"Pop had a new purpose: to make out of pleasure a politics of optimism, to turn passive consumption into an active culture. Such ambition derived from the Beatles' authority as superstars- not just skilled pop musicians but skilled pop artists, self-conscious, calculating their entertaining effects"("Rock and the Politics of Memory", 60).
(image is taken from Google Images)
While reading this, I immediately thought of a comment I've heard made by Quentin Tarantino, director of such movies such as Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds. When criticized for the violence in his movies, he responded by saying, "What if a kid goes to school after seeing Kill Bill and starts slicing up other kids? You know, I'll take that chance! Violent films don't turn children into violent people. They may turn them into violent filmmakers but that's another matter altogether"(IMDB).
Do artists have (or should they have) an obligation to be aware of what they are injecting into the mainstream culture and the impact of their art? Or is it our responsibility as the audience to consume media with our discretion?
Artists do not have an obligation for the content of their music and how it affects culture. It is up to consumers to judge whether or not a piece of art is appropriate. Censorship is against a fundamental belief of the nation. Just because you think that something is obscene or morally wrong, does not mean that it holds no worthwhile place in society. Sometimes artists even become more obscene and controversial in spite of those attempting to censor them.
ReplyDeleteI never even thought of censorship- cool of you to bring it up. I guess what was brewing around in my brain was the perspective of the artist- as in if they ponder the effect of their creation on people's souls. Or if this thought even goes through their head? It seemed to me from the article that the Beatles certainly thought about this and were aware of their power as artists. Tarantino is brilliant but acts more like a child alone on a playground- no rules, no boundaries, and no care in the world; he just wants to have a good time.
ReplyDeleteI think it's really interesting that you referenced Kill Bill and how it's violence has an effect or not on our society. My dad has a theory about the two Kill Bill movies, well actually he is convinced its true, that the two movies combined are the most accurate commentary on how our society is in the present. I'm not saying I agree with him, it is in my opinion a stretch, but it is interesting to ponder.
ReplyDeleteThere is a very interesting article that just came out in the Daily Bruin yesterday that I suggest you all check out. It discusses recent censorship in middle/high schools, mainly referring to a recent edition of Huckleberry Finn that censors the word "nigger" because teachers are too uncomfortable having students read a novel that uses this word over 200 times. However, Twain would not have considered this impact during the time in which he wrote the novel. The question is to whether this word is offensive and outdated or if keeping the word gives students a historical perspective of when the novel takes place.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, its a difficult question and truthfully censorship can potentially do a lot more harm than good.
Oh yea, I saw Quentin Tarantino walkiing his dog in Hollywood which was pretty cool!
I loveeeeee Quentin Tarantino!
ReplyDeleteI definitely think the extremities of art are apart of art and without this element we'd just be bored with the concept all together. I disagree with groups like the FCC. I think that it's up to the parents of children to decide what to censor in their child's life. I mean, I may be wrong but how many five-year-olds saw Deathproof then decided to get in a dangerous sports car and kill young women with it. That's just unrealistic fear made-up by parents who look to blame a screwed up kid on anything but themselves. Plus, if Tarantino EVER decided to tone it down, I'd be incredibly displeased. Let's not go through that route.
can i say both? because i mean, really, i don't think artists shouldn't have complete freedom. As a performer, you have the power to impress and influence (obviously) and since we're all quoting movies and whatnot "With great power comes great responsibility". And so they should be held accountable, out of morality or simply to be considerate of others. i think on your own time, nothing can stop you from exercising free will. but as long as you have the power to project your style or beliefs on someone else, you'd better have a strong good reason. If you're bein a fool to be a fool, you bein dumb. On that note, i permit artistic license based on his or her sincerity (not stage sincerity, but the real stuff)
ReplyDeleteAt my high school we read Huck Finn as part of our junior year curriculum and the notion of censorship was brought up multiple times. We concluded our month long debate on the issue with there must be context given to the students while reading the book as Twain was writing with reference to a specific time period and wrote accordingly so to take words out of the famous text would be inappropriate. To Twain as well as to the history of the United States. We also noted that the novel could serve as a social commentary and should therefore be taken as it was written without censorship. Twain didn't think about the impact this would have on society as there was nothing all too shocking censorship wise about it when it was published. I think the divide of where the writer is and where mainstream America is, is where the "impact" from an artist's work comes from as a writer can delve into issues with a prankster group from California that a Midwestern housewife can't explore herself. But to said housewife, these stories could be jarring as that's not anything close to her life. But in the context of Haight-Ashbury, these stories may not be all too different as what was going on for people at the time. Writers usually write what they know or how they feel about something, which in turn is different than how others feel about things. The different views are what make art interesting and not always the same thing reproduced so an effect made by a piece of work by an artist is a good thing. Even if it makes you question everything the artist brings forward and even offends you as it gets you to think as to why you were offended.
ReplyDelete