here are those who say the artist is responsible for how her art influences society. To some that means questioning history, questioning authority, raising questions about the status quo, being the voice and the hand of the voiceless and handless. Some of these supposed duties are more palatable than others, of course, and a few are downright seductive. Like almost anyone else, I wouldn't mind being labeled the voice of a generation, nor would I reject an award given for a principled act of conscience disguised as artwork.

A number of people believe that the artist has a responsibility to uphold a particular value system, to be kind, positive or hopeful, to be gentle. I didn't pay too much attention to this until I heard a poet I know saying it -- an older, foreign-born, lesbian poet, a woman one would expect to have a finely-tuned sense of the shades of meaning and the misuses of words. This woman believes that in a brutal world, writers have a duty to be "nourishing and nurturing." All over the world women like my friend are beaten, raped, and imprisoned because their sexuality threatens the definition of "nourishing and nurturing" behavior held by people in power. But like a lot of people, she thinks the solution lies in her definition. She has a lot in common with people like Jesse Helms -- the problem isn't in promulgating virtues, but in who gets to define the virtues being promulgated

Next page: The tyranny of "responsible" art