I am on youtube enough as it is... I don't need another reason to spend more time on there :)
To what extent is an artist responsible for being a role model for children? Whose responsiblity is it?
My initial reaction is to say that an artist holds no responsibility for being a role model for children. Immediately after, I think no, the artist has a lot of responsibility because they are looked up to by their fans, and ultimately what they express in their art represents who they are. But then doesn’t that constrict or “stifle” what they can or cannot say, whether literally or metaphorically? Yes. But then what about the liberties associated with artistic expression i.e. personal truths and ideas/ideals if they are limited by responsibility?
Before the above gets even more incoherent and inconclusive, I need to define, or at least distinguish, between what is art, and what is I consider to be consumer/mass media. I realize that the distinction between art and mainstream pop culture/mass media is debatable. That’s fine. However, within each genre of art (i.e. music, theatre, movies, paintings, poetry etc.) there is a pretty obvious distinction between the classics and masterpieces displayed in museums, immortalized by awards and prestige, against the amateur work replicated by the thousands to be sold at Target, Walmart, Ikea etc.
The following distinctions are all personal, but feel free to disagree.
Movies:
American Beauty, Casablanca, Pulp Fiction, Schindler’s List, Requiem for a Dream, Aliens, Up, Revolutionary Road etc. vs. Son of the Mask, You Got Served, Ninja Turtles, Robocop, Mr. Bean, Mean Girls etc.
Poetry:
“Where the Sidewalk Ends,” “If You Forget Me,” “The Road Not Taken,” “Life is Fine,” “The Raven,” “A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning” etc. vs. 90% of what you find on myspace, or personal sites.
Music (I could potentially get a lot of heat from this):
Bach, Chopin, Mozart, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Queen, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Lil’ Wayne etc. vs. Lil’ Wayne, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Queen, Bob Marley, Michael Jackson etc.
(My intent is not to step onto some pretentious moral/artistic high ground. I will be the first to admit I enjoy the award winning “stuff” as much as its “inferior” counterpart.)
So what was the point of that? Well simple. Artists, no matter what form or what genre, are capable of producing jewels that help define/redefine their art just as well as contributing to the amount of “garbage” already present. In today’s society, at least in the Western World, when art and artists are mentioned, more often than not, music is the association. However, the music and the artists that come to mind most likely come from the billboard top 100 singles, or some local radio station’s top 10. What is unfortunate, but is just the way today’s society, is that these artists are looking to sell singles, records, and albums for money. So what is the easiest way to succeed in a capitalistic culture? Sell sex, drugs, and alcohol. Talk about how “hard” you are and what you have done (read “hustle”) to achieve what you have now i.e. sex, drugs, and alcohol.
So back to the question. Who is responsible? I don’t think any one party can be solely held responsible for how or what a child’s role model does. I think that if anything, it is more so the duty of the parent to guide/filter against what they believe to be offensive and a bad example. However, the artist shouldn’t just promote a “rock star lifestyle” because that perpetuates an unrealistic and unproductive lifestyle. Overall, it really should be a balance between the artist and the parent/guardian.
Everything in moderation, even moderation.