted and suitably used by society?
And if you're about to say I'm comparing apples and oranges by talking about "real" art and fanart, I would ask you to think about what the consequences would be of such segregation. Once you start classifying and labeling, where does it stop? When does it stop being self-expression and start being indoctrination?
I'm not about to go into the difference (or lack thereof) between "original" and "derivative" (i.e., fanwork). Suffice it to say, I think there's a practical difference, yes, but not a theoretical one in terms of the creative process. The "for fun" vs. "for real" distinction (i.e., "but fanfiction is just not serious, it's just fanfic") is simply ludicrous because art is play even if you have someone pay you, just like hockey is play even in the national leagues. Which is to say-- it's never serious and always serious-- and to me, this paradox seems central to understanding the matter.
I think the issue of artist's responsibility is related, in a way, to whether you see the arts as teachings. The teacher has responsibility to the student to... what? Well, I think they have a responsibility to encourage the student to think for themselves, to ask questions, to improve their facility at what they excel at and what they struggle with, both. The responsibility of the teacher as I see it is not to lie and not to mislead about the extent or origin of the knowledge being offered, and not to stifle the student's initiative but to encourage rigor in thinking and follow-through.
Art is much more oblique than this-- it's not purely an arrow-like communication, like teacher---->student is. The student may teach the teacher, of course, but that would be incidental and always subordinate to the main dynamic, which is one-way. With art, there -is- no such one-way dynamic, so the issue of responsibility is simply moot. Who is teaching whom, and how? How to definitively always pin down what is being said, and how to distinguish that from what is being inferred and what is being projected and what is being seen in context?? How could you be certain enough of your "message" being seen in some consistent way enough to assign responsibility to yourself as the artist?
Besides all of which, and perhaps most importantly, censorship in any way, shape or form pisses me right the fuck off. In the end, art has to be free because otherwise I feel like I can't breathe, like the walls are closing in. My imagination is my freedom, and I cannot-- simply cannot but also will not-- be tied to my theoretical audience. Maybe some 12-year-old boy will see something naughty I one day draw/write and get a boner-- or maybe he'll want to throw up, right. So what?? This is in context of -his- particular life & circumstances, and it's just one drop in the buckets upon buckets of information everyone processes every day. By treating children like mindless machines to be programmed recklessly by unthinking grown-ups, we're doing us all a disservice.
And by all means, disagree with me wildly-- that is your right and I will fight for it myself. But try to censor me and I will protest for as long as I have breath left in me.
So no, art isn't an action, if only because it cannot be fully defined. It is both a verb and a noun and an adjective-- art is creative & creation & created. It has a different sort of life in different contexts within different people. Art is a virus, perhaps, and the creator is simply the original carrier. Does that make us responsible? No, because transmission depends on compatibility~:) Nifty how that works, isn't it :>
~~
Needless to say, I am avoiding finals-and-things like a mofo, therefore this ramble. I've gotten to the point where I have a good working knowledge of the actual timeline behind
dracolicious & boywholives, which is just sad... and... sad. Apparently, I have this nasty case of addiction to H/D RPGs. Not all, but some, and oohhhh when they get me, they get me good. But anyway, er. Wanted to fangirl, slightly, heeee. <3333333, etcetc. I can never get tired of a good soap opera, man. So sad. But you guys are So Good! Squeeeeee!! >:D *melts*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-12-10 04:38 pm (UTC)Sure, no artist wants to have to censor him/herself. Art/speech should ever be free, and all that. However...
The art itself might not be an action (I could go either way with this), but publishing it certainly is. If you publish, you may well have to own up to the consequences that result--either the consequences to you, or to others. Thinking here of publishing names/addresses of doctors who perform abortions, or of publishing articles that "out" closeted gays/lesbians/transgendered people, etc.
Narrowing the scope a bit here, as fan-artists, I believe that we *do* have some responsibilities towards other members of our fan-community.
What we do--even if our work could be considered "safe" for "the general public"--is widely considered to be: 1) quasi-legal, and 2) morally/ethically ambiguous or dubious. The fact that many of us either hide, or are forced to hide our "hobby" from our friends, families, co-workers, etc. says *something* about our community awareness that what we do as fanfic writers and artists and zine publishers and archivists and song-vidders would *not* be seen as morally pure as the driven snow in many contexts that matter to our lives and livelihoods.
Given that, I do feel that we have responsibilities towards our fellow community members to, among other things: 1) think about and discuss the possible consequences of our actions (like
I agree, in an academic way, that censorship sucks. But there *are* real life implications of what any artist does--assuming they don't hide their stuff away in a box under the bed. ::g:: We owe it to ourselves as artists, and in a fan context, to our fellow artists, to be as aware as possible of those implications. And to take action--yes, by censoring ourselves or doing the best we can with the technology we have at our disposal to a) shield ourselves and our fellow artists from possible litigation/reprisals and b) to ensure that our works reach the audiences we want in the *context* that we want it to be delivered.
finally, part 3. sorry, got wordy!
Date: 2003-12-10 04:38 pm (UTC)Although my knee-jerk response here is, "Word!" I honestly believe that that response is short-sighted.
The fact that one kid is capable of filtering out, or even grokking adult-oriented material doesn't mean that all children are capable of this *or* that the material doesn't have an effect on those kids. There are plenty of studies that examine the effect that violence and sex in TV, movies, and video games--and there *are* effects. Whether they're as exaggerated as some groups would like to make out is debatable. But, like it or not, there are good pedagogical and child-development reasons why educators (and other folks) have to concern themselves with age-appropriate instruction.
As a childfree adult, I would love to be able to just pitch this problem back into the laps of parents. Why should I have to worry about kids in "my space"? Why should parents just assume that the internet is a "safe place" for kids? I should be able to write/draw what I want and post it where I want. Their parents should be watching them, damnit! ::g::
But, the fact of the matter is...in many cases, I am *legally* required to worry about what these kids--be they precocious, clueless, curious, or whatever--get up to with my stuff. And then too, I feel that I also have a moral obligation to worry about what kids might do with my art--in much the way that I care about the quality of schools in my city and I care about what those kids get taught as part of their daily curriculum. I'm not talking about some misty-eyed "it takes a village to raise a child" sentiment here. I'm talking about the fact that the kids who read/view our stuff *are* affected by it, are shaped by it, and that those effects--good or ill--will help shape the society that we have to live in.
So yeah, I hear you when you say this: By treating children like mindless machines to be programmed recklessly by unthinking grown-ups, we're doing us all a disservice. But kids aren't miniature adults either. And it seems like a shrewd idea to err on the side of caution when it comes to deliberately exposing random kids (whose capabilities you don't know) to art that even adults may find objectionable.