QUOTE: “But what songwriter could have predicted thirty years ago that the future would lose its sense of humour, its sense of playfulness, its sense of context, nuance and irony, and fall into the hands of a perpetually pissed off coterie of pearl-clutchers? How were we to know?”
The original article is here: https://www.brooklynvegan.com/nick-cave-talks-about-whether-he-feels-the-need-to-change-problematic-lyrics-live/
Nick Cave was asked how he how he deals with some of his older, more “problematic,” lyrics in a live setting. This is the question:
Do you ever feel the need to change lyrics, when performing live, which may be problematic in 2020, for example “a fag in a whalebone corset dragging his dick across my cheek”? Or are you happy to preserve the lyric as a product of its time, and respect the original content?
His reply:
These days, some of my songs are feeling a little nervous. They are like children that have been playing cheerfully in the schoolyard, only to be told that all along they have had some hideous physical deformity. Their little hearts sink and they piss their pants. They leave the playground burning with shame, as a scornful, self-righteous future turns around with its stone and takes aim.
But what songwriter could have predicted thirty years ago that the future would lose its sense of humour, its sense of playfulness, its sense of context, nuance and irony, and fall into the hands of a perpetually pissed off coterie of pearl-clutchers? How were we to know?
Perhaps we writers should have been more careful with our words – I can own this, and I may even agree – however, we should never blame the songs themselves. Songs are divinely constituted organisms. They have their own integrity. As flawed as they may be, the souls of the songs must be protected at all costs. They must be allowed to exist in all their aberrant horror, unmolested by these strident advocates of the innocuous, even if just as some indication that the world has moved toward a better, fairer and more sensitive place. If punishment must be administered, punish the creators, not the songs. We can handle it. I would rather be remembered for writing something that was discomforting or offensive, than to be forgotten for writing something bloodless and bland.
Love, Nick
I wanted to put this up because his reply so beautifully sums up my own feelings about this question, and also the separation between art and artist (which I so strongly believe in): ” If punishment must be administered, punish the creators, not the songs.” Thank you, Nick!
Baradwaj Rangan 
Madan
June 5, 2021
As Anuja once said, artists are just soft targets in this whole thing. If you’re a Neo Nazi and you don’t want to belong in polite society, you can proudly wave a swastika flag (or a Confederate flag for that matter). If you’re a politician or person of influence and power, you can either go genuine woke or pretend woke (however applicable) and whitewash your past sins (Trudeau/Prince Harry). But an artist’s old work can be dredged up and accusing fingers pointed at for things written in a different climate. And I don’t buy the common retort to this that it was once ok to be genuinely racist. Yeah, well, there is a difference between ‘problematic’ and ‘racist’. If we start punishing both in the same way when it comes to things said or done decades ago, THAT is problematic.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Alex John
June 5, 2021
It is scary that the question ‘if you can’t show smoking on screen, how are you going to make a movie on the life of Winston Churchill?’ is getting more relevant day-by-day.
Eerily, sadly, we are developing a soviet-grade censorship-system within the democracies we live in, in the name of chivalry and righteousness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Satya
June 5, 2021
“Our very strength invites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict… breeds catastrophe.”
This line in MCU defines the most plausible real-life outcome of Wokeness vs. Art. A day shall arrive when everyone would play safe and call it progressive. Good luck with that!
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 5, 2021
Am i the only one who believes that a guy who writes lyrics that includes ““a fag in a whalebone corset dragging his dick across my cheek” and still performs them live 30 years later should inevitably put up with just a few “wokes” disliking his lyrics even if they are missing the point or whatever? And what IS this nuance that was missed?
I mean did he REALLY think EVERYONE was going to say what a clever little boy he was and how his soul was shining through in his beautiful lyrics?
LikeLiked by 6 people
Madan
June 5, 2021
Rahini: Those lyrics were written in a fictional context and do not represent his views. Just like Slayer weren’t Nazis just because they wrote about Angel of Death nor is Run To The Hills isn’t a celebration of the massacre of Native Americans. I thought this was clear enough about art but evidently it’s not, not anymore. Pl tell me how is this different from bhakts claiming Naseeruddin Shah is an anti national because he played Gulfam Hassan in Sarfarosh.
Here’s Nick Cave taking down a homophobic fan of his in the appropriate way – giving him a platform and then proceeding to demolish his views politely but firmly.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/nick-cave-shoots-homophobic-fan-website-qa-2531403
LikeLike
Madan
June 5, 2021
And by the way, I am not a Nick Cave fan. At all. This is not me defending his work. But all it took was a quick google search for me to find out.
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 5, 2021
Thanks for bothering, Madan.
I still don’t think it is evenly mildly comparable to being a child who is a told he has some hideous physical deformity. I guess these people just love their hyperbole.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Karthik
June 5, 2021
As flawed as they may be, the souls of the songs must be protected at all costs. They must be allowed to exist in all their aberrant horror, unmolested by these strident advocates of the innocuous
I was struck by this. Cave sees his work of art as his child. As do many creators. But the audience doesnt have to. Works of art age. Some faster than others, some better than others. Not every listener/viewer can or should be expected to shift their frame of reference to appreciate a work of art. If the song or movie did not age well or does not fit into my worldview today why should I treat it like a child of its time? A product like a movie is chained to its time and gives no means for the creator(s) to “nurture”. So I can understand that expanding my frame of reference will allow me to engage with it while still acknowledging the problematic parts. But for lyrics of a single that an artist continues to perform? Thats a darker shade of grey for me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kai
June 6, 2021
@ Madan
Not Rahini, but I wanted to add something to your point. Music is quite different from acting, because it’s an actor’s job to play a role regardless of whether they agree with the character they play or not; a singer/songwriter, on the other hand, deliberately chooses what lyrics to perform. Pretty much, an actor playing a role is much more fictional than a singer expressing his (usually nonfictional) ideas through music.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Heisenberg
June 6, 2021
This is an important topic in todays age, and it doesn’t stop just with art. Recent example is that young girl who was elected as leader of oxford but was forced to resign within a week because of 2 tweets she had made as a teen. Two naive tweets wheich she made as 18 year old were extrapolated as transphobic, and racist. I felt it was a ridiculous over reaction for a far simple thing.
Another aspect is revisiting yesteryear movies and judging it based on today’s ‘values’ that have evolved.
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
June 6, 2021
This is so so beautifully expressed by Nick Cave. Thanks for sharing BR. And I am glad at least some artistes are raising their voices against the politically correct/ pearl clutching brigade in favour of an artiste’s sacrosanct right to express themselves freely without feeling the pressure to kowtow to wokeism. Once popular opinion starts dictating what art ought to be and force artistes to oblige at cancel culture point all that is brilliant, beautiful, wild and free about art will be inevitably destroyed. And that is a crying shame which only the likes of the mad monk, Savonarola would applaud and celebrate.
‘and also the separation between art and artist ‘
Yup.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Berlin
June 6, 2021
Art is a manifest of the times it was birthed in. They give us a glimpse into what times used to be. They are historical accounts and should be preserved as is and shouldn’t be modified to the ever-changing landscape of what we construe as politically correct. That will only lead to the erasure of what the art has captured.
But it is entirely another thing to shove that said art in current times without taking into the account the climate we are in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
krishikari
June 6, 2021
“These days, some of my songs are feeling a little nervous. They are like children that have been playing cheerfully in the schoolyard…”
Cringe! (and I actually like Nick Caves depressing songs) What was the inciting incident that made you want to rehash this topic again, BR?
At some point in western art history – the late renaissance or thereabouts, individual artists started putting their personal stamp on their work whereas before that art in almost all cultures was more collective and less personal, artists worked under masters like other guilds, they followed set, glacially changing guidelines on how to depict things, i don’t know much about music but in classical forms of theatre, from kabuki to kathakali there are traditional conventions to follow, within these parameters individual artists could shine or fail but they were not accountable for the art itself. Orhan Pahmuk writes exquisitely about the confrontation between the Ottoman artists and the Italian renaissance painters at just this moment in time and how this individualism in art started to spread east.
When art became more and more about individual self expression, inevitably the life and morality and actions of the artist became also relevant to the art itself.
For example the elephant in this film blog room, the much admired Woody Allen. You absolutely may now interpret his past works informed by his later actions and may choose to see it as creepy and no longer love it. Why the hell not? He wrote the script of a 19 year old actively seducing an 40 year old, casting himself in the role and made it convincing. Revisiting it now, you may have other feelings. How the hell do we separate the art from the artist in light of his adopted daughters accusations and his other stuff? His art is undoubtedly autobiographical.
I’m not going to convince you and you are not convincing me. Art is not independent of the artist, it doesn’t arise magically.
Just like bankers or industrialists need to be held accountable for their past frauds, so do artists. How much you want to blame someone for a racist, sexist or casteist past work is a matter of degree. People change or they don’t, piling on and “cancelling” on social media is unfortunate but some calling out is necessary. You put your crap out there for public consumption and personal career advancement and there is a cost for that. People can and should judge you for your work of self expression! If (for example) Kenny Sebastian does a bit about his well off, social capital rich mother bullying the relatively economically and socially less powerful household help, and presents that as something hilarious, I am bloody well going to judge his character based on that and voice my opinion on it and not find him very funny anymore. That doesn’t mean I have lost my sense of humour, I have just lost it for punching down humour. Do you find it funny to laugh at bullying?
Speaking of bullying, you can criticise the trend of bullying, piling on and cancelling on social media. But you don’t have to conflate it with art and artist separation.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Aman Basha
June 6, 2021
TBH, how well did trying to cancel Michael Jackson based off some new documentary of people making accusations go? You can only cancel those who are not that successful.
LikeLike
Madan
June 6, 2021
” Pretty much, an actor playing a role is much more fictional than a singer expressing his (usually nonfictional) ideas through music.” – No, ideas in music are not usually non fictional. A lot of songs are fictional. Rime of the Ancient Mariner was about the poem by the same name by Samuel Coleridge. 2112 is fictional. So is Black Sabbath. And so on. Our entirety of film music is fictional and many rock/pop artists write fictional songs too. Some write first person confessionals but not all.
“Not every listener/viewer can or should be expected to shift their frame of reference to appreciate a work of art. ” – No indeed but my question is have Nick Cave fans actually been asked? I found a reddit thread where many fans who identified as LGBT had no problem with this specific song and this very line.
I don’t like how this narrative always seems to be imposed by the MSM in the West. I am well aware that the same ‘MSM’ used to support eugenics in the 20s, wrote sexist articles about female performers in music in the 70s, wrote about Graf’s legs in the 90s. They have never shown the self-awareness they expect out of the ones they accuse of being bigoted. And when one of their own gets caught in the fry, they circle the wagons as they’re doing with David Wiegel of the WaPo. So excuse me if I find their virtue signaling entirely hollow and disingenuous.
If the fans genuinely think Nick Cave should stop performing the song, he will have to. I have never heard of an artist insisting on playing songs their fans didn’t want to hear.
But do I think it is fair for people to just read one line from an artist and ask that the artist should stop playing the songs irrespective of what the fans think? Certainly not. Yes, yes, I know on the same lines Trumptards would obviously love to listen to his pearls of wisdom. But Nick Cave is not Trump. If we stop making that distinction, we are going to descend into the world that Ricky Gervais sardonically imagined on The Invention of Lying. That is the kind of ‘art’ we are going to be left with. It may sound like an extreme formulation but this is how the slippery slope descends eventually into absurdity as the wiggle room for artists is narrowed (at the same time as their avenues for earning have been hammered long term through digitization and in the short term courtesy the pandemic).
I will give an example from the right hand side of the ideological spectrum. Once I was in the office canteen with my manager and we watched the news of Sanjay Dutt coming out to meet his fans before going to jail. I quipped that “Ganesh Visarjan ho raha hai”. I thought I was making a joke very much relatable to Mumbaiites. But my manager was like, “Don’t insult Lord Ganesha.” I was like well duh, I didn’t, but he is my manager so what do I do.
If I applied the same rules that the Left insists again and again that we should, I have caused grievous offence merely because the recipient of my joke thinks so. But no, we have accepted that for religion, there can be a different standard. At least there was until a certain leader grabbed power with both hands and erected all sorts of taboos again. Somehow, a lot of people NOT from the right wing are not able to see that this is where woke culture is leading to from the left too. Anything and everything can be deemed offensive by ONE person. The question is does that matter? If the answer is yes, then we are in Brave New World/1984 territory and I say that without the slightest hyperbole.
With that, I have pretty much said everything I have to on this topic and will show myself out. I know that people who already believe some level of cancellation is necessary and desirable are not going to be persuaded by anything I have written or will write and for those who are as alarmed as me, I am only preaching to the choir. So…over and out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
KS
June 6, 2021
I must admit to some schadenfreude when #woke, which was created by the art community and other self-proclaimed messiahs to parade their sensitivity and police others, is now biting the hand that fed them. Fun to watch them scrambling cliched excuses about context, zeitgeist, time-and-place, soul etc. Nah, if you don’t abide by your own militantly high standards of propriety, don’t expect anyone else to, can’t have it both ways no matter how much verbal jugglery you try. Human dignity and progress are more important than mollycoddled and self-aggrandizing artists.
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
June 6, 2021
‘Speaking of bullying, you can criticise the trend of bullying, piling on and cancelling on social media. But you don’t have to conflate it with art and artist separation.’
Krishikari: But the bullying, piling on and cancelling on social media while not entirely limited to is mostly directed at artists because it is easier to take them on rather than tyrants, dictators and other bullies. That also qualifies as punching down IMO and is therefore unacceptable (even if said artists are powerful and influential in their chosen sphere).
As for your impassioned argument against Woody Allen and his ilk, let me state at the onset that I actually haven’t seen a single film of his (I just haven’t. There is no particular reason. I keep meaning to watch his films but I never get around to it) but I don’t get why you see fit to reduce his enormous body of work to ‘He wrote the script of a 19 year old actively seducing a 40 year old, casting himself in the role and made it convincing.’ If he is guilty of whatever criminal activity he has been accused off shouldn’t the courts handle it? (I don’t mean the court of public opinion which is becoming increasingly irrational not to mention outright ludicrous) Why take it out on his art? If folks find his films entertainment or appealing to their personal interests why begrudge them that?
Personally, I find Roman Polanski appalling. It is not just the statutory rape charges against him. I read somewhere that he had posed for photos at the very spot where Sharon Tate had died, where even her blood had not been cleaned up and sold those pics for an indecent sum. But that doesn’t mean I no longer consider his films like ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ or ‘Repulsion’ to be anything less than brilliant. I love Kiran Nagarkar’s Cuckold. When he died I tweeted about it but a friend of mine got in touch and told me he had felt her up at a lit fest where she had to interview him. I took down the tweet at once but that does not mean my feelings for Cuckold have changed. I still adore the book. And no, I see no reason to apologise for it. Because as far as I am concerned, art will always be separate from the artist.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Good people can be lousy artists and bad people can be brilliant artists though it need not necessarily be that way. The point is art matters for its own sake and should be judged solely on its own merits and demerits not solely on the artist’s personal failings.
‘Somehow, a lot of people NOT from the right wing are not able to see that this is where woke culture is leading to from the left too. Anything and everything can be deemed offensive by ONE person. The question is does that matter? If the answer is yes, then we are in Brave New World/1984 territory and I say that without the slightest hyperbole.’ You said it Madan! This is exactly what I am afraid of. Already we have increasingly mediocre books and films being foisted on us and feted not because they are good but because they pride themselves on token wokeism.
‘I know that people who already believe some level of cancellation is necessary and desirable are not going to be persuaded by anything I have written or will write and for those who are as alarmed as me, I am only preaching to the choir. So…over and out.’
Totally feel you!
LikeLike
H. Prasanna
June 6, 2021
“Already we have increasingly mediocre books and films being foisted on us and feted not because they are good but because they pride themselves on token wokeism.”
@Anuja, if you you don’t mind, could you share an example or two? I am curious to know the insider/writer’s take on this. I am just part of the audience and I have nothing to lose in asking this. I understand if you don’t want to answer.
LikeLike
krishikari
June 6, 2021
Why take it out on his art? If folks find his films entertainment or appealing to their personal interests why begrudge them that?
I think i already explained my reasoning. Many of Woody Allen’s films seem autobiographical so I find the art creepy in light of the sexual abuse accusations. He himself is in a lot of them and I don’t want to look at his face. It’s my personal reaction. If you haven’t seen any of his films then why are you defending them? Just because “art”? I’m afraid I don’t feel the need to put art on that kind of pedestal.
As for Roman Polanski, I agree that his films do stand on their own and they don’t seem to have much connection to his behaviour. I’m not going out of my way to see them and if people feel the same about his film as I do about WA’s films that’s perfectly fine with me.
As for bullying the artist being punching down, I don’t see it that way. If an artist from a privileged group targets a disadvantaged group in his art, and they retaliate by exposing his prejudice that’s fair. It’s ridiculous to say people target artist and not governments and dictators, they are being targeted all the time.
The point is art matters for its own sake and should be judged solely on its own merits and demerits not solely on the artist’s personal failings.
@anuja, That seems too simple to me, I will judge art on what ever criteria I choose to judge it on, there is no art judging law. By the way, who is judging “solely” on the artist’s personal failings? The art is being judged on it’s own failings and sometimes the artist is being boycotted on his failings without taking the art into account at all. I don’t think we agree on much around here but that’s fine with me. I’m not here to change minds. I’m just here to express my view on the topic.
LikeLike
Rahul
June 6, 2021
Separation of art from the artist throws the auteur theory out of the window, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
sai16vicky
June 6, 2021
“Songs are divinely constituted organisms.”
What nonsense, seriously! With a single statement like this, one could slip the whole Dravidian propaganda meticulously manufactured by the likes of Anna/Karunanidhi and mouth-pieced by MGR/SSR under the carpet.
If artists really want their artistic work to exist independently (from their own identity), as a first (or zeroth?) step, could they start by making the funding received for their ‘divine’ works transparent? For instance, Vishal Bhardwaj made a ‘divine’ Haider but went on to campaign for Congress in the subsequent LS elections. I don’t need to be Sherlock here to see where the finances of the movie came from.
Here’s a suggestion to the likes of SLB, RGV, Anurag Kashyap and so on. Tell us the masters who paid/pay your salaries and we will take care of deciding whether your work qualifies as ‘divine’ or not. Sounds fair?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
June 6, 2021
Another piece on art vs the artist? I thought we had rehashed this up one side and down the other.
One thought on Nick Cave – I don’t listen to his music, but I am aware of his work. And like Rahini, methinks he’s being disingenuous. I’m not talking about castigating him for something he wrote years ago, though that was problematic then as now – I’m talking about him still performing those songs and then expecting everyone to ignore it today. You can’t blame wokeness for people pointing out its problematic aspects.
Holding Woody Allen or Roman Polanski accountable for their sins is not the same as cancelling them. I’m sick of conflating one for the other. I, for one, don’t think the art is separate from the artist. And I don’t think calling out homophobia or transphobia or misogyny or racism et al in art is ‘cancel culture’. Freedom of speech and expression is not the same as freedom of reach.
As to the rest, most of what krishikari said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eswar
June 6, 2021
Is the separation of art and artist a binary, consistent view? Does this view change depending on how much an individual has been affected by the artist’s behaviour?
For example, in the case of predatory artists, would one be able to separate art from the artist on all these occasions i.e the victim is
Unknown
An acquaintance
A family member
Self
One’s child
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
June 7, 2021
Further to my previous comment, I also have a huge problem that having a problem with something or someone (art/politics/views) and vocalising it is ‘cancel culture’. Or wokeness-gone-rogue.
Saying that I find Woody Allen’s films problematic given his predilections (and no, he wasn’t just accused/condemned in the court of public opinion; the case was sealed because the child in question was a minor. The prosecutors couldn’t go too far with the case for just that reason but the judge, sealing the case was of the opinion that the charges were believable) doesn’t mean I’m either asking for them to be banned or for others to stop watching it.
I can find Cuckold fascinating and still accept that Nagarkar was an asehl*.
Again, Cave is still free to perform whatever he wants, is he not? What he wants is that he should be performing it but no one should accuse him of anything because it was written oh-so-long-ago. That’s not the way the world works. If he doesn’t care for people’s opinions, because ART (TM), then ignore the noise, why doesn’t he?
I find these arguments specious because many of the same people who argue that art should be divorced from the artist are also the ones who insist art is personal. You can’t have it both ways. If the art is personal, then it is your views you’re putting out there, and once you put your views out there, you will have both appreciation and condemnation. You cannot argue that people who disapprove of your views are cancelling you.
And TBH, I know of very few artists whose art – whether music, film, writing, painting, even photography – is not informed by their personal experiences, politics, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), background, upbringing and/or education. And once it is put out for public consumption, it is rather idiotic to say that it should be accepted wholesale.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Karthik
June 7, 2021
Speaking of bullying, you can criticise the trend of bullying, piling on and cancelling on social media. But you don’t have to conflate it with art and artist separation
I can totally agree with this, Krishikari.
The former has to do with the mentality of a collective (or a mob) while the latter is the prerogative of the individual. I dont believe that art is something that is universally “sacrosanct” or that every consumer should accord it an immaculate conception status once created. Art, at least to me, is just a conduit from the creator to the consumer. Just as its a creator’s prerogative to infuse the creation with the sensibilities he/she desires, its the consumer’s prerogative to engage with the creation in the manner he/she desires. It could be by disengaging because of the creator’s personality, or using the creation only to judge the creator, or evaluating the art independent of the creator. In a forum such as this when perspectives from different parts of this spectrum come together, it makes for a very enriching experience.
Institutions— media houses, academies, universities— are a different matter. It seems to me that many of them are just hiding their frailties in the modern era by either standing behind or kowtowing to the demands of the collective.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 7, 2021
I just enjoyed Nick Cave’s reply so much that I wanted to post it — that’s all. This was not intended to provoke a debate/discussion (from my side, I’m saying, though I knew people would end up talking about it) — simply because this topic has come up many times and we all know which side we are on.
Eswar: I have thought about this many times, in some cases I do not want to talk about in public and in other cases like a marital breakup etc, where I have been forced to take sides.
Let’s say X is my friend. Let’s say X is exposed as a domestic abuser or a paedophile or whatever. My stance is this:
I want X to be punished. I want him/her in jail, to “pay for their sins” or however you want it.
I would also CERTAINLY visit X in jail and try and continue to be a friend, and try to understand what happened, why he/she turned out this way. I would not ‘cancel’ that friend.
Let’s say all of us have ten traits. There are nine other traits that made me this person’s friend. That would be my ‘reason’ to continue to engage with him/her.
But let’s say he/she does NOT end up punished. And I get proof that he/she has done such a thing. Then, my first impulse would be to have a talk with this person (hopefully with other friends, the way you stage an intervention) and see if something can be done, if he/she is willing to apologise in public (which may result in consequences for his/her career) or admit it or do something to correct the course of his/her actions.
(I am a major believer in (genuine) repentance and second chances.)
If that is not possible, then THAT would be the reason for me to ‘cancel’ this friend (personally, not on social media).
Now, let’s say this friend is an artist, I would still value the art he/she produced, which would now have acquired a more problematic hue. As in: “Is MANHATTAN just fiction, or is it an indication of a predilection for young girls?” I would watch/read/listen to the work of art with these questions.
But that would not change the fact (for me, and only for me) that MANHATTAN is one of the greatest films ever written and acted and directed. It is a work of utter genius.
And I think — I KNOW — that this series of steps will vary from person to person, and can never be “generalised”.
sai16vicky: I love that statement, actually – because all art is 50% conscious, 50% unconscious.
You set out WANTING to do something: this is the conscious part. (“I want to write a song that will promote rationalism, to take your example.”)
But HOW the words come out, HOW the tune comes out — a lot of this is completely from the unconscious. Or a deep believer like Rahman might (instead of “unconscious”) say “It comes from God.”
And then, the conscious part steps in again, when you take a step back and see the song. The conscious part says: “that tune is odd, that word sound off…”
And then the process of (re)creation starts, and it’s back to the unconscious.
I experience this every time I write something or help someone crack the climax for a script or whatever. That blinding surge of the unconscious…. It’s so powerful that if I’d been a real believer, I’d definitely call it “divine” 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Anuja Chandramouli
June 7, 2021
@Anuja, if you you don’t mind, could you share an example or two? I am curious to know the insider/writer’s take on this.
Recently, I had to read and review Sara Johnson’s (She is a Sahitya Akademi award winner and is a highly feted author) Budhini. Budhini’s story deserves to be told. She was a Santal girl who as a teen was chosen by the Damodar Valley Corp to garland Nehru and apply tikka on his forehead when he arrived to inaugurate a dam. The poor girl was immediately ostracized because it was felt that by garlanding Nehru she had ‘married’ an outsider. Later she lost her job at the DVC as well & it was only during Rajiv Gandhi’s term that she was reinstated and given some respite from unrelenting poverty and hardship. However I was appalled at Johnson’s stilted, supremely artificial prose and the stunning lack of authenticity when it came to depicting the Santal way of life. It was repellent that she felt entitled to use the stories of the poor and disenfranchised as a platform for virtue – signalling. But I will not be surprised if Sarah Johnson and her Budhini rakes in the award nominations and is buried under critical acclaim.
A similarly problematic web series was The Haunting of Bly Manor. Since it was from the makers of A Haunting on Hill House (which I really liked) I was keen to watch it. But it was so bloody paint by the numbers and came complete with a token wokeism checklist – 2 African Americans, 1 Asian named Owen Sharma and a same sex relationship. While I can get onboard a PC cast that is representative of minorities (even if the material is based on Henry James’ Turn of the Screw) I am less happy when such a move seems to make the makers feel like they can scrimp on good, old – fashioned organic storytelling where everything comes together instead of feeling stupidly tacked on.
And recently, I believe there was a show where Anne Boleyn is portrayed by an African American. I mean what is the point of such an exercise besides being deliberately provocative and a means to brand people (mostly history buffs who are big on period detailing and historical accuracy) who question the choice as racist? I could go on but why bother?
‘I think i already explained my reasoning. Many of Woody Allen’s films seem autobiographical so I find the art creepy in light of the sexual abuse accusations. He himself is in a lot of them and I don’t want to look at his face. It’s my personal reaction. If you haven’t seen any of his films then why are you defending them? Just because “art”? I’m afraid I don’t feel the need to put art on that kind of pedestal.’
Krishikari: While I have nothing at all against people’s personal choices which go into whether or not they choose to engage with a work of art or not, I am inclined to object only when this personal choice/preference is raised to the exalted realm of elevated principle and used to shame others for a similarly personal choice/preference to watch a movie, read a book etc. Sample this: When a wokester says I will not watch Paatal Lok because Tarun Tejpal wrote the book on which it is based and he stands accused of rape, I have no issues. But if said wokester goes on to add that those who do watch the show endorse rapists, then I am afraid that is just crossing the line since an attempt is being made to control what is being consumed in the name of art. And no, I am not accusing you of doing this, merely saying it is straight out of the extreme liberal playbook and hence my vehement opposition to the same.
I am not trying to convince you to come around to my way of thinking either. To each his/her own etc. Peace out!!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Anuja Chandramouli
June 7, 2021
‘I find these arguments specious because many of the same people who argue that art should be divorced from the artist are also the ones who insist art is personal. You can’t have it both ways. If the art is personal, then it is your views you’re putting out there, and once you put your views out there, you will have both appreciation and condemnation. You cannot argue that people who disapprove of your views are cancelling you.’
Anu Warrior: Of course the process of creating art is an intensely personal one. Every one of my books has a giant chunk of my heart, soul, flesh and blood. Yet once, I am done, they exist independently. They belong on a separate realm entirely even if we once shared an intimate connection. It is a paradox but there you have it. I feel the same way about my books as I do about my children and as Gibran puts it:
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
Which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
LikeLike
krishikari
June 7, 2021
@ Anu, thanks for supporting arguments. Freedom of speech and expression is not the same as freedom of reach. or freedom from criticism.
It’s always “Wokeness gone mad” anytime some subconscious biases are pointed out, or someone makes a reading from a perspective that the artist did not consider (as in the case of the Nayattu movie.) In that way yes, the art has to survive or fail on it’s own, independent of the creators intentions.
@BR so intentional or not, this post is still rehashing the argument we’ve had before, maybe it’s worthwhile. Thanks for the space to do so, otherwise I would be boring some completely indifferent person with these rants.
I do understand the creative surge that doesn’t seem entirely conscious and understand also that the art seems, at least to the creator, to be an independent creature with it’s own life.
But the decision to put the art work out in public is an entirely conscious one. The artist, or the team of producers or whoever decides that it deserves a public performance, is then accountable for whatever problems it contains or they can defend it when it provokes people.
I just don’t feel that the defense can be “It’s Art, therefore sacrosanct.” I’d rather hear them say this reaction is undeserved and prudish, or that the lyrics are playful, or fictional, (as Madan pointed out) they are actually pro LGBTQ etc. but not “They are my holy children, don’t attack them!”
But that would not change the fact (for me, and only for me) that MANHATTAN is one of the greatest films ever written and acted and directed. It is a work of utter genius.
Yeah, he is an evil genius. (IMHO)
LikeLike
sanjana
June 7, 2021
Can someone open threads for Family Man 2 and
Malayalam speaking nurses controversy.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
June 7, 2021
@Anuja, you’ve just made my argument for me. Most (all?) art is personal. But once you put it out there (which is a conscious decision) then it flourishes or fails independent of you. Just like our children. One cannot then say that no one else should criticise them or hold them accountable. And therefore, when I view a film/painting/photograph, listen to a song or a piece of music, or read a book or article, the creator cannot say ‘Oh, but this is personal, my child, and therefore, above criticism. Criticise me, but not my creation.’ (Paraphrasing Cave here.)
And in general:
Art is neither created nor consumed in a vacuum. And finding said art problematic is neither wokeness or cancel culture. Seems to me that the minute someone is criticised for the views they express, someone is screaming ‘cancelled’ these days. Perhaps taking offence sees no boundaries but each side sees only the ‘offences’ directed at them.
@Heisenberg – that’s where my line gets drawn. I don’t think people should be held accountable for stupid things they say when they are in their teens. One assumes that people grow and change. I’d much rather judge a person by their current actions (or at least in the recent past).
On the flip side, there are still many people who remain stuck mentally at whatever view they held when they were 17. I have no issues with them being called out for their behaviour.
LikeLike
Eswar
June 7, 2021
BR: Those series of steps about dealing with a friend is a useful guide. Thanks for sharing. Where I stumble in the art vs artist debate is – when I have detached myself from an artist, a friend or not, what is that that will make me pursue their work. I appreciate that I may not be able to change how I felt about their work in the past. That experience has become part of me. I will have to learn to live with it. But, do I want to pursue their work in the future? If I were to what would be the driving factor?
That is the question I don’t have an answer to and that is where the Art and the Artist separation collapses for me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
June 7, 2021
“But that would not change the fact (for me, and only for me) that MANHATTAN is one of the greatest films ever written and acted and directed. It is a work of utter genius.”
I don’t think anyone is going to claim that xyz is a bad film because the director is a pedophile.
It is probably a combination of these factors –
The conduct of the author bothers to such an extent that it makes engaging with their work difficult to impossible
the author has largely not been held accountable through conventional means
there is a desire to not let the author benefit by engaging with their work
there is a desire to pull down the author from the position (of respect) they may hold not just as a means of retribution but also to make it harder for them to continue to behave in a predatory fashion.
LikeLike
Rahul
June 8, 2021
https://www.vox.com/culture/22451970/chrissy-teigen-courtney-stodden-controversy-explained
“Teigen’s reputation-damaging tweets all share a certain essential DNA. They are all tweets mocking girls and femmes whom the pop culture of the late ’00s and early ’10s had made it clear were fair game for mockery: people who read as girls (Stodden did not come out as nonbinary until 2021), and whom the culture at large considered to be too trashy, too slutty, too showy. Girly, but not in the right way.
What Teigen said on Twitter about and to those people was genuinely horrible, and it is clear that she targeted them because pop culture had given her permission to do so. Even outlets like Jezebel, “a supposedly feminist website,” were mocking Stodden in 2012. Doing so was part of the snarky ethos that defined Jezebel and its more famous cousin, Gawker.
So in the early ’10s, these tweets didn’t hurt Teigen. Instead, they were part of what made her seem real and funny. Then, as now, Twitter rewarded cruelty, as long as it was directed at those the in-group considered to be “the right people.” But then, unlike now, “the right people” could include teenagers trapped in abusive relationships with adults.
The attributes on display in the tweets that have led to Teigen’s downfall appear to be some of the same attributes that made Teigen so widely beloved for so long: her lack of filter, her love of roasting people widely agreed at the time to be terrible. What’s changed is that now, it’s clear that the way she wielded them was fundamentally misdirected.
Our great reckoning with how we talk about women and femmes over the course of the Me Too decade has changed the way Twitter works. And in the process, it’s bringing down the woman who used to rule it.”
LikeLike
Jai
June 8, 2021
Off-topic but I agree with @sanjana–we need a thread about Family Man 2 with how much buzz it’s gotten over the past few months (though I really hope we discuss the series itself and not only the controversies)
LikeLiked by 1 person
sai16vicky
June 8, 2021
@BR: Thanks for a beautiful response! I agree that the process of creating art is “divine” (I am a believer :)). This isn’t limited to just art; anything that involves creative/intellectual pursuit is “divine” (according to me). However, I don’t agree that art in itself is “divine” (or anything equivalent) and let me try to explain why.
Let us take the example of your book “Conversations with Mani Ratnam”. While the conversations between you and MR are pure gold, there are places where it feels like the publishers were doing the talking (e.g., some digressive questions on Aishwarya Rai, as acknowledged by you in an interview). And this is where the commerce angle kicks in.
To write a book, one needs a publisher and at the end of the day, the book needs to sell. Naturally, the writer needs to keep this aspect in mind while writing the book. Now, there could still be the unconscious-conscious battle and it might end up as some of your best work.
But the moment you are doing something to sell, well, the ‘divinity’ part is lost! All you end up with is a creative product.
LikeLiked by 1 person
H. Prasanna
June 8, 2021
One more thing I want to ask, BR and Anuja, as artists, I suppose you censor yourself all the time because the pure art is rarely a pure product and/or because of laws/culture (heteronormativity, laws regarding libel/slander, etc.). Also because there are no takers for that idea in the marketplace. What you put out is different from what you thought of, I feel, most of the time.
How are these changes to original art because of censorship different, or significant, than cancel culture? Does it matter that it is coming from (part of) the intended audience and the other parties (government, publishers, producers) are not expected to view the art for art’s sake?
LikeLiked by 1 person
krishikari
June 8, 2021
@anuja *Sample this: When a wokester says I will not watch Paatal Lok because Tarun Tejpal wrote the book on which it is based and he stands accused of rape, I have no issues. But if said wokester goes on to add that those who do watch the show endorse rapists, then I am afraid that is just crossing the line since an attempt is being made to control what is being consumed in the name of art. *
Okay, respect your opinion but I hope more people who own publishing platforms make entirely personal decisions to not publish him then? If the courts cannot do their jobs and stop putting women on trial for their rapes maybe we are only left with public opinion. I’d rather be called wokester and extreme leftist than neutral or objective (because there is no such thing) anyday.
Incidentally, I read Tejpal’s book a long time before he was accused and found his depictions of the two women characters extremely sexist and almost stopped reading. Honestly. Especially the way he wrote the wife character was just vile. But I thought that could have been the narrative voice, now pretty sure that was just him. I also watched Pataal Lok, and only while watching realized it was based on the book, but the makers of the show have (IMO) practically eliminated the negative sexist tone and made a much improved version. Proves that the story did not need the sexism at all to work.
I listened to a really great and detailed podcast (Anurag Minus Verma and Nikita Sonavane episode) with a public defender lawyer who argued that the courts and police always protect the powerful especially in India, they were designed for it since colonial times, and this is the wrong venue to redress injustice. It sounded like she was talking about Charles Dickens’ Bleak House.
@jai @sanjana Is Family Man worth watching?
LikeLike
sanjana
June 8, 2021
@krishikari. Both the seasons are worth watching. The first season I watched long back and so I started to watch again to make comparisons. Second season can be watched without watching the first season. because the story is quite different.
LikeLike
Jai
June 9, 2021
I guess? The first season for sure. The second season was kind of underwhelming, though I might be in the minority with that opinion (and I’m not fully finished yet so take my opinion with a heap of salt).
LikeLike
Cholan Raje
June 9, 2021
Why should either be punished? It’s natural for a person to have toxic ideologies nurtured into them by their time. They shouldn’t be punished for that as long as they’ve reformed since.
That being said, I don’t know why Nick Cave would expect people to be ok with hearing “fag” at a contemporary concert. I think people have fair reason to be uncomfortable with that, and while I’ll fight for any artists’ right to perform whatever they want, I don’t think such artists can blame anyone if their “fag” songs don’t get an audience.
The main thing I take an issue with on this thread is that art should be judged by its morality, or that art glorifying/condoning immoral ideologies is “problematic.” Art, like speech, is a medium of expression. It’s meant to allow even the most immoral people on our Earth to express themselves and their beliefs regardless of the consequences entailing that, and should never be expected to teach people right from wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Devarsi Ghosh
June 10, 2021
Nick’s reply is beautiful. Like a final Word, nothing goes past this. And yet such grace.
LikeLike
tonks
June 10, 2021
In my opinion :
1) It’s perfectly OK for art (movies, books, paintings) to be politically incorrect, since every one has their point of view
2) It’s ok to criticise the above art, and say that it hurt/offended oneself since again everyone has their point of view
3) It’s not ok to try and suppress either of the above voices since everyone has freedom of expression
Where the situation becomes slightly gray for me are stories based on real people, real events where freedom of expression to change events or the story, and too much deviation from the truth leaves people with a false impression about things. Again, to a large extent allowable since consumers are supposed to understand that its only one persons version of the truth.
Another gray area for me is glorification and condoning of problematic behaviour (stalking/ humor based on deformities/ humor based on oppressed people/ misogyny)
LikeLiked by 3 people
Aman Basha
June 10, 2021
Me thinks, with Family Man, both the seasons are equivalent in quality, it only depends on which season you see first. However, the second season really explodes from episode 6 and there’s a much greater twist and better character arcs than in Season 1.
Off hand, I really can’t think of a spy series that has so much comedy and is also realistic and understated.
LikeLike
Mary
June 10, 2021
Evocatively written but feels like an unfair comparison – it is cruel and unnecessary to tell a child that they are “hideously physically deformed” because their being deformed harms no one else. The more accurate comparison would be that it’s like telling a child who has been slapping classmates across the face and is unaware of their feelings that that is a hideous thing to do – and assuming that his classmates do feel like they’re being slapped, this feels like a reasonable and urgent message to give a child.
Having said that, agree that the balance of harm is hard to measure. How many people are you hurting – and as someone said, are you punching up or punching down? On the whole though, it feels better to err on the side of being considerate, especially in the interest of people who have much less relative power – real power, look at financial and political power rather than social media power which has affected almost no one and no one in a significant long term way. If being considerate seems like overcompensating and restrictive – that’s the way that gay people or trans people or women have felt forever just living their lives, and certainly continue to feel in many more situations than Nick Cave does.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cholan Raje
June 10, 2021
@tonks The first 3 points sum up my opinion perfectly. IMO, the things you articulate in your last two paragraphs aren’t “gray areas” for me. They’re unpleasant, but they’re also the consequences of freedom of expression.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aman Basha
June 10, 2021
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/can-bollywood-survive-modi/619008/
Woke and cancel culture are bull; we ought to worry about this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shilpa
June 11, 2021
@ Tonks
Some thoughts about your final point on glorification–to me, at least, glorification falls into the same category as #1. Of course, glorification isn’t the necessarily the same as being politically incorrect because glorification shows things that are (usually) objectively wrong in a positive light, but I think the artist should be allowed to express their point of view in that manner as long as it doesn’t veer into the extremes. What confuses me is where we should draw the line (I personally think most people are drawing the line too soon though).
LikeLiked by 1 person
hari
June 11, 2021
Wondering when was the last time bollywood movies weaved serious issues—social justice, women’s rights, gay rights, interreligious marriage—into entertainment :))
LikeLike
Cholan Raje
June 11, 2021
@Shilpa
There shouldn’t be a line. Would you put a line on what someone can speak about? I certainly wouldn’t, because their freedom of expression triumphs its potential consequences.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
June 11, 2021
@tonks, well-said!
@Mary, @Krishikari, thanks for the clearly articulated stands. Brava!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
June 11, 2021
@Aman, thanks for that link. We knew about all of this of course, but to see incidents collated like this makes it scarier. Friends in the industry skirt around the topic gingerly, talking only in private because everyone is running scared. Trumped up charges can ruin them. It’s like McCarthyism all over again – only, this time, it’s the Muslims instead of the communists.
LikeLike
Eswar
June 12, 2021
Some thoughts on Freedom of Expression:
Restricted freedom of expression in public space doesn’t imply its absence. Absence is only when there is no freedom of expression in both public and private space. Being pushed back for a public opinion is not the same as no freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is essential and powerful. But the power from the freedom of expression is not the same among individuals even in a fairly free society. Who you are and who is listening to you amplifies the power of your freedom of expression. The opposite is also true. Who you are and who is listening to you amplifies the lack of freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is a double-edged sword. When one does not show respect when wielding it, they will destroy both themselves and others. Freedom of expression without responsibly using it will not last long.
Art on its own is a powerful medium to influence society. Freedom of expression multiplies this power. It becomes even more powerful for an influential artist. Being an influential artist is not about asking for more and more freedom to express but being more and more responsible for what they say, what they do and what they produce. Sometimes even more responsible than the society at large because their freedom of expression is more powerful than the rest. And when they lose theirs we will lose ours, eventually.
LikeLiked by 1 person
hari
June 12, 2021
Eswar ji spot on. Very eloquently put.
LikeLike
Cholan Raje
June 12, 2021
@Eswar
“Restricted” freedom is not freedom at all.
While you are right about artists wielding more power in their expression than others, I fail to see how this denies them of the human right to voice their views. If we want to ensure society gets less f*cked up as it progresses, I think we should take the pressure we place on artists and push it on parents and teachers to instill good values in our children, rather than unfairly claiming artists are less entitled to freedom because of their power. Power does not imply responsibility. If it did, every upper and middle-class individual would have blood on his hands for not donating all of his disposable income to charity.
LikeLike
Eswar
June 13, 2021
Hari Ji: Thank you 😊🙏.
Cholan Raje: I don’t think freedom is a binary concept. We have different levels of freedom. When an individual enters into a relationship, they trade a part of their freedom to get something in return. Developing a friendship, getting married, having children, working for someone are examples. Whether one is an artist or not by being part of a society we exchange some of our freedom. Absolute freedom exists only in a vacuum.
An artist’s vacuum is his private space. Within that space, artists have the freedom to express what they want. Their freedom of expression takes a hit only when they take their work beyond this vacuum. It starts first with producers, publishers, and editors. The audience comes in the end. Prasanna and Sai16Vicky already touched on this point. So, like any other individual, an artist trades their freedom of expression and gets something else in return. Fame, money or the joy of seeing their art meet its audience. If art is only about expression freedom, does it need an audience?
In an interview with BR, actress Jyothika talked about returning to acting. Now that she has children, she mentioned that she wants to be part of movies that her children could watch. Being an artist doesn’t stop one from being a parent or a teacher. Being a parent doesn’t stop one from becoming an artist. More roles mean more responsibilities. This applies to any individual and artists need no exception. While I am grateful for the work the artists do, I am also wary of them having any more freedom than the rest of society. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Power does imply responsibility. We all have blood in our hands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
June 13, 2021
Freedom of expression doesn’t come without responsibility. Or without disagreement. Or criticism.
And as for ‘restricted’ freedom of expression – there’s no such thing as absolute freedom of expression. Which is why yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre is a punishable offence. And bigotry, racism, hate speech, etc., would be allowed as much ‘freedom’ as civil rights. There are consequences to such speech. (Well, should be, and isn’t in the US, it seems, these days.)
And in any case, freedom of speech and expression is only legally binding on governments who cannot take action against an individual for stated views. But no one else is obliged to listen to, agree with, or NOT criticise those views. No one has to help publish them (so social media platforms are not obliged to help you spread your views – right, left or centre) or not push back against them.
There are no holy cows.
Eswar put it beautifully. Art is influential. But with power comes responsibility. And power is not above criticism. It seems to me that every time there’s a discussion on the ‘freedom of expression’ in Art, that those who demand that absolute freedom of expression are also demanding a freedom from criticism. In essence, you’re demanding your freedom of expression at the expense of restricting ours. See how that works?
LikeLiked by 2 people
krishikari
June 14, 2021
I think this topic has been duly and diligently covered yet again! It might look like there are two sides to the argument but it’s actually all one side, none of us want censorship. We all believe in freedom of expression and appreciate art, its just that there are a few who believe in absolute freedom of expression for only one group of special people (artists). Maybe it’s because they are often a vulnerable group.
@aman from your linked article:
Authoritarians always want that megaphone for themselves. One way to seize it is by making an example of a few while stirring fear and self-censorship among the rest.
I agree with this. But those in power intimidating artists (and using troll armies on social media) is not the same as genuine critical comments from ordinary people using social media. I think people here are equating the two.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cholan Raje
June 14, 2021
@Eswar
I disagree with your definition of freedom. When one gets into a relationship, they don’t give up any of their freedom— they simply shift their priorities to spending more time with their SO. That doesn’t change the fact that they still have the freedom to opt out/elope/cheat, etc. I do think freedom is a binary concept (since a restriction is by its very definition the opposite of freedom) but I will confess that none of us can ever be free if we want to be happy, and that freedom of expression should be drawn at certain things (like death threats). But I still believe in absolute freedom of expression when it comes to expressing ideologies, and I guess that’s where we disagree.
“Their freedom of expression takes a hit only when they take their work beyond this vacuum. It starts first with producers, publishers, and editors. The audience comes in the end. Prasanna and Sai16Vicky already touched on this point. So, like any other individual, an artist trades their freedom of expression and gets something else in return. Fame, money or the joy of seeing their art meet its audience. If art is only about expression freedom, does it need an audience?”
I disagree with this as well. In this scenario, the artist chooses to censor himself to get an audience. But he still has the power to not do so and to just, say, release his work on YouTube. He hasn’t traded his freedom of expression, he’s merely prioritized fame over honesty. Art does not need an audience. If I make a short film and keep it on my computer with no intention of showing it to anyone, it’s still art.
I do believe artists are entitled to the same freedom of expression as everyone, i.e. I believe anyone has the right to communicate whatever ideology they want to. This doesn’t mean I think they should be shielded from public criticism or backlash, it just means I think they should be able to express their ideologies without facing legal consequences or having their artistic work banned from public view.
As for “power does imply responsibility,” do you think we should give away all our free time and disposable income to stopping disasters in other parts of the world?
@Anu Warrier
When you say bigotry, racism and hate speech should have consequences, I hope you’re not implying that the law should censor people from expressing bigoted or racist ideologies. That being said, I 100% agree that the public has the right to respond negatively to someone’s views, and I agree that freedom of speech does not translate to owing one a platform. The freedom of expression I desire is one that allows people to express any ideology without the law trying to silence them.
Once again, where I disagree is with the idea that power implies responsibility.
LikeLike
tonks
June 14, 2021
It seems to me that every time there’s a discussion on the ‘freedom of expression’ in Art, that those who demand that absolute freedom of expression are also demanding a freedom from criticism. In essence, you’re demanding your freedom of expression at the expense of restricting ours. See how that works?
But those in power intimidating artists (and using troll armies on social media) is not the same as genuine critical comments from ordinary people using social media. I think people here are equating the two
Well said. Absolutely agree 👍
LikeLike