This is interesting

[avevale_intelligencer]

After my post below about whether it's helpful to tell writers what they should and shouldn't write, programme makers who they should and shouldn't cast, and so on, it was interesting to follow cherylmmorgan's link to this post by Amanda Palmer.

It's nothing to do with racism in itself, but these lines in the middle provide another angle:

i should be allowed to write about, sing about, joke about anything that moves me.
so should you. so should everyone.

an artist’s (and a human being’s) freedom to do that, without fear of retribution, is the cornerstone of what keeps the world moving forward, not backwards, not standing still.

And:

in art, everything must be fair game, everything must be explorable, everything must be speakable, or we go BACKWARDS! we go DOWN!

I'm sure she wasn't thinking about racially offensive portrayals of minority characters when she wrote that. But it's interesting, isn't it?

Comments

[hurdle1gal.livejournal.com]

She's also a good musician. Have heard her through Neil Gaiman's blog, and she's very unique.

[brewsternorth.livejournal.com]

in art, ....everything must be speakable,

One hopes including con-crit, otherwise art would be full of speshul snowflakes going nowhere - the point about art is how it interacts with its audience, surely? And that includes offensive portrayals, yadda yadda yadda.

[howeird]

I'm sure she wasn't thinking about racially offensive portrayals of minority characters when she wrote that
And why not? Art immitates life. Life is full of racism, some of it helped along by minorities fulfilling their stereotypical roles.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that link. I had never heard of the artist and songwriter, but I watched the video and read the article, and I completely agree with her. Humour, as she points out, is very often a coping mechanism, in addition to its ability to defuse subjects just enough so that they can be aired (the traditional position of Court Jester was using that, he was the one person who could get away with telling the king the truth). I've seen a lot of things from comedians recently saying how they are becoming afraid to say things which offend the establishment because of all the laws which can be read to stop all criticism of anyone.

[batyatoon]

I've only just recently encountered the work of Amanda Palmer, and she's marvelous.

And I'd agree with what she says here, with the minor caveat that without fear of retribution should not translate to without fear of vehement criticism.

Sorry if I've missed the point

[(Anonymous)]

but this argument seems to me to lead to the following anathema

N ~ Free speech means allowing people to voice their opinions

N2 ~ Even if they are ones which some people might find offensive

N3 ~ Possibly particularly if the "offended" happen to be those "In Authority"

N4 ~ Even if those views are, say, that a particular social or racial or national or religious group has no right to a view, because they are in some was offensively different and therefore no longer count as human.


Or have I got it wrong ?

Re: Sorry if I've missed the point

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, I have no particular desire to defend N4, though I have heard it advanced that freedom of speech even includes the bits we don't happen to like. I believe everyone's human, even me and George Bush. I just find it interesting to contrast the two thoughts--that freedom of expression is a basic human right, to be exercised and defended at all costs, and that it's essential to curtail people's freedom of expression so as not to give offence.

Or, from another angle, that being human includes the right not to have jokes made about you or your country or your religion or anything you happen to take seriously. (I'll accept that one when there is a serious move towards banning fat jokes, and not a day before. If we're going to do this, we do it properly or not at all.)

[jahura.livejournal.com]

There is no clean answer for this, only in that the artist seems to have got it by third-hand information from a friend at her record label who made her own interpretation of what she was told by...the stations? Someone who contacted the stations?

In any case, it would be more plausible to say the stations in question refused to play the songs for commercial reasons (people may be offended and change the channel) because songs on the radio and videos on television are not the same as standing in front of it in a gallery. Escape is as easy as the press of a button, but that maneuver is cost to the station.

Freedom of speech and expession also should include the freedom of the option not to see or hear it again if it does offend you.

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

The anti-racism activist argument against this is that yes, that would be lovely, but institutional racism, some of which is very hard for people (particularly white people) to detect, prevents black, Asian and minority ethnic people from writing about, singing about, joking about the things that move them, or from being heard when they do. So the best thing for white people to do is to self censor some things, sometimes, so that they don't add to this heavy burden of institutional racism.

I think I agree with this.