![[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
*dies*
Hee! I think it's best if I don't say much of anything, since I'd just embarrass myself, but yes. You two kill me. In a good way >:D
<3
no subject
Date: 2003-12-10 05:47 pm (UTC)no subject
no subject
no subject
*♥ you both from afar but in a platonic way ^^;* :>
no subject
Date: 2003-12-10 11:40 pm (UTC)Platonic, indeed.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-11 01:31 am (UTC)...covering all your bases?
...acting alluringly unpredictable?
...contrariness?? :>
Also, I'm all about the pure
vicariouslove. Like a nun ofgaypornwritinger... love. Yeah. :Dno subject
Date: 2003-12-11 01:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-11 04:29 pm (UTC)...But no, it's just his irresistible suave nature; that & me being easy >:D