Art is art

I came across this article today which was an interesting read, and y’all should totally go read it because she brings up a fair point.  I was just thinking about this the other day about how cartoons of my day and before were steeped in classical songs and capital L literature.  I actually had this memory of a Popeye cartoon where they were building some skyscraper to a classical tune, but I can’t find the video anywhere — it’s probably copyrighted.  Anyway, I watched a documentary a long time ago (this was before the internet, kids) about Looney Tunes  and Merrie Melodies  which explained the purpose of the producers was to introduce classical music through the antics of the cartoon characters. And it grew from there. It also says that in the wiki:

Looney Tunes drew inspiration for its name from Walt Disney’s musical series Silly Symphonies. They initially showcased Warner-owned musical compositions through the adventures of cartoon characters such as Bosko and Buddy.

I remember all too well watching cartoons on a Saturday (or Sunday) morning and really enjoying the music behind them. If it weren’t for those weekend cartoons, I may have had no exposure to classical music at all. I know my parents didn’t like it. Of course, I have no idea who the artists behind the “tunes” were, but I still enjoyed the music.  And I will never forget, What’s Opera, Doc? with Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny… though I didn’t learn until years later what opera it’s from (which I promptly forgot).

Of course, these cartoon weren’t all classical music or capital L literature. No, a good deal were fluff and stuff, as they should be since the main purpose of most cartoons is to entertain. But the author of the aforementioned article doesn’t really go into that, nor does she give today’s cartoons a chance, because she admittedly only did a “a quick search of popular titles” for her rebuttal which was, basically that today’s cartoons are “…fluff, fantasy, and a focus on the here and now” and somehow this make them less than the cartoons of old. Which simply isn’t true, in my humble opinion.  Yes, Loony Tunes had classical music and capital L literature, but does that make them in any way better than all of the cartoons that don’t have these features?  I say it doesn’t.  I say that so long as a cartoon (or any medium of art) serves its function — to entertain — they are on the same level. Not better, not worse, just different.

it-doesnt-image-black-backgroundThis all ties into an argument that many people have raised — what is an artist responsible for when they are creating their art? Are artists supposed to go beyond the vision of their creations and send le message du jour to the masses? For example: Can a romantic comedy simply be a romantic comedy, or should it also bear an underlying message about women’s rights?  Can a comic book be just a comic book, or must it also preach about social justice?  Can a book contain an actual racist character who’s mean and nasty throughout the book and allow that character to be in the story without any comeuppance, or is the author obliged to  “teach” the racist character how wrong they are?  I have always, vehemently disagreed with anyone who says that an artist must change their vision to conform to society’s wishes or mores. It’s wrong. It’s always been wrong, and it will always be wrong.  One can disagree with the artist and their creation because art is subjective. One can criticise the artist and their creation because art invites criticism. However, one should not, ever, force an artist to change their creation to fit the observer’s view. Because then it is no longer the artist’s creation.

It is not the responsibility of the artist to change their work to fit the delicate sensibilities of the masses.  Simply because there are 7 billion people on this planet and one person cannot foresee how 7 billion people will react to their one piece of art, even if only a fraction of that population will see it. It’s not an artist’s job to pander to the masses — unless they want to be commercially successful, then more power to them. But even then, there will be people who love their work and people who hate it. 7 billion people will never agree about anything. Ever.  You say murder is evil and abhorrent? I agree with you. But there are people who do not, and that is why we need prisons.  If we as a species cannot even agree that the taking of another life is bad and evil, how can we agree upon something so subjective as art? We can’t.  And that is why I will always — ALWAYS — say, let the artist do what they want, even if I find what they call “art” objectionable. Just because I don’t like it, doesn’t mean someone else won’t find it absolutely amazing.

crochet shorts

Crochet shorts offend me, but if that’s what people are inspired to make, who am I to stop them?

I kind of got diverted there… I also believe, with every fiber of my being, that it’s not any artist’s job to teach our children, nor is it the artist’s job to send any kind of message within their art (unless, of course, that’s what they’re being paid to do… then it is their job, but semantics…). Yes, if an artist wants to do that with their work, they totally can, because that is their vision. What I’m saying is that no artist should be forced to do so because some group demands that a message or lesson be included. I’ve seen this online in so many blogs or vlogs about movies, videogames, books, comics, and yes… cartoons. There are dozens of blogs, vlogs, articles about how today’s games, books, videogames, cartoons are so bad for our kids.  One thing the article above didn’t mention was some of the rampant racism that ran through the cartoons of old. Maybe she didn’t see some of that. Or even the drinking and drug use that went on in the cartoons of old.  When I was a kid there was one cartoon where a cat or mouse or something looked at the audience, said “Now I’ve seen everything” and blew his brains out with a pistol.  I watched it on Saturday morning with the rest of the cartoons. It didn’t affect me one way or another because things died all of the time in these cartoons (not like American cartoons today where nothing dies, and when it does it’s a big deal). Better? Worse? Neither. Just different. That’s just the way cartoons were at the time. And y’all have to remember, they weren’t made for kids, but to entertain people before movies, there’s a lot of adult context in these animated shorts. People just assume they’re for kids because they’re animated.

popeye_i_am_what_i_am_t_copyAgain, I digress… I remember having a conversation in college about a story I was writing where the professor of the class explained how I couldn’t have a character do something because he didn’t (and I quote) “want the story to be about…” this thing because he thought that it (my story, that I was writing) should have “more meaning”.  And clearly remember looking at him in the eye and saying, “but that’s what this story is about.” To which he replied, “but it should be about… something more.”  It was shortly after that I stopped writing altogether.  I switched majors from Creative Writing to Literature, because I could not take my art and make it into their art.  I couldn’t  inject “something more” into my writing because someone else thought the story should have it. My stories are what they are and nothing else. Which is why I feel so strongly about this.


Geralt of Rivia

One, not personal, example would be The Witcher series of video games, when the final game came out, there are all kinds of articles and vlogs about how white everyone was in the game and how there were no people of color. Well, yeah… because it’s set in a fantasy world based on Poland: Polish legends, Polish folklore, and set in a fantasized Poland and the surrounding areas of Europe… where everyone is, you know… white. It would make no sense to have people of color there.  What’s interesting about The Witcher series is despite the lack of skin color differences, racism abounds.  Here’s an interesting discussion on the topic. It’s amazing to me, how some people in this world think that skin color is the only thing that one needs to have and be a victim of racism. But that’s simply not true.  Us against them is as old as humankind, and it will never go away.  But again, I digress.  What I’m saying is that I’m glad the makers of The Witcher video games (I haven’t read the books) didn’t add people of color into their world, because they didn’t need to, and it wouldn’t have made sense.

Anyway, I strayed from my original topic, which is that I disagree with the author of the first article who implies that yesterday’s cartoons are somehow better than today’s because they contain classical music and capital L literature while — so far as she knows (which she admittedly doesn’t) — today’s cartoons are bereft of such things. I don’t have children in the house anymore and so do not watch cartoons.  I remember in the 1980’s when I was watching cartoons, social messages just oozed out of them like The Blob.  It killed a lot of the fun sometimes. No one ever got hurt or died in the G.I. Joe cartoons in the 80’s. It was pretty hysterical, and so were their lame, “and knowing is half the battle” messages at the end.  But I digress again.  It’s funny how many side roads cartoons can have. ^_^  My main point is that it’s not the responsibility of these mediums, or any medium really, to expose people to classical music or Literature.  If someone wants their kid to be a well rounded individual, they should introduce them to these things on their own. I will say though, that I’ll never hear the Barber of Seville without seeing Bugs Bunny  dancing on Elmer Fudd’s Head. I’ll be honest with y’all, I can’t say whether that’s a good or a bad thing. ^_^

Just for fun, Monty Python:

4 thoughts on “Art is art

  1. Marilyn Armstrong

    As far as art goes, anyone can do whatever they want. i don’t have to like it. I have a passionate loathing for quite a few of the cartoon characters of my childhood, especially Popeye. I can’t even watch a part of one without wanted to vomit. I felt like that as a kid, too. But, as I said, I don’t have to like it. I also don’t need to be told I “should” pay attention to it. There ought not to be any “shoulds” in art. Like it or hate it, that’s up to me and you and anyone else.

    Which doesn’t mean that I don’t resent and dislike a lot of racist stuff including a bunch of books I read as a kid and didn’t even realize what they were about. Kids are so innocent. I don’t think it should be banned or altered, however. WE — Americans — don’t do that. It’s what we are about.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Embeecee

    BWAHHAHAHAH (at the Python clip)…as to ‘art’? It’s subjective. I found that out the hard way after my failed attempts to BE one. Then I realized that art isn’t something one DOES, it’s something one IS. And the early cartoons were racist (I suppose)..there’s one that sticks in my mind about a weird little pygmy looking figure with a bone in it’s nose and a loin cloth (at least they covered the dangly bits – censors then and censors now have that in common), and I BET the NAACP would have been all over that shit if it were NOW (not that anyone would float that type of cartoon figure out there today).

    To ME? (I formed this opinion after all the bullshit about classic literature – specifically ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ and ‘Huckleberry Finn’ – both “racist” (yeah yeah sheesh). I’m not saying that wholesale labelling of a person with derogatory and ugly racially slanted names is okay, it isn’t. BUT. Take the damn art piece (book, canvas, cartoon) in PERSPECTIVE. In the early part of the 1900s (until shoot — what? the 1980s maybe?) saying that awful N word was how society WAS, no harm as such intended (well some people used it as a weapon, but stupid people have always existed and always will), it was just a WORD. It’s how SOCIETY perceives an insult and how thin or thick skinned the target might be IMHO.

    Congratulations. You’ve sparked a blog post thought for me, so I’ll go ramble some more over there (and I’m going to point people to this post of yours, so you get credit!)

    Thanks for the thought provoking post sweetie!


    1. Patience Post author

      I totally agree with you about taking the time period of the art piece in perspective. What was acceptable in one era is not today. In the 1930’s and before, cartoons, paintings, photos, and movies had kids smoking cigarettes and sometimes even drinking alcohol. Baby Burlesque was a thing — and how Shirlie Temple got her start. While kids smoking et al wasn’t acceptable as a whole, it was obviously done in pockets of society. Probably where child labor was abundant. Try and portray a kid smoking nowadays — even as a parody — that shit won’t fly.


  3. Pingback: Sense Factor | sparksfromacombustiblemind

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.