Question #1: Does an artist have the right to express him or herself freely regardless of causing offense to others?
Question #2: Does an artist with said offensive material have the right to bombard anyone with that freedom on a repetitive basis?
Question #3: What is “Art” and what is “Offensive”?
The answers you have for those questions and the answers I or any other person may have is where the conflict lies. For what is offensive to one is not always going to elicit the same reaction from others.
If “Art” is in the eye of the beholder, then so too is “Offense” and an artist's expression regardless of their own personal beliefs cannot be truly “Art” if the majority of others find it offensive.
Recently the issue of decency vs. offensive has come up in the bluegrass world, first on a song about bicycle chains and now in a video about bluegrass twerking.
In this world of political correctness, which has collided head on with the world of apathy, we have created an “anything goes” attitude which just gives license to anyone with indecent or immoral expressions to run amok.
What happened to the world of “Public Decency”? What happened to the world of courteous people who would attempt to avoid offending others and saved their “Freedom of Expression” rights for appropriate times and places?
Awhile back I became offended enough to react. The offense began three weeks earlier, and, like many, I chose to ignore it. But I was bombarded with the same offense week after week until I'd finally had enough.
The radio world is served by a company that offers music downloads for airplay. That company serves some 8000 radio stations worldwide with the widest variety of musical genres anyone could ever want. Basically, if it's recorded and the artist wants to pay for the privilege, they'll send that artist's music to every station on their world-wide list in hopes of getting more airplay.
So this particular company is not the party creating the offense, but they do own a portion of it simply by the fact that they are allowing it to be a part of what they promote – just the same as if your favorite hamburger joint plastered something of a profane nature from their meat supplier all over their showcase window. They're not the meat company, but by placing it in their window, they've caused the offense to spread to their own customer base. There has to be some ownership in their actions doesn't there?
In my case, where the music distribution company extended the offense by not censoring the image, they gave the defense that it really is up to the artist and the label and not they (the company) to decide what is offensive or what is acceptable. However, they're not alone in the world of music distribution and research showed that almost every other site where this particular artist's music was available, the offensive image had been masked with an appropriate placement of promotional text.
It's obvious that the companies who chose to cover up the offensive image felt that even though they were only third party contributors, they did have some responsibility to protect their own image and reputation. My hat goes off to those companies. I wish more in this world would follow suit and allow us all to get back to a comfortable place.
So can we answer the question? Does an artist have the right to express him or herself freely regardless of causing offense to others? The answer seems to be “yes” as long as that which is offensive is allowed to continue. We, the consumers have said so. Like one of my disc jockey friends likes to say over and over, “we vote with our pocketbooks.” So, as long as the offensive product is making money we can expect to see a lot more of it. Isn't that a sad commentary?
Hi Brian,
ReplyDeleteAs a life-long educator I observed the highs and lows of pedagogy. I predicted the type of children that my students, as adult parents, might have. Later, teaching the children of my students, I found my predictions had pretty much come true. Today our society pretty much has inherited the shortcomings in attitude that are a result of not knowing and raising our children with acceptable morality and social responsibility. It also is unfortunately apparent that those who do the least demand the most, and expend their energy in criticism of what they've helped create, mostly by not getting involved. In the case of young artists who get attention by assaulting our sensibilities to gain recognition, most do not know where the line to be drawn, lies. The fact that, in parenting, the time and effort needed to guide children is too much effort for them to undertake, and they raise offspring that later are as more trouble than their apparent worth to the family. It's easier, at that point, to immerse themselves into their own pleasures, and give the kids a pocketful of bucks to spend at the local mall, their new foster parent. This gives each generation less for guideposts and boundaries than the one before them, and leads to generational separation and isolation. The picture isn't pretty, and there's not much that's going to change the amorality of society on immorality. Anything then, such as media, should use all the effort at their disposal to combat the breakdown of public decency. Again, unfortunately, capitalism rears its ugly head, and fortune reigns supreme over taste and morality. Since the arts and artists exhibit little knowledge of where the line for public exposure and consumption lies, the first and last line of defense lies with media. This is where courage and decency takes its toll, on the stalwart few who will refuse to participate in letting material that lies clearly in the offensive boundaries, be broadcast. However, they should be, and mostly are, aware of the personal costs that ensue, and usually are no longer in a position to make those decisions. Their replacement will not follow in suit, but will abide by the philosophy of the organization that promotes such trash. Therein lies the conundrum: what to leave in, what to leave alone! I wish the picture were brighter but it does not look as if it will change. It will, in one respect, it'll continue to steadily progress in the direction of "shock and awe." Stay the course as best as you can without losing the ship.
Regards,
Alton "Bear" Acker
"I'll Whip You With an Old Bicycle Chain" may be suitable to the crowd tho frequent redneck bars and KKK meetings, his decision to include it in the set list for his performance at family-oriented Lowell Folk Festival only goes to reinforce he is callous and unenlightened. I called the song and performance out in my blog 8/7/13, read "The Lowell Folk Festival is no Place for a Song Making Light of Domestic Violence." Read http://notlobmusic.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-lowell-folk-festival-is-no-place.html
ReplyDelete