~~ art censorship, responsibility, things I generally don't think about.

[reenka]

I'm not sure if I believe this: "Art isn't an action," I told 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*

Comments

[lunulet.livejournal.com]

Ohshit..I don't..have time....but...AAAgh. Ok. I wish I could write something coherent in response, but I *must* go, so I'll just plop down the question that is pressing me as I've just read this.

I'm not sure you're characterizing visual artists with enough power to control suggestion. I can only speak from my own experience, and really, the kind of art I've been posting here is a narrow genre. Communication is quite simplified when you know people are looking for a narrative, and for psyche, in your drawings. So when I create a drawing that I purposefully want to elicit a sexual response, and if that is successful, then I have indeed 'acted'. And I am responsible for my intention, even if I don't successfully elicit that response.

Hm. More later.

speech as action

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

not quite on subject, but i used to do a little first amendment segment with various articles debating whether speech ever becomes action and when. so, just as food for thought: is spraypainting a swastika freedom of expression? is yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater protected under free speech? is suggesting to a group of teenagers who are already in a racist mindset that it is OK to kill blacks or jews "action"? [the last one was a very impressive L&O episode which i actually like to show, b/c it addresses a lot of these issues.]

i don't have any answers to any of the questions you raise. i'll just say that the 'children block out what they don't want/can't understand' looks a whole lot different when you are parent to a small child (as do many, many pedagogical concepts i embraced before parenthood :-) and that while i firmly believe that there is no such thing as author intention as the sole or true interpretation, we do ascribe certain meaning to a text that can be agreed upon (otherwise i could never mark an essay down for 'not getting the text'). so i think there *is* a level of intent and there *is* a level of responsibility...

part 1

[kaiz.livejournal.com]

You raise some interesting points here. And since I'm procrastinating madly and waiting for my pain meds to kick in, I though I might toss in my own two random, excessively wordy, bits on the topic. ::g::

Do I have some sort of responsibility to my viewers or readers, as an artist?

I think that perhaps your question touches on two things simultaneously.

1. Is an artist responsible for the way his/her art is received, interpreted, used?

...and...

2. Does an artist have some greater responsibility "to the community" (whatever the hell that is) to use his/her talent "wisely"? (As if there were some sort of Hippocratic Oath for artists.)

As a practical matter, for me the answer to #1 is generally "no." There is simply no way any artist--be s/he a playwright, painter, photographer, dancer, writer, or whatever--can categorically control the uses to which people will put their work, the ways in which people will interpret it, the venues/cultural contexts/time-periods in which it will be presented, and so on. Once "the work" leaves the "studio" the artist will only ever have very limited control over what happens to it.

Three contemporary examples spring to mind: 1) Alice Randall's unauthorized parody/sequel of Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With the Wind," called "The Wind Done Gone," 2) the publication of Salman Rushdie's book: "The Satanic Verses", and 3) Lewis Carroll's photo collection of young girls.

In the first case, the Mitchell estate attempted to quash the publication of Randall's book which portrayed many of Mitchell's characters (i.e. Scarlett, Rhett, and Ashley) in an unfavorable light. After a court battle, (http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/features/randall_url/) Randall's book was published. The Mitchell estate tried, and failed, to ensure that characters and situations created by Mitchell herself would not be reinterpreted except in ways specifically authorized by the estate.

In the second case, the publication of Rushdie's book (http://www.csulb.edu/~bhfinney/SalmanRushdie.html) resulted in a fatwa being issued against him in 1989, which forced the author to fear for his life and go into hiding. Eep!

In the third case, Lewis Carroll, known for "Alice In Wonderland" also took photographs of young girls. (http://florita.com/booklewi.htm) Though they weren't considered provocative in his time, these days, viewers see eroticism in the pictures and as a result have raised questions about the "real" intent behind his interest in Alice Liddell and his fondness for taking the photos.

All three of these examples illustrate how damn near impossible it is for an artist to "control" the effects that his/her creation will have once it's published. Rushdie's example also demonstrates that art can be very dangerous--to the artist! If someone finds your ideas incendiary enough, your self-expression could well get you killed (or incarcerated or harassed etc.)

I would say that, rather than a responsibility to the reader/viewer, in the context of first question, the artist has a responsibility to him/her*self*: to be as aware as possible of the potential ramifications of his/her artistic act--and to be willing to "pay the price" of the consequences that might result.

[kaiz.livejournal.com]

My second question above though, I think is a lot more slippery and problematic.

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 switchknife's recent discussion about chan fiction), 2) to take reasonable precautions--even if they seem unnecessary or like overkill (like disclaimers, registering with net-filters, password protecting archives, requiring age statements), and 3) to inform and educate ourselves, as well as readers/viewers, about the legal issues and implications surrounding what we do as artists.

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!

[kaiz.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

Re: speech as action

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

sorry, i followed this discussion to lunulet's lj and rather than spamming her yet again, i just wanted to point to this fic (http://www.livejournal.com/users/fluffyllama/34504.html?style=mine) which was recced on my flist today and is an amazing enactment of some of the issues we're talking about.

i understand that you don't want to give the author complete control or responsibility...i don't think anyone wants or argues that...but at the same time, it is not like we do not control emotional affect in our production process...can we control all of it...obviously not! but i think it is wrong to believe or assume that we lack all control whatsoever!

[boywholives.livejournal.com]

Oh. Well, I...um...thanks. A lot!

[dracolicious.livejournal.com]

Eloquent as ever, Potter.

[boywholives.livejournal.com]

Well I thought so.

[dracolicious.livejournal.com]

I'm not at all surprised. Now leave this poor girl alone, indirect harassment is unseemly.

[thallos.livejournal.com]

I'm a lurker and you don't know me at all ^^;; but i have to say it : i mostly agree with you ^^.
Censorship piss me off, me too (luckily is my country - France - less less less strict about labeling art with his assumed - by who ? - audience). And i really found strange (well, surprising at the very least) this tendency to deny those who aren't creator, like they do nothing of their own, like they are just consumers, like they don't put meanings of their own in the art (although it's even more evident in case of the graphic arts that they do it !), like they are only passive as they don't create in fact what they read or see, and like they don't choose to read or see this or that ! And then art is really a interaction, a encounter, a experimentation... not for its author, but for the others.
About the protection of underage, i reckon that this story of label (PG, PG-13, etc.) or the restricted access had no real meaning, except for preventing the parent from taking theirs responsabilities... and that it's denying the children any understanding of their own. Children make their own interpretations, their own filters that's very true ! (i remember it, i see it with my cousins). In fact, everybody has interpretation of his own which fits his culture, his level of understanding, his own experiences, his own fears, his own psyche... But parents don't want to be responsible, to take the risk, they want security : "this and this will not affect my children !" But we are affected every day every second. But they forget that living is a disease, living is experimenting and being altered and moving on. And like life, art is a experimentation which affects us.
And, especially, to find homo-erotica on the web like everywhere else, man must want to seek it, want to see it, even if somebody don't know what that will really affect him, it's a will from her/him. So he/her is responsible, not the author.
The author isn't responsible for how his art is feel by people ! If people read the resume or the lj-cut and go on, well, they choose to read/see/etc. it. They choose to experiment, they are not passive. Art is not like a apple we can accuse to have made ourself sick. Art is like the Apple of knowledge : in reading/seeing ... the reader/spectator of art take the risk of being altered by that. And the apple of knowledge just reveal what they already know or feel.
I don't know if i'm clear ^^;; and on top of all English is not my native language (so sorry for the strange turns of phrase and/or mistakes -_-), but i hope to.
That what I like in your rants, that makes me often think ^_^
And art as a virus, what a concept ! i very like it ;p

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

!!! :D !!1 :D :D
*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

[dracolicious.livejournal.com]

Your appreciation and approval are worth more than you know. In any case, it's not likely that you could successfully embarrass yourself any more than Potter manages to on a regular basis.

[boywholives.livejournal.com]

I should probably take offence at that, but I'm much more interested in getting you back in this bed...now.

[dracolicious.livejournal.com]

Well.

Re: part 1

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

hon, you're on pain meds? what's wrong??? *send lots of hugs your way*

now...about that authorial intent and control issue. i think you are totally correct to point out that authors can never *fully* control their audiences' reactions or that their intent is always easily discernible (or whether such an attempt is even desirable). But I don't think the issue is that black and white...I do believe that while noone can fully control any speech act (which might be why there are so many mind bond fics :-), but we do have intent and we usually manage to achieve some form of consensus. Not always... Sometimes more or less... But no speech act just divorces its reception from its intended meaning.

Similarly, I'd argue that there *is* a certain level of control (sometimes more; sometimes less) and that we do have certain ideas about what we want to get across...there'll always be noise and interpretative differences and the speaker's unconscious to contend with, but in the end, there *is* meaning that is intended and gets through...

To get back to higher forms of communication and your example in specific: I've seen the argument made (and it was convincing to a degree) that Rushdie should *not* have been surprised by the reception he received. Considering his intended audience (which is very clearly *not* the west (or not exclusively), b/c it's almost impossible for a westerner to fully understand satanic verses, and his level of knowledge and sensitivity of the situation, it is fairly clear that he probably knew if not intended to cause extreme and contrary reactions. I'm sure he was caught by the vehemence, but you don't put piss christ in the vatican and *not* expect outrage!

i think we need to look at the spectrum between the extreme positions of complete authorial intention and control and utter release of our productions...

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Y'know, for someone so well-versed in mockery, you're remarkably good at flattery >:D

*♥ you both from afar but in a platonic way ^^;* :>

[dracolicious.livejournal.com]

You're a clever girl, surely you understand the reason for such things.

Platonic, indeed.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

...biting the hand that feeds you?
...covering all your bases?
...acting alluringly unpredictable?
...contrariness?? :>

Also, I'm all about the pure vicariouslove. Like a nun of gaypornwriting er... love. Yeah. :D

[psychobarfly.livejournal.com]

You know, I think he likes you. It must have been that sly bit about the homoerotic pornography, yes'm. :-?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think I like him back :> It must have been all those gratuitous bits of actual gay porn :D :D :D
...But no, it's just his irresistible suave nature; that & me being easy >:D

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think I can buy that, because fanart -is- so inscribed with premade context. You can say that it will only be -seen- as fanart by a certain audience (some people see a fuzzy-brown-haired girl and don't necessarily think, "Hermione!"), and that audience is then primed to interpret everything in a certain way. So yes. That said, this relates to the "compatibility" aspect of the virus metaphor-- because the audience is primed, that means they -want- it and -expect- it in the first place, y'know? If they weren't fans and on the look-out for that exact thing, they wouldn't perceive the same exact thing~:)

Like, what is responsibility? Is it merely owning up to the fact that "yes, this is what I meant", or does it also mean "therefore I have to do X"? Why does it follow that drawing erotica means you have to protect the viewer, just because you meant it to be erotica, beyond the sheer legal aspect, if you agree that the viewer -wants- to perceive that fanart in that certain way? I dunno. I do know what you're saying, but I think it's more of a mutual willingness to share a vision than the artist showing the viewer something against their will.

Still, in so far as defining it an action in that context, I do think it makes sense~:))

[bekkle.livejournal.com]

You are a very cool person, and by cool I mean intelligent. I wish I could write stuff like this in my journal, but I'm too scared of what my real-life-friends will think.

anyway, i agree with most of this stuff-- especially the fact that we shoudn't censor stuff just for children. I mean, in 4th grade I went to Washington DC and went to an art museum, and there was this HUGE painting of a naked, falt, bald guy with on leg up on the side of his bed and his penis just kind of hanging out. While I was sort of embarassed in front of my parents, I wasn't corrupted... it wasn't as if I hadn't known what it was before.

If anything, it's kind of like we're keeping knowledge from children, keeping them from maturing more quickly. While I would like to still be a happy little girl ignorant of the world's problems, it's kind of their right for the knowledge (.. and by knowledge i guess i mean dirty language/drawings and other taboo things) to be accessible, and I find it hard to find any good point in censorship.

those thoughts had no point or direction, but there you go.