let us discuss fun things like:

What moral imperative does an artist have to abide by in a society celebrating freedom of thought?

... or better yet:

how responsible is an artist for the sensation their works evoke?

In my current society I'm forced to listen to what everybody thinks thanks to the net and social media. Having so many opinions shoved at me on a daily basis has me more jaded towards people and their opinions then ever before. Age may also factor into it.
To sum it up, I don't give a fuck what you think.
That said, If a artist is questioning how their "work" will be received the issue isn't so much the society they're delivering it to but their motives for creating it. Money? Fame? Peer recognition? Shock?

I was not sure what you meant with the OP, but this is definitively a good question.

What are your own thoughts on it? :)

And if you don't mind my asking, why focus specifically on artistic creation?
This questions applies pretty much directly to any and all communication.

puberty is a rough time for everyone, g'uick & best wishes! 1. there should be accountability in evoking emotion, doubly so when the intention is deliberate (any SUCCESSFUL relationship with another human being will validate this)

2. Art is BETTER than a much of mooks casting off discord and celebrating the oft commendation, "thanks for the money check, chumps!" Art as an extension of a representation of the true, human condition has suffered this slight since the proclivities of the g̶y̶p̶s̶i̶e̶s̶ romanticists! and shows no signs of relinquishing said money-check.

I'm 43 troll.
With that out of the way re-read what I wrote with some perspective.

okay

you;re a slave to your mediocre overlords.

[i]
want a cookie?[/i]

What is "Randy hat"?

I.E.:too soon....

So you make a thread asking what appears to be a legitimate question. I reply honestly with no intended malice with my point of view and in return I just get insulted.
No counter arguments, no debating my logic just trolled.
So go fuck yourself.

oh frell! I screwed the pooch; your argument is so super valid! (I probably drink too much (double parenthesis!)) -please don't take it personal also maybe drink some more; i may or may not have influences suggesting me to request such flippant inebriation. I can't spell so. you just drink! Solidarity!

A deeper question would be what is the artist abiding? His/her own work, or the interpretation others have on said work?

In the end most of our limitations and controls are self imposed. Never more true than over something creative and subjective like art.

Yes on relationships.

I'm not trying to compare specifically to politics or commerce. What I was getting at is that all relationships between individuals (romantic, familial, etc) are based on communication and therefore evoke the same kind of ethical considerations. Consider:

How responsible is a father / daughter / lover for the sensation their words evoke?

By shifting to this meta level the implications of privileging intent over consequences, the emitter over the receiver, etc... might be more apparent.

So for example, my fundamental principle is of free will. And therefore I will typically assume the receiver is much more responsible for their reactions than the emitter. At least when it comes to words, expression, and most art ;)

I don't think this removes any accountabilty from the emitter, but it relativizes it.


Also, I think I am in agreement with your comment regarding romanticism (I'd say rather postmodernism) in a broader sociological perspective. But I am not an expert on art history and not sure the aesthetic is what you're querying. So to clarify, are you saying the recent (well, relatively speaking) trend towards subjectivy expressivity, abstraction, pop art (in any combination you prefer) is:

A - harmful
or
B - disgusting
or maybe both?