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:

• From: Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on: Tue Jul 21 19:17:36 EDT 1998
  
  What has been said so far:
  From: rjay (@ 204.220.167.184) on: Wed Jul 15 08:14:03 EDT 1998
  
  I somehow feel that the personal side of an artist is inseparable from his art and lends it its credibility.
  Moreover an artist stands in limelight and I am oldfashioned in that I feel artists should be a role models -
  because all of us in our adolescene model ourselves based on the words and thoughts and gestures of these people.
  
  I feel pained to hear Beatles lead a whole culture of teens to experiment drugs and later transcendental
  meditation!
  
  One reason why IR has so many die-hard fans is people see him as a strong principled person (inspite of his ego).
  Most people value him for what he stands for - for human ability to rise through struggle, hard work and continuos
  application of genius. I also think ARR also has equivalent moral toughness to inspire the next generation.
  
  For all the genius Kannadhaasan had in terms of access to vocabulary and ability to breathe, I should say, in any
  meter (read Kunnakkudi's description of how he came up with Kodi malaigalile kodukkum malai and recently saw the
  song - his spontaneous Sippi Irukkudhu and was zapped), and fluency with ideas, I still feel if he had had personal
  discipline, given the exposure he got, he could have revolutionized the lifes of Tamils by showing them direction like
  Bharathi did (Wait, Bharathi too had his personal side... I hear) Instead he was fighting battles against himself.
  
  One of the greatest things achieved by Kannadhaasan is his ability to express the desires, longings and emotions of a
  simple common man straight from the heart. (Read the good article by Malan in the PPP page) That may be the first
  requirement from a poet, but personally we need more than that. He should light up hearts and souls and inspire them
  to great living. KD wrote songs that did these, but did not live them out.
  
  I know I am offtrack because I started discussing KD vs KD!
  
  I may be more offtrack when I say Pattukkottai was such an inspired and inspiring
  poet - but I write so much because this is
  a subject that I feel so strong about and think
  is important.
  
  
  From: Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on: Wed Jul 15 18:10:06 EDT 1998
  
  rjay,
  I view humans as portals for the magic of art. Why and whom art chooses to use as a vehicle seems an
  arbitrary thing. To me art is amoral, and I have always been a minority in this opinion. But, I applaud your
  passion and appreciate you opening up here.
  
  
  From: rjay (@ 204.220.169.94) on: Thu Jul 16 05:37:54 EDT 1998
  
  udhaya, thanks.
  
  your view 'art is amoral' is explosive! but my question is should it necessarily be? Does amoral nature sustain art?
  
  Somehow most people seem to agree that it is OK for artists to have
  an amoral life and excuse their personal shortcomings ranging from anger and unpunctuality - ranging to
  irritating self centeredness and adultery and cheating etc. I recently read a 1960's essay about musician
  Wagner listing a horrendous list of atrocities he did and finally concluding 'inspite of all this, he is still
  remembered because of the masterpieces he did' the writer also feels that art possesses a person and then he
  becomes at its mercy. While this symphathetic view is good to have for us as observers, as artists and human beings
  we should strive to be whole human beings - more considerate and compassionate.
  
  Personally, if being compassionate is going to reduce the flame of my art, i would rather accept it. I see danger
  in valuing art more than humaneness. For me, Einstein is a great guy.
  
  Again, these are sweeping generalities I am making. I dont mean kannadasan was inhumane. But I feel that when art
  possesses one, one may become insensitive to many things and people.
  
  
  From: Ravi (@ envy.cs.umass.edu) on: Thu Jul 16 10:56:07 EDT 1998
  
  rjay: Einstien had a not so savoury personal life too. :-)
  
  
  From: Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on: Thu Jul 16 13:31:25 EDT 1998
  
  rjay, I should better articulate my statements. All I'm saying is I certainly wouldn't want Wagner as a friend.
  But I certainly wouldn't stop listening to Wagner because he was immoral. I take what's good and move on.
  I'm an adult who can differentiate the good and bad influences. If kids need role models, they should look to
  their parents and elders in the family. If only austere spirits were allowed to participate in art then, art
  would be very subdued, holy, tame, and ultimately spiritless.
  
  
  From: rjay (@ 204.220.169.94) on: Mon Jul 20 01:04:48 EDT 1998
  
  Udhaya,
  Well said. Thanks for provoking my thoughts further on this subject- on all the aspects (adult response, role
  models for kids). The following thoughts are not arguments but just loud thoughts.
  
  Growing up in age, unfortunately, does not make one an adult in the sense of ability to discriminate between good
  and bad! In fact, we rely on our role models even when we grow up, to decide what is good and what is bad!
  
  If there is a way to make kids follow only role models from family and regulate harmful aspects of peer pressure
  and societal hero-es influence that would be great! Art, being a very attention catching, can subdue discrimination
  and reasoning. If the music is good we do not evaluate the lyrics much!
  
  I am questioning myself regarding your statement that art world will be lifeless if only austerees would be allowed it.
  I see it as a large scale version of the statement - 'if I am moral, my life would be boring and stale'. I dont agree
  with that. Notice that you have unconsciously translated 'moral' into 'holy tame subdued and austere'.
  
  Anyway, I am thinking through my own thoughts
  in the light of what you have said, thanks.
  
  More later
  RJAY
  
  
  From: Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on: Mon Jul 20 17:42:19 EDT 1998
  
  rjay,
  I do find art that is moralistic to be very subdued, tame, austere, and bound. This is admittedly a very
  personal opinion. I have always admired artists who went beyond the norm and danced on the edge of what
  society considers outrageous. I can't imagine the arts without Kannadhaasan, Salvador Dali, Mozart,
  Wagner, Vincent Van Gogh, Richard Pryor, M.R. Radha, Franz Liszt, Jimi Hendrix, Miles Davis, Shakespeare,
  Oscar Wilde, Pudhumaippiththan, Sundhara Ramasaamy, Jayagaandhan, Sujaathaa,etc. Most of the ones I
  mentioned above got in trouble with their respective cultures because they were flamboyant personalities
  whose art was/is subversive, dangerous, and influential.
  
  I think Art is hard to pin down by moral or human constructs. It is as irreverant and random as life itself.
  Art, like life, is rarely consequential where you reap what you sow. It rewards unworthy people with its gift
  and denies the most austere disciple the magic. So it is important to appreciate the art itself and not the
  carrier of the art.
  
  I would like to quote VM's lyrics to make my point: Kannadhaasan pol thanni adichchaa
  kavidhai varumaa kazhuthaikku
  
  
  From: rjay (@ 204.220.167.184) on: Tue Jul 21 01:19:55 EDT 1998
  
  Udhaya,
  I do agree that art blossoms most when an individual is uninhibited. The moment you try to correct what you
  say and check it against what others would accept, what you say becomes what others would like you to say.
  Authenticity and genuine emotion is the basis of art. In that sense, artists who express themselves out extend
  the scope and range of art.
  
  At the same time I feel that an artist should also have a clean and beautiful personal life - not necessarily
  austere, but responsible successful and in control. If by nature, art is disintegrative, we would rather do away with
  it, because it is dangerous.
  
  Your view has not taken into account another group of artists - who are personally disciplined as well as perceptive
  and expressive. Illayaraja, Sujatha. Look at the eroticism in Nila Kayudhu and Ponmeni.
  
  Actually, I was not passing any judgements on Kannadhaasan but just wishing how much Kannadhaasan could have
  accomplished by focussing on better things and disciplining himself to bring lasting value to the society -
  This was not as a charge on him, but as a possibility every artist should strive towards.
  
  For me, art should not stop at reflecting life, it should inspire good living. Maybe I am asking for too much. Maybe
  being true to life is the highest goal art can serve! Let me not conclude anything here.
  
  
• From: Srinath (@ socks14d.raleigh.ibm.com) on: Tue Jul 21 19:52:50 EDT 1998
  
  Udhaya:
  If your claim (or view) is that art or talent automatically gives a person the right to deviate from society's norm - I disagree.
  
  The person I idolize most is Sachin Tendulkar. Silly as it may seem, I have my own good reasons. Even when I imagine myself to be in Sachin's shoes (yeah..still happens to me :-)))), I get a euphoric feeling. If just fantasy can bring this in me, imagine what Sachin must be experiencing. You might argue that with fame there also comes a overbearing image, that often burdens the genius (if that itself is the cause for eccentricity, can be another discussion all together !) so much so that he stops enjoying the thrill of performance. I would, in response, argue that if the bearer of such talents did not enjoy his art, atleast at the time of executing it, he would have no reason to exhibit it at all. I feel these people survive only because of their passion towards their innate talents. With this in mind, I assume that you agree that a genius enjoys his work without exception. If that be the case, Sachin ought to be the proudest and haughtiest creature alive - the hero of 900 million (give or take a few million:-)) people. I idolize him because he treats his art as a profession. He gives it due respect and never takes it for granted. That, in my eyes, is the making of true genius. I am not much qualified to speak about Kannadhaasan's lifestyle (we did have a car driver back at home who used to drive for Kannadhaasan once upon a time, and he had only good words for Kannadhaasan!). But if your claim is that for art to thrive the individual must not be constrained by the chains of etiquette, the artist will never rise to know perfection in his art. It will always be flawed. No individual is greater than the art. That is precisely why the artist must pay his respects to art. Why do some people draw so well, why do some others play cricket so well, and in the same vein, why do yet others write such wonderful code ? IMHO, every individual must treat his art as a profession (the converse works just as well :-)). In order to be the best (the best that he can be), it is the artist's responsibility to see to it that he is aware of every nuance of his art and is not caught wanting anywhere. Once the artist realizes this, he would also become a more normal person. Almost as responsible as you and me.
  
  If you are wondering why I am bringing art down to the level of programming - you and I may never be able to imitate IR, Salvador Dali, Einstein or Kannadhaasan. But by the same scale, they would never be able to write a program like me. Now, if you argue that about 30% of the world population is doing the same thing that I am doing, look...I am actually doing something that would make people's life better, allow people to work more efficiently, save a lot of time so that they can pay more attention to their past-times, save a lot of money so that they can support their favourite arts (and incidentally, artists) better. Undoubtedly, if you agree to art being 'just another profession', you will also agree that I am indulging in a for more useful profession ! (no wonder 30% of the population is busy doing the same :-)). If music and books were to become as important as software, programming would end up being an art by itself!
  
  Therefore, I conclude that every artist must abide by the same moral code that is thrust upon the rest of the world.
  
  
• From: Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on: Tue Jul 21 20:15:55 EDT 1998
  
  Srinath, I can't say I agree with you, but I clearly see where you are coming from. Thanks for your input. I have said a lot already here so I will wait to see what else is said here. I'm definitely enjoying the direction where this thread is headed. I think once in awhile we can all indulge in the larger issues of art that govern TFM rather than just discussing the works of those in TFM.
  
  

---

List all pages of this thread

Post comments