Is There Such A Thing As Irresponsible Art

Abstract

Is there such a thing as irresponsible art? It behooves me to set this question outside the muddy realm of legal waters and within other muddy waters. What I hope to do, actually, is muddy the waters as much as possible. I find it curious that politicians, religious leaders and various selfstyled commentators, as well as artists of varying stripe, so often link these two very broad words without an attempt to define the meaning of either term. Whenever the question of art and responsibility arises, it is useful to ask not only what the bounds of irresponsible art are, but also whether there is or should be such a thing as responsible art. Allow me to begin, therefore, by providing my own definition of art. (This is an interesting exercise in frustration, and I invite the reader who has wrestled with it to add her own definition.) I would say that art is a stylized expression of context; that is, art is both deliberate and spontaneous. It is a form of comment on the environment in which the artist finds herself. Art is more an act than an object; an intuitive, sometimes unconscious act of self-knowledge made visible to others. E.M. Forster, in Art for Art's Sake, called art the only material thing "to possess an internal order."