Comments on: “Hey. We’ve gotta talk about this” | Issues in/with new writing

By: Alison Croggon

Alison Croggon — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 23:31:48 +0000

Hi Diana – I don’t agree at all that artists are not allowed to imagine. Of course they are. But when it comes to directly drawing on real events and the traumatic lived experience of other people as an inspiration, responsibilities kick in too. (Yes, there are actual reasons I write fantasy novels, although even that is fraught). Fwiw I don’t have a skerrick of “middle class guilt”.

For my part, I have no opinion on most of the allegations being kicked around by sex workers, because I don’t know the full circumstances. But when I saw the play myself I left with a great deal of discomfort about how the subject matter was treated. Not a million miles from the feeling that it was “pity porn”, as sex workers have said. I don’t doubt it wasn’t intended to come across that way. A general defence seems to be that the work was fictionalised, but since it was publicised as based on real events, that seems a bit wobbly to me: you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Fiction is complex and it doesn’t absolve you of responsibilities either. There’s also the issue of the work’s good intentions – a desire to explore violence against all women – being hobbled by its very generalisations. Is all violence against all women the same? How does class play into it, say? How does race?

I wonder this: if it isn’t an artist’s responsibility to think about issues of representation, then whose responsibility is it? What is art for? Who is it for?

I think that to cast this as a question of “artistic freedom” or censorship kind of misses the point by a country mile: what is at issue is who holds the power in this equation, and in this case, it’s the person with the power to represent. Artists aren’t used to the idea that they might have power, but we do, and we should recognise it.

By: Diana Simmonds

Diana Simmonds — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:16:45 +0000

“Sex workers speak for ourselves, our personal stories belong to us and it is our right if, and when to tell them.” – I so disagree with this statement it makes my eyes water.
If it were carried through to its logical conclusion, no artist, storyteller, painter, film maker, novelist (etc etc) would ever make any kind of work about anything.
Prostitutes are no more entitled to own stories than anyone else – and once a story is in the public domain it is…public.
What I suspect is happening here is that this particular cohort of workers is using middle class guilt against the middle class guilty in an attempt to own the un-ownable and to shut down the making of art.
It should be resisted.

By: starling

starling — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:11:00 +0000

Hi Gus,

I think appropriation and the stories we choose to tell/the artists who have the “right” to tell them/the processes they use are all hugely important issues to discuss. We do have to talk about these things.

But frankly, this argument was all triggered by a horrifically defamatory accusation of a breach of trust and confidentiality which seems, by all accounts, to be untrue. And it’s being argued, largely, by people who haven’t seen the play. I think that’s pretty damn serious. And it makes me quite furious that people are continuing these accusations with no evidence. People are NOT having a mature, informed conversation about this, so maybe it’s best that we leave this particular play be. I just think it’s become too vicious and the dialogue has deteriorated. Maybe have this conversation again when people have calmed down.