in vaguely general terms, i suppose my view is that art should seek to challenge society, to question it, to spark comment, debate and even controversy. and of course reflect the era, or period, from whence it came, look you see. but it shouldn't set out to deliberately harm or perverse it. that can happen by chance, an unexpected consequence of course. yeah, probably all too grown up and sophisticated a thing for me to be writing on.
yet still there are those who choose to blame their folly, or their ills, on some form of art or another. for many years in the latter half of the previous (20th) century, blaming films for any crime done was seen as the thing to do. even if the people blaming the films had not actually seen them.
but this was nothing quite new. sure, blaming films was. and music, for as i recall absolutely no one thought to shoot at the police until that nice but noticeably upset harmony enthusiasts group called NWA suggested it in passing in one song or another, the title of which escapes me.
ninety five (95) years ago, then, a chap with one leg too few decided to blame his drinking on reading some Charles Dickens. alas, the magistrate was having none of it, not even in the face of a quite interesting philosophical question. it's like the courts just impose fines to keep the economy ticking over.
my studies in literature, and beyond (but mostly literature) did indeed lead me to encounter the works of Dickens, and so i can certainly understand the wish to drink it all away. but, at least at the time of writing, i had (have) both my legs, so cannot say for certain he was right or wrong. most likely right, mind, most likely right.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment