Editorial cartoonists have a duty...
And that's where I stop reading.
I find nothing more insipid than anyone telling artists (whether they be cartoonists, painters, sculptors, writers, film directors, so forth) what their "duty" is.
There are no guidelines for art, and there are no "duties" artists need follow. None. Catching hell for written libel is one thing, doing your "duty" as an artist is quite another. When someone says that an artist has a duty to do something, they mean they wish artists would shut up and do things their way.
Here's what I had to say a couple of weeks back when Kathleen Parker pulled the same stunt. It bears repeating:
2) Who is Kathleen Parker to tell cartoonists what they have to be aware of? There's only two things cartoonists need to know: the paper in front of them, and the pen in their hand.
A painter's only duty is to paint. A writer's only duty is to write. A cartoonist's only duty is to draw. A filmmaker's only duty is to roll camera. All of those duties are to themselves. If they go broke, then they didn't find an audience. Maybe they'll take it up as a hobby. But no one should tell them which parts of life are off limits.
Blake's The Blasphemer.
1 comment:
Artists, by their very nature, are not very quite. In fact, and without question, every artist should strive to be known! Is it not their raison d'etre - unless, of course, they wish to paint a masterpiece, and then burn the result immediately thereafter? Would we not call that selfishness? Indeed, history bears out that art belongs to everyone - not just the artist. Why, we could not even have this running commentary had not the artists who invented the internet allowed the rest of us non-aritsts to participate.
However, I have come across many "artists" who would do well to actually shut up and/or sit down and just pay attention. But it's a very prejudiced eye who looks only on certain as artists - for, are not architects, engineers, surgeons, et al artists, too? And, do they not strive to be known by their skill and artistry? However, there is a greater point - that all artists are only such, because of imposed limitations!
Suppose, for example, that a Chef's "duty" is the food in front of him - does anyone really believe that he should not take into account the limiting factors caused by health regulations? I would offer that, for the sake of his art, he should beware he doesn't poison the customer with salmonella.
Besides, he is no great artists who has everything at his disposal - rather, we call that one a genius who, with nothing but 12 notes, can write an entire symphony. And, who would not be apprehensive at having the same artist as Michael Jackson's - who performed his "duty" on the MJ's face? One ought to fear such "freedom" in one's art!
Rather, let us say this: the artists (Chef) may do whatever pleases them, and the clients may eat what pleases them - and both should keep their mouths shut (the Chef - because he may spit on the food; and the customer - because eating with one's mouth open is just plain impolite).
Post a Comment