How should fame be used? | Fab forum

There was the beginning of an interesting exchange of views between myself and Funny Paper in the "Our 'cute Beatle' not so cute in Vancouver" in the Paul McCartney section of the forum. I won't quote them here, but should anyone want to read them, they are posts 26, 33 (4th paragraph on) & 34.

I've been away from a computer for a few days, on the Isle of Wight, but I would have wanted to split this off into a separate question anyway.

I accept Funny Paper's opinion as a point of view, though I thoroughly disagree with his view as any successful artist being our employees. He seems to think (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I've got this wrong) that the artist should just give us their art, without talking about how they view the world. I don't disrespect him here, or his opinion, but I do disagree.

I accept Funny Paper's view from where he is sat, which seems to be (though I'm sure he may be about to disagree) that the job of the artist is to entertain and not to make you make you think about the world as they find it. Funny Paper would say that he doesn't want to take away their free speech, but that he thinks they (and they is any successful artist) abuse it because their talent has not only had people wondering what they think, but that they are earning money for what they think.

I think the job of the artist is to reflect the world as they see it – whether in song, novel, painting, sculpture, film or interview. It annoys me that so many of those today don't want to say or do anything for fear it may offend.

I wonder what others think. Was I wrong to allow part of my education about who I want to be in this world to be informed by artists I respects, or should I have dismissed as mere entertainers, jesters, who had nothing worth listening to about the world in which they lived.