Modifying Art

In a previous blog entry, I have attempted to discuss “art”.

Art is regularly modified. The modification takes different forms, depending on the form of the original art. Famous paintings are reproduced in various ways, sometimes parodied, and sometimes restored. It is important to note that only the “restoration” involves direct modification to the original artwork itself, and, theoretically, the aim is to return the painting to a form more closely matching its original state.

Modifying is more complicated with other forms of art, such as literature, music, or video. Books are routinely translated into different languages, or sometimes a more “current” version of the same language. In this case, the stated goal is generally to retain as much of the author’s intentions as possible. Music is always subject to new “arrangements” and interpretations. Even a particular recording may be modified and re-issued, hopefully taking advantage of technical advancements. Movies can be completely re-made, with new actors and variations in plot, OR the original film may be colorized or added to or subtracted from. Again, in all these cases, theoretically the “original” art remains unchanged and unharmed.

For me, an important aspect of art modification involves WHO is doing the modifying. If, say, a painter chooses to modify one of their own famous paintings, or even destroy it, it’s hard for me to argue with their decision -- though the fact that the “original” work of art may be totally lost in the process is still deeply troubling. If a composer or film-maker chooses to modify their composition or film, chances are that the original work will still exist in some form, and still be somehow accessible. This is not to say that I will not regret their decision. Often, I consider artist’s original efforts to be superior to their modified versions.

When someone other than the original artist is doing the modifying, my emotions are much less conflicted. In 2001, the Afghanistan Taliban deliberately destroyed a pair of large Buddha statues, on religious grounds. While this is a special case, complicated by the religious aspect, I believe that this destruction was an atrocity against all humanity.

The question of what constitutes art becomes important here. It would be theoretically possible for anyone with enough wealth to acquire well-known great works of art and then deliberately destroy them, usually without specifically violating any laws (moral laws, perhaps, but not legal laws). While destroying something such as da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” would be universally condemned, lesser-known and unknown works of art -- such as things from forgotten elementary school art classes -- are destroyed every day, often without objection. While there is clearly a difference between the Mona Lisa and the wastebasket I painted with tempura paints in elementary school, I do not know precisely where the line falls between art that should be preserved and art that is disposable. (Incidentally, the wastebasket has lasted for decades, and will probably survive for at least the rest of my lifetime.)

Recently, there have been several cases in the news of art being modified to make it more politically correct, or less objectionable. One of the most famous debates in recent years has to do with the book “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and its repeated use of a derogatory term for members of a certain race -- a recent edition of the book replaces this word with the word “slave”. A similar, though less lofty and well-known, case cites the 1985 song “Money for Nothing”, which uses a derogatory term for people of a certain sexual orientation. Defenders of both the book and the song point out that the creators of the art were using the terms not only to accurately reflect other people’s uses of those terms, but to criticize the use of these terms. These are complicated cases, and I am uncertain of the correct course in cases such as this, although my sentiments generally favor leaving the original art uncensored.

The situation is even more complicated when the original artists cannot be considered to have had such noble goals. For example, there are hundreds of songs -- probably thousands, world-wide -- that originally used lyrics that are now considered controversial or objectionable. In some cases, the songs are now commonly performed with a few words altered. In other cases, the objectionable terms are so deeply ingrained in the song that they can either no longer be publicly performed, or can only be performed without words. Although I acknowledge that this is extremely complicated, I generally favor still performing the songs, including all the objectionable words. Just as an actor in a play or motion picture is not actually advocating the actions performed by his character, the singer of a song is not actually advocating the point of view expressed in the song. It is, after all, art. And, art that depicts murder or racism or intolerance is NOT intrinsically advocating murder or racism or intolerance -- though, to be fair, sometimes art IS advocating some particular point of view.

An especially controversial case involves making things “gender neutral”. The church where I often attend Christmas Eve services no longer sings the Christmas carol “Good Christian Men, Rejoice” -- they now sing “Good Christian Friends, Rejoice”. Personally, I find this modification deeply troubling … but I realize that there are other intelligent, thoughtful, rational people who find the un-modified version of the song deeply troubling … so I have no clear answers.

This entire discussion leads to a separate but related discussion regarding intolerance and over-simplification and labeling. As a general rule, I do NOT go around publicly singing songs with lyrics that are now considered objectionable, even though I firmly believe that many of these songs SHOULD be sung. The problem is that as an occupant of this world, I must live with others who may simply condemn me forever, rather than contemplate the fact that truth is complicated.