Baton Rouge, LA My brief and subjective answer, sans reasoning is....only if it should have been obvious to the artist that such a reaction would have been inevitable in the given market. Firelady, 22
Dallas, TX Like anything we say or do, we hold a certain repsonsibility for the art we create. I say something that offends someone, I should own up to the fact that my words, art, actions offend. Whether or not I choose to change is up to me. I also have the right to reject that person's interpretations of my words, art, action. Should I be responsible that someone chooses to take my work and blow away a group of people, probably not. However, if my work is disturbing and violoent I have to at least say, yeah I put that out there in the world. I've added to the vast amount of energy postive and negative. However, I am not the only message out there. Felicia, 34
Somerville, MA Not as a rule. Jane, 60
West Linn, OR
The interaction between an artist and an audience is extraordinarily complex. The artist makes a statement. The audience absorbs that statement, or some part of that statement or a distortion of that statement. If because of the statement of an artist, a member of the audience is moved to piety or to vandalism or altruism or murder, the artist cannot be either punished or sanctified.
Jill, 59
Saylorsburg, PA
Yes because if they don't intend a public reaction they shouldn't make their art public
Jami, 27
Lowell, MA
No. Although there is a basic responsibility as a human. . .it's not your fault if people assemble bombs based on your instructions, but you shouldn't be psycho enough to publish those instructions in the first place.
Karen, 20
Marshelltown/Ames, IA
No. I don't think anyone, no matter how bad an influence, no matter how horible they are, no matter what, I don't think its healthy for society for us to blame anyone for the actions of another.
Socrates One
Lowell, MA
Three quick points about "the
public"
1) "The public" is responding to its own interpretation of the work.
2) "The public is actually a very diverse group, many of whom have failed to
interpret the words "helter skelter" to mean "kill people." But then
again, and I hate to speak in bumper stickers,
3) the masses are asses.
Alias Irrelevante
uh. . . .I'm not sure I understand the question. . .responsible in what way?. . .Legally responsible?. .as in a case where a song "inspires" someone to commit suicide or dictate to followers to kill some piggies in the Hollywood Hills and write graffiti in their victim's blood on the walls? . .I don't think so. . .If an "artist"'s work involves abusing people or animals in some very direct way(I carve up live kitties on stage, put a toad in a blender and a hamster in a microwave just to see how the public reacts. . . .) then probably the "artist" should be held responsible. . .I don't think that Marilyn Manson or even KMFDM(the actual artists the Columbine killer kids listened to, reportedly, if I remember correctly. . . . .) should be held in any way responsible for the psychotic response they supposedly "inspired" in the particularly demented and warped minds of the "trench coat mafia." Judas Priest and Ozzy Osbourne are not responsible for the deaths of the teenagers who worshiped them. . . .A Christian rock band might want to be "held responsible" for saving some poor lost wayward teenage souls. . .Music and art are amazing, wonderful and potentially powerful mediums. .but at the end of the day it's only a painting or a song or a sonnet. . .the reaction it inspires, or the actions that someone takes as a result of any piece of work starts with the person who is being touched by it. . . Psychotic people tend to have psychotic reactions to art, and life in general. . . .If you're sentimental a sad story is more likely to make you cry. . If you are a "redneck" you're more likely to be inspired to race in your souped up dragster after catching the Burt Reynolds/Hal Needham movie marathon on TNN. . . .So we shouldn't be so terribly surprised when some idiot/unfortunate, mentally instable person gets juiced up on Korn and starts pummeling people to piss in the mosh pit. . . I personally enjoy a fairly wide range of art, and it includes some pretty extreme stuff. . the artists are not my parents, I am a mature competent adult and I'd prefer none of it to be restricted to me by a compasionate society that is looking out for my welfare. . .I'd like to credit Pearl Jam for saving me from suicide at a key time in my life. . I would "hold" them "responsible" for that, I suppose. . .so it can work in that way - a positive way - too, I suppose. . But I think the quick answer(too late. . .) is that No, artists should not be held responsible for public reaction to their work. .
mothmc, 35
.Los Angeles,
LA
Art is in the eye of the beholder. They should be aware of how their words could be interpreted, however, they not responsible for how others see their vision.
Ernest, 29
Washington, DC
Of course they should! For the most part, artists know exactly how people will react. But if the people are overly negative about it...to an extreme, like if they try to destroy or boycott it, then the public really is taking it too far.
Aurora, 17
Montreal, Quebec CANADA
Absolutely Not.
Kevin, 33
Sugar Hill, GA
not at all. and artist has no control over how people will react. Someone could take their work to a positive level while another takes it in the negative direction. Which one does the artist get known for? An artist never gets praised for receiving a positive reaction in response to their work. Why? Because it's nothing the artist physically DID to make that person react in a positive manner. Therefor, artists should not be hel
Meg
Absoutly not. Everyone should be allowed to express themselves creatively as long as they are physically not harming others or infringing on their rights. If someone just has a negetive reaction, or doesn't like it, they don't have to view the works.
Megan, 24
Chicago, IL
I think the responsibility lies in the creation of the work and is related to intent. Depending on the content (political/cultural etc.), I think that the viewer should be taken into some consideration. But after it is out there, the work takes on its own life and a dialogue spins around it (hopefully). Art is meant to provoke and is not always about being pretty or soothing. If a work creates anger or disgust, at least it has tapped
Tina, 31
Medford, MA
No, I think the public should just let go and let them be. If they produce something distasteful, then no one will pay to see it, and the artists will have to learn what people want to see, or switch careers. True, artist may produce popular works that kids shouldn't be exposed to, but then I believe the responsibility then lies with the parents. Nothing irritates me more than to hear someone whining about the bad thing their child learned from the movies or TV.
Overall, I would want everyone to be responsible for his or her own self. If people riot in response to something, those people are responsible, not the something they are rioting over. Holding an artist responsible for public reaction to their works is yet another way of shifting blame, something us Americans are too good at sometimes.
Jesse, 24
Bowie, MD
I don't think so. When someone creats art, more often than not they're creating it because it makes them feel good or because they enjoy it, not to please the public.
Jeremy, 13
Highlands Ranch, CO
I realized I've been writing here for a few days now but I haven't properly introduced myself. My name is Karen, I live in a suburb of Boston which no one has probably ever heard of. I'm fourteen, which makes me a freshman in high school in the fall. I subscribed to the 2000 days project because I thought it might be fun to be involved in a project like this, plus I'm into answering questions even though I'm not that good at it. I think that's it... but you can drop me a line at Scrabble85@aol.com if you want. ok, my answer:
I don't think so. The way the public interprets the music and how they are influenced by it is not the artist's fault. When the artist wrote the song, chances are they did not write it to be so depressing that someone would kill themselves to it. Usually, I think, a song has a different meaning to the artist than the way their fans interpret it.
Karen2, 14
Boston, MA
I suppose so. It is their work after all. But whatever happened to free speech and all that? It's shoved in our faces by people when it's convenient for them, but if they're offended by something then they're the first to complain.
Shanna, 15
Cardiff ENGLAND
I think that everyone sees art differently and so the artist has only a responsibility to himself to present his vision in the manner he finds suitable.
Kate, 19
Bellingham, WA
No, because there are some fucked up people in this world who will do fucked up things no matter what. When the artist conieved the work, there would be no way of knowing what reaction it would/will cause.
Jaden, 21
Brampton, Ontario CANADA
no. people who disapprove should not look
Kathleen
I believe artist should be responsible for the work they put out in the public eye. Artists make art whether it be by their music, paintings, or scultures. All artists are making a point with their work or are reflecting their feelings and emotions onto their work. If they had no entention on making an expressive point or "getting a reaction" they would not put it out
Stephanie
Should artists be held responsible for the public's reaction to their works?! It's a topic of discuaaion no one is ever going to agree on, but, personally i feel that artists should not have to limit themsleves creatively because a certain part of our community is offended by what they produce. Creative output is very powerful medium, and with power comes influence- no matter what the degree, and for that reason i think that easily impressionable people in our communities such as children should be given guidence as to what they can or cannot see or hear.I do not however think that decision should be up to the governments so much, but rather the parents and guardians of thier own respective children- after all no one knows a child better than the parent of it, therfore it should untimately be up to the parent's discretion as to what their children are or are not allowed to immerse themselves in.
askme sweetly
Art is supposed to elicit a response. You want to share part of yourself to people. It is something inside of you that needs to be released. As to an artist being responsible for other people's action, people should be responsible for themselves. I have no control on anther person. That's like saying, "You made me do it!" No one can make you do anything without your Janet, 42E. Brunswick, NJ Oscar Wilde once said "The artist is the creator of beautiful things... no artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything... It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors." We interpret art the way we want to and certainly not the way the artist intended. As a literary scholar (with all the pretention that that term implies), I am used to reading things into novels and poems and such that the artist probably never wanted to say. What if "This is Just to Say" is really just about eating someone else's fruit in the fridge and not about raping a young girl? What is Frankenstein is just a neat science fiction story and NOT an allegory for Shelley's lost babies? And what if shock rock is just that: shock rock? I can't hold an artist responsible for hoi polloi's reactions to the work the same as I can't hold a woman responsible for rape because of the clothes she was wearing. In both cases, something was interpreted and interpreted wrongly, hurtfully. And usually in cases such as "let's blame Marilyn Manson for my kid's suicide!" the parents are trying to blame anyone because they don't want to take responsibility for their child's actions. I know if the Columbine killers were MY kids... well, I'm not even going to finish that because I pray that would never be MY kids. And I hope to God I'd notice sawed off shotguns in my child's room. Knowledge, art, books, these are not dangerous things. They're only dangerous when people need something to blame.
Amy, 23
New Orleans, LA
if you're asking if they should be punished b/c someone thinks it's vulgar, then no. but if you're asking should they be responsible for a public outcry as a result of their work? hell yeah and damn proud of it too, b/c they have made a difference, a slight change in an overly mundane world.
Angela, 16
Aiken, SC
I'm not sure that I understand the question. How can one person be held accountable for another person's behavior?
Laura, 35
Lowell, MA