Home   Forum   Wiki   Notes   Register   FAQ   Sitemap   About Us   Contact Us  

Is Art amoral? Do Artists have to be role models?

Topic started by Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on Tue Jul 21 19:15:58 EDT 1998.
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

This topic came out of a good debate that began in the "Is Vairamuthu better than Kannadhaasan?" thread. By the time this debate got going most people had abandoned the thread and it was limited to just two people. I would love to hear how others feel about artists and morality.

---

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: Bharat (@ isdbsd1-inet.ci.mil.wi.us) on: Wed Jul 22 13:32:55 EDT 1998
  
  Srinath:
  "These so called shackles are what separate us from the animals... But the more stringent the moral code, the higher flies the intelligence - the better is life on the whole."
  
  I don't see that morality has anything to do with intelligence (or, in the case of artists, creativity). And what exactly is a "stringent moral code"? In our everyday lives, there is a constant (unconscious) grappling between what's legal, what's ethical, and what's moral. For instance, adultery may have been legally wrong, ethically troublesome, but morally right to Kamal. Only he knows why he did what he did. So how is one to say whether or not a stringent moral code could be applied in this case?
  
  
• From: Bharat (@ isdbsd1-inet.ci.mil.wi.us) on: Wed Jul 22 14:03:55 EDT 1998
  
  Oops, sorry Ravi, didn't quite catch your posting. Ok, let me make adultery=drinking, and Kamal=Kannadaasan, and revert that arguemnt to TFM.
  
  
• From: Srinath (@ socks15d.raleigh.ibm.com) on: Wed Jul 22 15:33:28 EDT 1998
  
  Bharat:
  I was talking about that 'unmentionable' phrase - "socially acceptable behaviour". When we narrow our description of what is socially acceptable, we become more focused on our roles in society, and thus help define a better society.
  
  Morality does not induce intelligence - it is the intelligent who imbibe moral behaviour. Adultery or drinking cannot be part of anybody's moral code (strictly IMO) - atleast not in an intelligent person. Moral behaviour is a way of reassuring society that the fabric is still strong and the 'truth' holds good. I do not exclude the common man from my list when I expect people to exhibit this reiteration. The same way I do not wish others to exclude celebrities from the responsibility of belonging to society either. Of course, why we need a society which needs to be convinced of its own reality is a question for the pundits :-) But from what I understand a society is as good a way of life as any - if not the best.
  
  It's easy to dismiss truth and ethics as 'nebulous entities'(an oxymoron ? :-)). In fact, by themselves, truth and ethics are purely application dependent in their usefullness. But when applied, they assume a form and achieve a result that's more potent that any other solution.
  
  Ravi:
  I'm game for an uncategorized forum. But to catch others' interest, I feel it would still need to have some common foundation. Did you have any 'specific generality' in mind ? There's another oxymoron :-))))
  
  
• From: Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on: Wed Jul 22 16:14:00 EDT 1998
  
  Ravi, I understand your fear about this topic going beyond TFM. I believe this is very rooted in TFM because it started off with Kannadhaasan. Also, Thamils have a way of paying homage to an artist's life rather than the art created. While talking about an artist's works, invariably someone pitches in with a "nalla manushanpa" "makkalukku niraya senjirukkaru" and cloud the achievements or flaws in the art itself.
  
  Besides, "Is art amoral or moral?" is a larger issue which still governs many of our tastes in art and of course it applies to TFM. I thought I would reach beyond a little with this topic so as to not get stuck with fights, statistics, and lists most of the time in DF. If you do start an uncategorized forum, I would participate in it. But, it may be easier to allow an exception such as this thread once in awhile or create a recurring "larger issue" thread in the DF to allow us to look beyond.
  BTW, great going everybody. I am excited to see such enthusiasm in this thread. If Ravi starts his uncategorized forum, I would hope to be discussing things with you folks at this level. Keep it coming.
  
  
• From: Observer (@ spider-wc044.proxy.aol.com) on: Wed Jul 22 17:48:39 EDT 1998
  
  Kalaikkoru izhivenrAl kalaignanukku porukkAma?
  kalaignanukku izhivendrAl arasanukku porukkAma?
  arasanukku izhivendrAl AAndavanukku porukkAma?
  Andha AAndavanukkE izhivendrAl????
  
  kadavuLukkE rendendrAl , kamalahAsan enda moolai?
  kAlaththin kOlaththil manithA nee kATriduvAi unkalaiyai
  kalaiyil nee muRai thavaRinal thuTrappaduvAi
  kalaignanE nee muRai thavaRinalum poTrappaduvAi
  
  padaithAnE ivvulagil thAgaththaiyum iraivan
  avanE ivvulagil maduvaiyum padaithAn
  padaithAnE mAnidarku mOgaththaiyum akkadavuL
  padaithAno mEletharku pAvaiyaiyum sErthu
  
  AthalAl manitha nee, potri vidu kalai vAniyai
  thEtri vidu manithA nee kalaignanin pun manathai
  kalaikkoru vithi endral kalignanukkumA vithi?
  mathiyulla mAnidanE nee magathuvathai aRindiduvAi
  Kalaikkoru izhivenrAl kalaignanukku porukkAma?
  kalaignanukku izhivendrAl arasanukku porukkAma?
  arasanukku izhivendrAl AAndavanukku porukkAma?
  Andha AAndavanukkE izhivendrAl????
  
  kadavuLukkE rendendrAl , kamalahAsan enda moolai?
  kAlaththin kOlaththil manithA nee kATriduvAi unkalaiyai
  kalaiyil nee muRai thavaRinal thuTrappaduvAi
  kalaignanE nee muRai thavaRinalum poTrappaduvAi
  
  padaithAnE ivvulagil thAgaththaiyum iraivan
  avanE ivvulagil maduvaiyum padaithAn
  padaithAnE mAnidarku mOgaththaiyum akkadavuL
  padaithAno mEletharku pAvaiyaiyum sErthu
  
  AthalAl manitha nee, potri vidu kalai vAniyai
  thEtri vidu manithA nee kalaignanin pun manathai
  kalaikkoru vithi endral kalignanukkumA vithi?
  mathiyulla mAnidanE nee magathuvathai aRindiduvAi
  
  
• From: Observer (@ spider-wc044.proxy.aol.com) on: Wed Jul 22 17:50:27 EDT 1998
  
  Oops! once again posted twice!
  Sorry for the inconvinience
  
  
• From: Observer (@ spider-wc044.proxy.aol.com) on: Wed Jul 22 17:53:02 EDT 1998
  
  Sorry for spelling mistake too!
  
  
• From: Bharat (@ isdbsd1-inet.ci.mil.wi.us) on: Wed Jul 22 17:56:32 EDT 1998
  
  Srinath:
  Let's say there's a guy in Madras whose folks are looking out for a bride for him. If he's an engineer, that's great. So too his being a doctor, a lawyer, a software professional... But imagine if someone's a lyricist for TFM! Would that or wouldn't that be a problem in terms of getting a bride? I don't know for sure, but I'd wager that professionals from the other categories would find it far easier than our TFM lyricist.
  
  The above situation is obviously hypothetical, but I used it to illustrate the concept of social acceptance. The average person wanting to become some kind of "artiste" has to be mentally prepared for a bumpier ride up the road of life (especially in Tamil Nadu). So, when one willingly chooses this road, regardless of future success or failure, it's like flying in the face of something similar to what you call "socially acceptable behaviour". By the very nature of his having chosen a path so different, so risky (compared to being, say, a clerical worker), could we reasonably assume that he "thinks" differently.
  
  Social betterment and all is very good, but I doubt everyone sees their roles in life as contributing to that. For an artist, his role in life is the expression of his art.
  
  I am sure this lyricist of ours could be creative, intelligent, enjoying his drinks on the side, and (gasp!) even moral. You make a very good point when you say "Adultery or drinking cannot be part of anybody's moral code", but it all depends on the circumstances. Note that I'm talking about an age of excess where artists are hedonists. But I do feel that much of their "amoral" energy may manifest positively in their art. Again, this is based on what I said earlier about "wilful harm".
  
  Truth and ethics are not nebulous entities (to borrow your oxymoron :--)) at all. In fact, they are hard-coded into our lives from the beginning. It's the "interpretation" of truth and ethics that can become nebulous. And that's the case with you, me... and our (possibly) amoral TFM lyricist.
  
  
  Ravi:
  Was there an earlier post by you regarding the uncategorized forum? It sounds very interesting, but would it be linked to the TFM page?
  
  
• From: Bharat (@ isdbsd1-inet.ci.mil.wi.us) on: Wed Jul 22 17:59:57 EDT 1998
  
  Observer:
  
  That was fabulous... you've eloquently summed up a good deal of my thoughts in one simple line "kalaikkoru vithi endral kalignanukkumA vithi?". Now I can hit the bottle in peace :--).
  
  
• From: Srinath (@ socks9d.raleigh.ibm.com) on: Wed Jul 22 18:03:13 EDT 1998
  
  I hope you are not going to apologise for forgetting an article now - "...for the spelling..." - :-))))))
  
  
• From: Srinath (@ socks14d.raleigh.ibm.com) on: Wed Jul 22 20:24:15 EDT 1998
  
  Bharat:
  In a few uncomplicated words my stance is that, an artiste does not have to struggle unconventionally in order for him to be a success. Like rjay said earlier, that artistes need drugs, sex and alcohol to express their talents is ridiculous to say the least ! Pain and tragedy can make artistes out of ordinary mortals, and so can success (one Mr.Cassius Clay wrote a poem upon winning his Olympic Gold in boxing!).
  
  Which profession, in your eyes, is free of risks ? Or are you suggesting that the clerk can afford to be more lax about his work because it is quite ordinary ? I have had the good fortune to meet quite a number of people who can make the most mundane chore appear interesting and worthy! Why do they have to follow society's norms then ? Before anybody mistakes me for a Peter Keating or Ellsworth Toohey or (God Forbid !) a James Taggart !, I better explain my stand ! (Why do I feel, I've already explained it :-)). I am for the individual and against collectivism. But, I also believe in society and tradition. I am more careful about discarding our elders' teachings, for I feel if they didn't have value they would not have been repeated at all.
  
  The artiste has no arguments to support his immoral behaviour with the claim that art is amoral. Art might well be amoral, but the artiste is definitely not. He is a human being, plain and simple. And if he decides to be that way, his achievements take on monumental proportions. Because he is the same as you and me - and yet better. That brings me back to where I started. Of the very few such people that I have seen, Sachin Tendulkar appears to be one. His only claim to eccentriciy, or anything close, is that he married someone several years his senior. But for a person on his maturity, I can only consider that normal.
  
  This has taken us way out of the context of TFM. The more we dwell on this subject the farther we'll get from TFM and from that perspective Ravi's idea of a separate Forum seems to be the best solution.
  
  
• From: Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on: Wed Jul 22 21:51:45 EDT 1998
  
  
  There are plenty of artists who fit the pure living standards of
  Ilayaraaja, or say even a Sachin Tendulkar. My point is, it should be the
  artist's natural stance and not what is mandated by society. I understand
  it gets tricky when things are not spelled out, when clear distinctions aren't
  drawn for civilians and artists. There is no system that is a custom fit for
  all beings. That is why no society is great in all respects.
  
  This grand median called society, with its set of morals, that human
  beings rightfully created is a necessity for the progress of large
  groups of people. But, often, individual freedom is stifled by having
  to cater to the idea of norms. Artists have always been the people who
  broke through these shackles that bind us all in the name of security and
  showed us another way of living. True artists grapple with the ambiguities
  of life with courage, and without a care about what is acceptable behavior.
  To me, this counterculture is very important for a vibrant, progressive society.
  Of course,I am not granting a license-to-kill for artists, but any norm should be
  subject to revision and to my knowledge, artists are always among the first in
  line in revisionism.
  
  Yes, the actions of artists are not always palatable, are not always
  decent by our standards, and often not what you want kids to emulate,
  but every now and then when I feel strapped in by what is not allowed
  by society, I look to artists who swam upstream and left their mark. I
  derive from them the knowledge of my possibilities, my reach, if I were
  to listen to my natural instincts. After all, morality is not always
  objective. And nothing is scarier to me than moral superiority that can whip
  into frenzy a whole nation and damn anyone who is deemed to stray
  from these norms. I shudder at the thought of a "Scarlet Letter" society which
  still threatens us--look at the contract put out on Salman Rushdie, or the
  playwright who was murdered in South Africa. The free-spirited artists,
  usually considered fringe elements of society, quite often have been ahead of
  their times.
  
  
  
  

---

List all pages of this thread

Post comments