Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 14:11:17 GMT
So...here's a sorta serious question to you all I've had for quite a while: Last month, a Japanese musician was arrested for cocaine use, and the record company has withdrawn all his music from record shops and streaming services( www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/03/23/national/media-national/denki-groove-campaign-reveals-japan-truly-thinks-celebrities-embroiled-drug-scandals/#.XKNb7JgzZPY), making it nearly impossible to get to listen to his music unless you had already own them. This led to a national debate on whether it is appropriate to "ban" the creation of those who committed crime/are under arrest. I, personally, find it disturbing that the record company went as far as to purge his music from public comsumption. What makes me even more astonished was some of the reaction to his arrest - A famous personality said that using drug when creating art is "doping", thus the art is to be condemned. On the other hand, a lot of people went on to protest against the withdrawal, but many of the protester cited "there being no victim of the crime" as the reason why the company's measure was unfair, which still left me thinking (I mean, what about freaking Phil Spector!?) So, here's what I want to ask: 1) Do you think it is appropriate for entertainment industry to withdraw someone's creation because of the crime they committed? If so, what kind of crime do you consider it is fair to withdraw the offender's work? 2) Do you think it is an act of doping to use drug while creating works of art? Does that make the art blamable?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 2, 2019 15:07:31 GMT
1. No, absolutely not. I don't think any crime is bad enough to consider withdrawing the offender's work. I fully believe that the art and the artist could be separate.
2. No, absolutely not. You can make the argument that art can be affected by the use of drugs, or alcohol, or prescription drugs, or coffee, or an increase in Dopamine, or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 2, 2019 15:49:10 GMT
I basically agree with kds, but will just say a little more because I like hearing myself talk. 1. No. I acknowledge that (in America, anyway) it is the owner’s or distributor’s right to handle the situation as they see fit, and there are cases in which it is going to hurt them financially to keep the product on the market or let the artist produce and distribute more work. (For example, if I were R. Kelly’s record label, I might choose to terminate the contract rather than pay for the next album.) However, I don’t think it is generally a good idea to do that, and especially I don’t like the idea of purging “the historical record” of the artist’s work. People can decide what they want to pay for and consume. If someone can’t separate art from artist and so s/he doesn’t want to watch/listen anymore, that is his or her decision, but I also feel bad for that person because s/he will miss out on a lot of great work if s/he is consistent in that position. 2. No, and I think the premise is flawed. In athletics, doping is illegal because it provides an unfair advantage in direct competition against other athletes. Art isn’t a head-to-head competition, so even if substances did happen to improve the quality of the art—a very controversial position—there isn’t any competitive advantage to be had.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 2, 2019 20:36:49 GMT
I basically agree with kds and Kapitan's comments. The only thing I would add is in reference to Question 2. Do you (not specifically you, Wata) realize how much art was created under the influence of...substances? Just take a look at something near and dear our hearts - the music of Brian Wilson. Think of how much of his greatest music, composed and recorded between 1965-1967, was accomplished under the influence of drugs. I think specifically Pet Sounds and SMiLE would've come out differently without certain drugs. Obviously. IMO of course.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 2, 2019 22:56:02 GMT
Re that second one, I guess I also don't understand the premise. Blamable?
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 2, 2019 23:08:19 GMT
Re that second one, I guess I also don't understand the premise. Blamable? Are you referring to my post, Kapitan?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 2, 2019 23:32:34 GMT
No, Wata's. When I look at it again, I don't really understand how a work of art would be blamable. Blamable for what, the artist's crime? My initial answer was just referring to the analogy to doping, but I kind of missed that other part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2019 0:45:32 GMT
No, Wata's. When I look at it again, I don't really understand how a work of art would be blamable. Blamable for what, the artist's crime? My initial answer was just referring to the analogy to doping, but I kind of missed that other part. In Japan, people said in criticism of the withdrawal that "the musician's drug use is to blame, but his works are not." In response to the criticism, a famous personality, namely Hitoshi Matsumoto, reportedly said on a TV show that works of art can be blameable when they're created under the influence of drug.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2019 6:00:13 GMT
Yeah I agree with the consensus opinion. Art is separate from the artist. Once released, it belongs to the audience and shouldn't be locked up along with the creator. If we went by that standard then nobody would be allowed to enjoy anything
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 4, 2019 12:52:04 GMT
Wata, thanks for clarifying for me. I have to say, that position that music (made under the influence) is to blame for its own removal from the public/commercial realm makes no sense whatsoever to me. It seems nonsensical, in fact.
The argument that the musician should be punished financially and socially/culturally by withdrawing his work at least makes sense, though I disagree. But blaming the music itself? Bizarre statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2019 15:44:47 GMT
Wata, thanks for clarifying for me. I have to say, that position that music (made under the influence) is to blame for its own removal from the public/commercial realm makes no sense whatsoever to me. It seems nonsensical, in fact. The argument that the musician should be punished financially and socially/culturally by withdrawing his work at least makes sense, though I disagree. But blaming the music itself? Bizarre statement. Exactly. There was similar statement from an educational specialist, who said in essence that works by drug users should not be on TV, because their works are "fake, drug-contaminated" and thus have bad effect on children. I think the problem lies in that these people never try to realize undeniable huge influence of drug on contemporary culture - "drug is legally and morally wrong, so anything influenced by drug is wrong and worthless" kind of thinking. If you are interested in current pop culture, you will naturally come to be aware of drug influence, but if you are not, you'll never be aware of it. Thus people trash drug-influenced culture as if they're worthless, without realizing they might simultaneously trash some entertainment they genuinely enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 4, 2019 15:50:30 GMT
It’s just a poorly thought-out position. Imagine how a person would try to defend that position against instrumental music, or landscape paintings.
The assumption is probably that drug-influenced art explicitly (or slyly, like the old trope that Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds would lead to LSD use...) promotes drugs. But that’s silly.
Further, works of art can’t be responsible for anything because they aren’t sentient, they have no will or objectives. They are sounds or shapes or colors to be experienced, interpreted or critiqued. Responsibilities lie with people.
|
|