Racial Slurs and other "ickiness" in art

[hascow]

So I recently went to go see a showing of the musical "Assassins" in downtown Madison. It was an excellent show, and I suggest everyone who gets a chance to go see it does so.

The main point I wanted to bring up was that they use the n-word in this song(give it a listen, it's probably my favorite in the show):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkMfeDfqRk0

I found it to be a very powerful, very meaningful use of it during the song to completely change the tone and direction of the song. This got me thinking about other things that normally get similarly strong reactions (rape scenes, other racial slurs, graphic abuse, etc). Is there anything that should be off-limits for a piece of art (whether movie, musical, whatever)? If so, where is it? If not, it probably doesn't mean that every use of those things is "ok", right? Where do/can we draw the line of "ok" versus "not ok"?

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but I felt like it could make for some interesting discussion.

[Matt]

I tend to opine that nothing is off limits, but some things must be handled with care.

-m

[korvys]

"Not ok" can cover a spectrum from "Literally illegal" to "Not my cup of tea, I shan't be staying for the remainder of the performance", and the line past which something is "off limits" falls somewhere in there.

[hascow]

"Not ok" can cover a spectrum from "Literally illegal" to "Not my cup of tea, I shan't be staying for the remainder of the performance", and the line past which something is "off limits" falls somewhere in there.

Where is that line for you, then? Where do you personally turn from "this is acceptable due to the point it's trying to make" to "this is not ok"?

[korvys]

Like most things, it's easier to say that something does or doesn't cross the line on a case by case basis. Both because the line can only really be defined in relation to those things, and because it's the sort of thing that moves as you mature and grow.

It's pretty far to the extreme side. I'm happy to remove myself if I don't like something. I'd even be ok with stuff that I would simultaneously criticise. I.E. I might think a thing is "not ok" and say so, while respecting that I can't say they can't make art about/with it.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

I think certain themes needs to be handled with care. With respect. There are themes that do need to addressed and "spoken" about.

Also context helps a lot.

This is on the theme of brutal violence and murder. If you watch The Red Wedding without prior knowledge of Game of Thrones and out of context from the rest of the episode, you will find it disgusting and horrific. If you watch it in-context with the episode and show, you will find it horrible and really sad. Former is a repulsion reaction. Latter is a sorrow as you're aware of how the universe's mechanics work and you've grown attached to these characters.

[Duckay]

It's a difficult question to answer simply. Sometimes, use of a generally problematic element or theme (racial slurs, sexual assault, graphic violence) can be shown in a manner that makes a point and is respectful of the subject material. Sometimes it will make me step back and say, "I don't like that, I think that treats the subject matter disrespectfully and it offends me". But, importantly, the statement "I found that really offensive and disrespectful" is not the same as saying "this should not be allowed to exist" or "nothing that uses this subject matter should ever exist". It could easily mean I won't sit through it, I won't support the artist/company behind it, it could mean I advise other people I know not to support it either, but none of that is a statement that the thing is inherently "off-limits" for art.

Or, for an example tilted a different way, I see no contradiction in embracing the use of language in RENT while avoiding other pieces of media who use the same words in a homophobic rather than reclaiming fashion.

[Darkflame]

Context is everything. How something is used is much,much more important then what it is.

[Valkyrie-Lemons]

For me, if you use offensive terms or sensitive subjects just because 'you can', that's not cool. If you're doing it to be lazy about establishing a character, (i.e. He's a terrible person because he raped someone), that's not cool. If you're doing it to make an impact on someone on how serious an issue is, then I'm okay with that.

I.e. A film about American Slavery can have racial slurs in it, because it was commonplace back then; the use of it that would offend people is used to illustrate how bad things were back then.


Art should not have to be politically correct to make a point, but it also shouldn't just shock people for a reaction. Art that makes you feel uncomfortable or angry when you see it should be created for the sole purpose of making you confront that issue.

Creating art that does not confront and debate the issue, but just uses is as a lazy framework for a narrative is just bad art, not something that should be censored.

[Master Gunner]

Awareness of context and how people will respond is key (and hardly limited to just "icky" stuff). That's why saying "it's just a joke" when people respond badly to you saying horrible is not a defense - it's on you to set up that it's actually a joke beforehand, rather than retroactively claiming it.

[mariomario42]

With how the rap community is in love with racial slurs, I don't see how a time set musical number is even a discussion worth having.

[AdmiralMemo]

The three key points are:

1. Context.
2. Context.
3. Context.

Once you have those, you're good to go.

[hascow]

With how the rap community is in love with racial slurs, I don't see how a time set musical number is even a discussion worth having.

The point was not specifically this musical number, as I don't have a problem with it at all. It was just what jumped my brain into thinking about this whole thing.

I also think that the rap community trying to use it in a context of reclamation is a completely different situation from others using it in artistic works.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

There was controversy before I think with Radio 1 in the UK refusing to play "Fairytale of New York" because a line in it uses the word "faggot" in a derogative insult.
I don't think I have an opinion on that matter yet.

All I know is that if for some reason I had to sing the song, I would use a different insult. Perhaps "arse hole" since that's gender, ethnicity and sexuality neutral. Sod rhyming scheme.

[My pseudonym is Ix]

Interestingly enough, Canada (I believe) banned the playing of the unedited version of Money for Nothing for exactly the same reason

[Valkyrie-Lemons]

Interestingly enough, Canada (I believe) banned the playing of the unedited version of Money for Nothing for exactly the same reason

What? You mean the Dire Straits song?

[My pseudonym is Ix]

Interestingly enough, Canada (I believe) banned the playing of the unedited version of Money for Nothing for exactly the same reason

What? You mean the Dire Straits song?

Yup. "The little faggot got his own jet airplane" was apparently deemed not politically correct.

[empath]

...back in the 80's, no less.

Canada: forerunner of social mores? Trendsetter?