Response Paper: Gabe’s Paper
In his paper, Gabe constructed an interesting argument by advocating limited or modified censorship, which I wholly support. In an effort to do so, the reasoning seemed to contradict itself initially, but was resolved by the end of the paper. In addition, he gave depth to his argument by highlighting the interactions between artists pushing the boundaries of legality and what the law says is and is not legal.
For is first point, Gabe explains the importance of art to create change for the common person. By its nature, art imagines what could be, whether through improvement or disaster. A necessary part of this is expressing the conditions of society today. For some sections of society, this might include elements that are offensive or explicit in the eyes of other groups of people. Many genres of music fall into this category. However, to wholly relate to their audience, an artist must be authentic to their culture, even if that means offending others. Additionally, by offending others, they might provoke motions for change.
In his next point, Gabe highlighted the necessity for limiting the access of potentially explicit material to those who may not want to hear it or those who should not hear it yet. As he points out, some music can be damaging to impressionable children who do not yet have a context for what they are hearing. However, this does not mean that this music should be removed entirely from public consumption. Instead, there should be a way to identify this music as potentially vulgar, so that parents have an idea about what they are buying, as Gabe points out.
In his final point and conclusion, Gabe discusses the success of efforts to restrict provocative music from those who do not need to hear it. One of these tactics, the parental advisory labels, are still very common today and provide ready information to listeners concerning the content. Through this method, the music can remain true to the artist’s intentions without offending or affecting those who do not wish to hear it. In this method of modified censorship, the art can still exist and society can still advance through the use of informed consumption on the part of the public.
