Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Is an Artist responsible for their influence?

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 5:33:36 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
If an artist creates a painting, or a work of art of any sort, are they responsible for the influence that it has on other people?
Vaarka
Posts: 7,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 12:36:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 5:33:36 AM, Hayd wrote:
If an artist creates a painting, or a work of art of any sort, are they responsible for the influence that it has on other people?

That's...actually a good question.

I think it can go both ways (yes/no).
In the ways of yes: Some artists make their works with the purpose of it having a certain influence, whether it be the image, the title, both, or a third factor. So, if someone makes a painting with a dark image, and a dark title, then it's expected for the viewers to have a dark influence from it.

In the ways of no: An artist can try and make viewers have a certain influence from their work, but not everyone will view it that way. Heck, an artist may just draw/paint/whatever something with no real purpose or intended influence, but viewers may have different influences from it.

But depending on what the viewer is influenced to do, the artist probably shouldn't be directly responsible. If I made a painting where a person is dying and another person is standing beside them, either trying to help or just watching, then the influence would be a dark emotion. It's supposed to be someone dying, and another person either trying to help or not helping at all. Just a dark emotion is all I intended. But, if a person saw my painting and was suddenly influenced to go and kill someone, I don't think I'd be responsible. I didn't tell the viewer to kill someone, nor did I make the painting with the intent that someone would be influenced to kill someone from it. Therefore, I shouldn't be responsible.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 2:42:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 12:36:12 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 3/15/2016 5:33:36 AM, Hayd wrote:
If an artist creates a painting, or a work of art of any sort, are they responsible for the influence that it has on other people?

That's...actually a good question.

I think it can go both ways (yes/no).
In the ways of yes: Some artists make their works with the purpose of it having a certain influence, whether it be the image, the title, both, or a third factor. So, if someone makes a painting with a dark image, and a dark title, then it's expected for the viewers to have a dark influence from it.

In the ways of no: An artist can try and make viewers have a certain influence from their work, but not everyone will view it that way. Heck, an artist may just draw/paint/whatever something with no real purpose or intended influence, but viewers may have different influences from it.

But depending on what the viewer is influenced to do, the artist probably shouldn't be directly responsible. If I made a painting where a person is dying and another person is standing beside them, either trying to help or just watching, then the influence would be a dark emotion. It's supposed to be someone dying, and another person either trying to help or not helping at all. Just a dark emotion is all I intended. But, if a person saw my painting and was suddenly influenced to go and kill someone, I don't think I'd be responsible. I didn't tell the viewer to kill someone, nor did I make the painting with the intent that someone would be influenced to kill someone from it. Therefore, I shouldn't be responsible.

Thank you for your response; I agree, it is a really interesting concept. What if the artist's painting depicting the harsh working conditions of the middle class leads to industrial outrage, which leads to a communist revolution; killing thousands of people. Do you think the artists should not be responsible for that even though he was the direct cause of it?
Vaarka
Posts: 7,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 2:45:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 2:42:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:36:12 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 3/15/2016 5:33:36 AM, Hayd wrote:
If an artist creates a painting, or a work of art of any sort, are they responsible for the influence that it has on other people?

That's...actually a good question.

I think it can go both ways (yes/no).
In the ways of yes: Some artists make their works with the purpose of it having a certain influence, whether it be the image, the title, both, or a third factor. So, if someone makes a painting with a dark image, and a dark title, then it's expected for the viewers to have a dark influence from it.

In the ways of no: An artist can try and make viewers have a certain influence from their work, but not everyone will view it that way. Heck, an artist may just draw/paint/whatever something with no real purpose or intended influence, but viewers may have different influences from it.

But depending on what the viewer is influenced to do, the artist probably shouldn't be directly responsible. If I made a painting where a person is dying and another person is standing beside them, either trying to help or just watching, then the influence would be a dark emotion. It's supposed to be someone dying, and another person either trying to help or not helping at all. Just a dark emotion is all I intended. But, if a person saw my painting and was suddenly influenced to go and kill someone, I don't think I'd be responsible. I didn't tell the viewer to kill someone, nor did I make the painting with the intent that someone would be influenced to kill someone from it. Therefore, I shouldn't be responsible.

Thank you for your response; I agree, it is a really interesting concept. What if the artist's painting depicting the harsh working conditions of the middle class leads to industrial outrage, which leads to a communist revolution; killing thousands of people. Do you think the artists should not be responsible for that even though he was the direct cause of it?

Again, not sure. Unless he made it with that intention (which I'm sure he'd proudly claim to if he did), then sure. But most likely, he just made it to express his thoughts on it, or encourage public awareness of the problem, not intending for an industrial outrage.

But hey, I could be wrong. He could've made it for public awareness in hopes of something happening, whether or not the outrage was what he expected. If it were to encourage it though, I think by then it would be considered more propaganda than just "art".
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 5:23:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 5:33:36 AM, Hayd wrote:
If an artist creates a painting, or a work of art of any sort, are they responsible for the influence that it has on other people?

By responsible, do you mean accountable? Or do you mean they deserve credit? Or what? Cos I'm not sure...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 5:40:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 5:23:25 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/15/2016 5:33:36 AM, Hayd wrote:
If an artist creates a painting, or a work of art of any sort, are they responsible for the influence that it has on other people?

By responsible, do you mean accountable? Or do you mean they deserve credit? Or what? Cos I'm not sure...

accountable
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 7:54:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 5:33:36 AM, Hayd wrote:
If an artist creates a painting, or a work of art of any sort, are they responsible for the influence that it has on other people?

People aren't obligated to accept an artist's viewpoint.

The lack of obligation is the same reason why I don't think a person can held responsible for some one does after hearing their speech.

A leader of the state is responsible becuase the officers and officials under them have an obligation.

And people should be held accountable for their portrayal of the facts. But that is more an ethical consideration. A social guideline on any broadcasting (speech art music ect) agencies

But I don't think an author or artist should be held liable for damages others perform.

There maybe an argument ffrom causality that implies responsibility but artistic works should be given leeway to be, not necessarily distasteful, but agitating