likemee

"What, if any, is visual art’s responsibility to society?"

any thoughts?

sheftali52

I'm surprised no one has commented on this. I've thought about it a bit, and of course there is no single answer. Visual art is a reflection of the creator's mind, and certainly may not appeal to everyone, or to anyone. As for "responsibility to society", that has me a tad stumped. If one lives in society, and not in a vacuum, some art has a tendency to inflame, and therefore the artist might consider how his/her art affects those in that society. I suspect most folks would not approve of a picture of a child being sawed in half, for example, and would wonder why an artist would create such an image. Oh likemee, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Login

Mmm ... my immediate response was 'don't know' ... but I think, here on TD, we have a responsibility not to offend the community, so I would carry that through to society ... the same would apply in any public place.

Obviously, any artist wants their work to catch the attention of others but to do that by shocking or offending is another matter. There have been shocking images (paintings and/ or photographs) created to call society's attention to things that are wrong and require change. That's reasonable, but when it's carried over into recreational art, I think the line has been crossed.

Qsilv

(quiet smile) Hi there, likemee... intriguing question, and it certainly sounds like you meant it way more broadly than just within the context of our TD "garden party" so it's a bit of an honor to us that you'd pose it here.

My take is similar to Login and sheftali's... with my usual nudge toward personal responsibility in all things.

The way I interpret that personal responsibility stuff is a double bind; I can't get away with saying that someone else caused me to feel a certain way... NOR can I get away with saying "Oh they just let it upset them, not my fault"...so I wind up responsible for my own feelings AND for theirs. Welcome to the world of grown-up.

Visual art is a tool...

We are the makers of it. WE have (or lack or shirk or refute) responsibility.

Sometimes we mean our "art" as just a private outpouring or investigation, rather (sorry, folks) masturbatory. Whenever we make it public, we become responsible for the effect it may have on those we can reasonably expect to view it... now and later.

AND the spin-off... to the extent that it's at all predictable with a bit of serious thought.

(We do think about what we're going to wear before we go outside our homes, don't we.)

The problem lies in determining who that audience is.

Children? People of various sensitivities? People of limited perspective and/or experience?

It'd be lovely if the audience also would take some responsibility/forbearance for how reactive they allow themselves to get... and to take into account the abilities and intent of the artist.... but good luck with that...

Obviously, most people are mostly reactive most of the time... ;>



(and now I am sooo itching to see Normal's and Dragon's and Marius' and... and... a whole bunch more comments!)

clorophilla

Intriguing question...
I don't know if it's because of my not-motherlanguage English, or bc of my right-brain thought, but I understood this question very differently, in a wider way.

It seems to me a very deep reflection about ethical and estethic matters.

As I see art as a bridge that connects the very soul of a person with the very soul of all the silgle persons that look at it, then ethic and esthetic are necessary involved.

But as everyone has it own ethic and esthetic, How the whole thing could work? How could we talk about responsibility? If the evocative power of art make a feeling surface, is the artist responsible of this, or is the observer instead?

May be art is exactly this, a tool for bypass this paradox and make the connection between different souls. If it is so, then the responsibility of the artist toward society could be only this: honestly express him/herself, building a solid bridge of coherence to create connection.

OK, I swear, I did not smoke or drank anything, except 2 inches of red wine Just feel myself a bit twilightish and gloomy ruminating...

Dragon

clorophilla you are a beautiful soul and gave this question another twist I hadn't thought of. Love the idea of art being a bridge between people to communicate by.

I do think that if art is being presented to the public the artist has a reponsiblilty to think of the society it is being put out into. Yes some art is inflamatory, the real kicker (as someone else mentioned) is the question of whether it's inflamatory for a reason, like bringing attention to an issue that the artist feels is being ignored, or if it is inflamatory simply for the sake of gaining attention and getting famous off of being shocking. I think we've all seen (even here on this wonderful site) art that is put out there just to be gross or dirty or insulting so that the artist can gain a little recognition. Those type of people seem to seek out attention at any cost and don't care whether it's the negative variety or not.
We've also seen art that may be disturbing but is presented with the intention of informing it's audience. I can't recall who did a portrait of Hitler as a boy not to long ago, but I thought it showed a lot of courage to put that out there knowing that so many people are horrified by him. The notion of showing him as a child was compelling. It makes one need to consider that no matter how 'evil' he became he started out as an innocent just as we all do.
I've gotten off topic. Yes I do think that artists have a resposiblity to society, but I also think society has a responsibilty to try to view art as the artist intended. That society should get over itself and try to see what's being put out there without making kneejerk reactions.

clorophilla

thank you Dragon, the Hitler's portrait was mine! And I do felt disconfort when drawing too... but felt compelled to do, bc I want to show exactly the comcept you explained so well here. We all are born to love, not to hate; evil is just disconnection from love.

Yes, I know that some art is just provocatory with the aim to catch the attention... it's very sad to think those people that don't know the good of their very self and so thinks that only their bad can worth to be considered... Anyway, of course, they are responsible to do it; each one has a choise and is responsible of his/her acts.

And society is also responsible to stigmatize and discourage those behaviors not paying attention to them.

Login

Likemee, reconsidering your question, visual art can be very useful when recording history, whether it involves good or bad events. Visual records of this months tragic events, all round the world, may be shocking and unpleasant to watch but the fact that we've seen these events make a far greater impression on us than simply writing "... vast areas of flooding in Australia" "... land slides in Brazil" "... riots in Haiti." I don't need to list them all ... we're all aware of recent horrors. Visual images often shock us into sitting up and taking notice. Those shocking images stay with us far longer than if we heard them on the radio or read about them in the newspapers. It's far more difficult to put such images out of our minds and do nothing to help.

likemee

interesting... so do you think that artists have a responsibility to represent events in a way that a potentially biased media does not?

hanging

This is very interesting subject and I've enjoyed what people are thinking about that.

Many thing what I was thinking were said above... but I'm surprised that I still want to write something here... (with my broken English!)

My answer, at first, is yes, visual art has responsibility. But it's nothing special, just like human-being. Like 'how does my talk effect the others?' or 'what to wear today?' as Q mentioned. And it's not only for visual art, but for all other art forms.

And regarding audience, it will be nice if we could expect their responsibility, but nay, again, just like ordinary society in our lives.

However, each art form has its speciality.
And that needs to be considered responsibly as human by artists including visual artists.
Let's say there is a nudity. If you, as a visual artist, succeed to show what behind instead of only being inflammatory, it becomes an art.
(If not, I would call them 'commercials.' But also, there are so many arts in commercial fields, to clarify...)
ThinkDraw is great because we can see the PB and easier to understand the drawers' thoughts like performing arts, which can have supplements before or after to prompt audience's understandings.
But if the audience can't see the PB, or even on TD, many people might not see the PB as you know, you need to use your full imagination how the work would effect the audience, and make the judgement as a human-being.

I believe that artists do not have a responsibility to represent anything... to answer the last question from likemee.
(I enjoy representations of those events though.)

five

Some professions/endeavors, like engineering, have an added obligation of diligence and competence (and safety). Not sure how one would access such a responsibility in the realm of art.

I would say the artist's responsibility is integrity, and the obligation of visual art as an institution is openness.

With reporting/documentary (e.g., the "news"), the obligation ought to be to strive purposefully for neutrality in reporting/recording facts, while acknowledging underlying bias/es of the reporter/s. Because reporting/"documentary" purports to be neutral. That's not really "art" though, as "art" tends to expect an "artistic voice" -- a point of view.

The intent of the artist often is to persuade. "Art" competes as a manifestation of an idea. The obligation of the artist to society is/are the same one/s as individual/s has/have in society and in a debate/discourse.

If you have the gift/skill/power of communication and persuasiveness, to what end should you direct it and by what means?

In general, while it may sound appealing to say artists should not inflame without the intent to inform or reveal an underlying "truth", when one is offended or disagrees with or disregards the "truth" being revealed, it's all too easy to overlook the intent or assume the intent was only to inflame or shock. Also, the underlying "truth" propaganized itself could be horribly wrong and twisted.

marg

Hiya Mike and everyone else..

I only saw this today and thought it was interesting - although my immediate reaction was ' hey, no responsibilities'.

Thinking about it, I turned the question around and wondered what the other side of this unwritten/unspoken contract was.. and basically, I think that most people would say was that society's responsibility is to support and promote art ..

.. and so I wondered if the reverse was true ? - and at the end of the day, I think that 'successful' visual art (i.e. stuff that people like and admire) always supports and promotes the values of the society which spawns it.

I'm not sure that that was the answer I wanted to find, but the more I think about it, the more apt I think it is. It's a bit like music, and the fact that even the 'naughty' pop stars and rock bands are a creation of, and get re-assimilated back into, their parent society...

.. and that parent society, these days, pretty much encompasses the world..

stevedover1965

Hmm this poses an interesting conundrum, my thought's on the subject have ranged broadly, but whilst mulling over the various arguments put forth by my respected colleagues I have become drawn to the following conclusion. The creative spark that results in an image or sculpture or whatever form or outlet medium utilised, is not based on a demographic, nor is it expressed generally at first. The initial work is an expression of the emotion and feelings of the artist in whatever form, then on reflection the piece is manipulated into the artists desired object, refined, not always! Mind the raw images of some modern artists; are expressly designed to shock, in order to stir emotions within the viewer. To repulse and yet fascinate at the same time. I personally place responsibility on the society to determine the subject audience and suitability of a piece for display purposes. Any item deemed to shocking for more vulnerable age groups of course would have age restrictions on entry. The artist whilst employing creative ability is often at first not concerned with the suitability of a subject just the finalised expression of his emotion and ability, whatever the subject. You will find this premise in all areas! To me...Artists include many broad creative forms; across all areas of human endeavour, It's what makes us human; it is food for the soul. Our civilisation thrives on expression!

clorophilla

this drives to the artist's "honesty" again. When the artist draws on the pure surge of emotion, may be the result is shocking, or not, anyway the intent is just to share a feeling. As Steve said, is society responsibility to decide if and how to display it. But when the artist draws having in mind just how the vievers will feel - the emotive impact of the picture, well, this in some way sounds to me as "cheating". I know, i'd not judge; but this is not only referring to shocking images, i feel this sense of "not honest" every time i could think an artist draws for the mere intent of scaring, shocking, but also for accomplish the viever's expectations, as occurs in "commercial" art.
It's quite difficult for me to explain my thoughts in English, I hope you will understand what I wanted to say.

five

Clorophilla, I think I understand what you are trying to say. The thing is, however, plenty of artists make work with the anticipated reception of the viewer in mind because art is a dialogue with the viewer as well as in the mind of the artist. I don't think that's cheating or lessens the emotion of the work.

Notably, not all artists make work with or through emotional intent or their personal feelings when making their art. There of course will always be some element of emotional expression regardless of the artist's intent, as it seeps through; that tension itself can be interesting.

clorophilla

today a new TDer put many comments on several pics of mine. They sound to me quite crazy but at least they offers the chance to put up of the list this interestin discussion.

you can read his/her comments (and one reply) in the following pics:
http://www.thinkdraw.com/picture.php?pictureId=135963
http://www.thinkdraw.com/picture.php?pictureId=133170
http://www.thinkdraw.com/picture.php?pictureId=135941
http://www.thinkdraw.com/picture.php?pictureId=127693
http://www.thinkdraw.com/picture.php?pictureId=135212
http://www.thinkdraw.com/picture.php?pictureId=123049


strangely, he/she seems to had signed on just to criticise my pics...!

You know, I draw for sharing my feeling or, sometimes, a bit of humorism, and the meaning of these pics is very serious. Anyway, someone see them as inappropriate, expecially for children?!!?

Yes, I understand that it could be a different cultural sensitivity, so some stuffs (body parts or words) in Italy are absolutely normal and neutral and in other countries they may be a taboo: but I hope I didn't offend anyone - at least you normal people!

About this trend: where the responsibility of the society ends, and the artist's began? What is the "critical mass" of the upset people for judging an artist's "unappropriatness"?

Brunnhilde

Dear Clorophilla - I think this new "critic" of yours is a little disturbed and should probably be ignored. I am more worried that the ten-year old who seemed shocked by your beautiful picture of loss would see it as inappropriate, but there will inevitably be some children on TD who have been brought up to think that the human body is shameful in some way. I for one would hope that they will be enlightened by what they see here because it is a privilege to be able to see an artist such as you at work, to view your whole gallery and that of other artists in such an open way.

However, it may be that we all should watch such negative members (we have seen some before this) and if they don't show any pictures and continue with destructive comments, then we should ask TD to delete them from the site.

Normal

Sorry I missed LikeMee's original discussion. Too much to consider on these deep matters for the moment, at least.

But, Cloro ~ you are dealing with a "bear of very little brain," as we all recognize and I think you have told her enough, quite clearly enough and if she is incapable of appreciation, so be it. If this child continues to plague you, please remember your LEGION of fans here and just dust it off.

AFSOUTH

Dear Clorophilla This childish activity is an affront that I trust is as unacceptable to most if not all other True TD'ers as it is to me! I can only hope that you clearly understand that your standards are acceptable throughout most of the world by most decent people (yes I've been all over This beautiful world and have many friends)! The comments that you were the unfortunate recipient of today are "not" acceptable.

lesley_gene

Clorophilla, I am saddened that you were the recipient of these spiteful comments. I believe they were truly unwarranted, and am in agreement with Brunnhilde, Normal and Afsouth. Your art is heartfelt and moving and totally appropriate!!