A negative impact of art?

I'm writing an essay on The Pillowman for a lit. class. One thing that has come up in my paper is a negative impact of art. In the play, the main character writes horrific stories about children being murdered, and reads these to his "slow" brother. His brother then, acts out these horrific murders on three children in the town, because he thought his writer-brother was telling him to. It also says that he wanted to see if what his writer-brother wrote could work, because they seem far fetched.





Obviously, this guy's art had a negative impact on his brother. But, I don't know what to say about it. I want to talk about it, but I really don't know what to say! I don't think art should be sensored, but this is a REALLY bad impact that art had on someone.





How do you feel about this? Should an artist take into consideration what impact his art may have? Or does the artist have no responsiblity?

A negative impact of art?
James Joyce, an Irish poet of the 1900's came up with the term "static arrest" or "static stasis". What that meant is that art, in a propper form will induce the listener, reader or viewer static arrest, that being a feeling of happiness, love, fear or anger. Anything that causes a feeling or idea is called art (becasue it causes static arrest). Anything that causes a spectator to act on (either aggressively, violently, etc.) impulse, is called pornography (not XXX kind of pornography). In order for it to be art, the work must retain it's same quality form to many generations (be timeless). It has to have a lyrrical, epic or narrative form. Hope I didn't confuse you and good luck! :)
Reply:You dont mention it the writer-brother had knowledge of his slow bro's response to his 'bed time ' stories.. if he did then writer-brother is the one responsible.. and real artists? are they responsible for how someone else responds to their work? As an artist i WANT a response, I do my work to evoke response, especially emotional.. if it doesnt affect someone, somewhere then the piece hasnt done the job I created it for.
Reply:This is a really good topic, actually. I applaud. You should tie it in to today's issues - i.e. censoring the media and blaming it for the violent actions of children.





You have a great question. Answer it. Tie it in with relevant issues and discuss how it leads to an ongoing struggle. Does the author seem to think there is responsibility?
Reply:The artist has a certain level of responsibility. For example if you are comissioned to do a painting for a church auction, a painting loaded with pagan symbols and nudity is irresponsible. I think that the artist should take their potential audience into account. I'm not saying they should be censored, I'm saying that if the artist's work is graphic, or controversial, they should exercise some restraint on who they display their work to.





In the case of this play, the fictional artist was partially responsible for the deaths of the children. Not because he wrote the stories, but because he shared them with someone that he should have known would not be able to tell the difference between fiction and truth.
Reply:I think artists have full responsibility.
Reply:That does sound quiet horrible .A girl I knew did some self portred of her self and BF once and put it into an art exhibition she had draw then nude and stuck their hair on the paintings underarms pubic hair and head that night someone broke in and slashed her paintings up but didn't touch anyone Else's it really frightened her to have had this reaction to her work.but no I think art is in the eye of the beholder and every ones idea of art is different it would be a pretty boring place if everyone liked the same thing.the boy in the story had to be menially ill because no sane person would kill to get a pat on the back .
Reply:Argue about whether society is a reflection of art, or is art a reflection of society? What is the power of art to influence people? You could discuss sexism in contemporary rap, the flexible borders around political correctness, or Don Imus's UnPC comments.





Art may be in public place, but art is a personal experience. I wish art were powerful enough to influence the masses. Man, could we get some stuff done.
Reply:I don't think censoring art is the right thing to do, but that doesn't mean the artist is free from all responsibility.





In this case, the true wrongdoing was not writing the stories, it was exposing them to an inappropriate audience.





The artist does need to have some responsibility. Flaunting inappropriate material because it's their "art" and everyone should respect their "art" is wrong. For example, a painting of a man and woman making love could be beautiful, and would count as art. That doesn't mean it needs to be put up on a billboard beside a local elementary school. Why? Because sexual material of any kind is inappropriate for children. The responsibility falls on the artist to have it available for people who will appreciate it as art, but do everything possible to keep it from an "inappropriate" audience. This is why there is a rating system for movies and games and tv, and why porn is pay-per-view, and why Maxim and Penthouse and Cosmo in Barnes %26amp; Noble are partly hidden and behind the counter away from children.





Many people who are mildly to moderately mentally retarded have a difficult time distinguishing fact from fiction, and almost all don't understand much of the consequences for their actions. Therefore, exposing them to stories or other "art" that depicts illegal activity in detail is potentially dangerous. Therefore, the parents or caregivers have a responsibility to keep certain things from them.





The same goes with children. Violence, bad language, sex, nudity, drug use, etc. are all inappropriate for children. A parent who cuddles up with thier five-year-old and watches movies or tv shows that are laden with it is irresponsible. The same goes for books. You do not read your young children Stephen King novels as bedtime stories. It's perfectly acceptable and normal for an adult to like these things, but it isn't okay for a young, innocent, impressionable child to be exposed to it.





I also think there has to be a line between true art and "art" as an excuse to do wrong. For example, in a movie where a child or a woman is abused, the actor or actress should NEVER actually be hurt or in danger. Filming an adult throw a kid against a wall for real, and calling it "art", is not okay. It's not art, it's a felony.





I also feel that ANYthing that graphically depicts child molestation or sexual abuse is wrong and should NOT be allowed to be called "art." This includes books. A book that reads like erotica, with sexual acts with children, described in detail, is nothing more than child pornography in the form of a story. Because sex offenders are known for being the criminals most likely to be repeat offenders, offering up anything that will whet their appetites for sexual deviancy should be firmly and catagorically illegal.
Reply:September 11, 2001 when everyone was reporting on the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, all I could think of was that it sounded very much like what happened at the end of Tom Clancy's "Debt of Honor." Published in '94, the book ends with a Japanese pilot deliberately crashing his 747 into the Capitol building, killing the President and all of Congress. Seven years later I wondered if the terrorist had read the book and got the idea to crash the planes into the Pentagon and twin towers from there. I doubt Clancy actually said "Ok, I'll write the scene this way so someone will get the idea to do the same thing." It all seems to come down to how some may interpert his work. In fact that seems to be the case with any artist or author. In one of Clive Cussler's books (I wanna say it was "Valhalla Rising" but I'm not sure), he has the villian intend to use a LNG (liquid natural gas) super tanker in an attempt to blow up a major US port city. Someone could see that as a blueprint for an attack even though Cussler doubtlessly doesn't mean it as such.





In a different case, I remember seeing a tv show where in one episode this English Lit Proffessor is telling his students the intent the author had in their book. One of the people in the class spoke up saying the author's intent was nothing like what the professor claimed. Well, naturally the proffesor got all huffy about it, after all he had years of experince on his side and this student couldn't possibly even know a thing. Turned out the student was actually the author of the book, so clearly they knew more about their intent than the proffesor did.





What I guess I'm trying to say is that no matter what the artist or author may have intended originally, it's always going to be open to the interpertation of others. Maybe you want to bring that up. How no matter what the author or artists intends, their work could have a negative affect if someone else sees a different intention in their work.