Public becomes a “surveillance subject” in the digital cultural environment.
Journalist: Based on recent cases like that of Trung Quan Idol or Bray, do you think these are individual mistakes or reflect problems within the current artistic community? – Associate Professor Dr. Bui Hoai Son: I believe each incident should be analyzed based on the actions, level, and specific responsibilities of individuals. We shouldn’t generalize the entire artistic community from a few cases. Many Vietnamese artists are serious, dedicated, and committed professionals who show responsibility towards their profession and the public. However, from a broader perspective, recent incidents cannot be considered mere isolated “individual accidents.” They reveal certain issues in the current artistic environment, especially when artists are creators, public figures, and media actors in the digital space.
In the era of social media, the boundary between private life, personal views, artistic works, and an artist’s public image is increasingly blurred. Behavior off-stage, online statements, or lyrics from a musical piece can become a social issue if they touch on ethical, cultural, legal, or public opinion norms.
The fundamental problem is not condemning an individual for temporary emotions, but rather, in light of these cases, reevaluating the cultural and entertainment ecosystem: Are professional standards clear enough? Is the professional ethics training of artists adequately considered? Are image management mechanisms of entertainment companies, producers, and brands professional enough? Have artists fully understood that celebrity always entails social responsibility?
Public scrutiny: positive, but should not become an “emotional tribunal.”
Journalist: Recently, public reactions to incidents involving artists have been rapid and widespread. Do you think this trend reflects a shift in mindsets or is it influenced by platforms like TikTok and Facebook? – Associate Professor Dr. Bui Hoai Son: I think it results from two factors: a shift in mindsets and the powerful dissemination mechanism of digital platforms. Informed audiences are more proactive, sensitive to normative issues, and have more tools to express their opinions. Previously, reactions were slow and scattered, primarily through traditional media or implicit choices: to watch or not, to support or not. Now, on platforms like Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Threads, etc., reactions spread quickly, creating strong social pressure.
From a positive perspective, this shows that the public is no longer passive but actively participates in evaluating, critiquing, and helping define new acceptance criteria for artists. This signifies cultural maturity and greater consideration of artists’ social responsibility.
However, the downside of this platform mechanism should also be considered. Algorithms often favor controversial content, strong emotions, extreme statements, and easily spread manipulated images. As a result, an event can be amplified faster than necessary, its context simplified, or even transformed into collective judgment. Civilized digital communication must be accompanied by social awareness. The public has the right to monitor, criticize, and express opinions; however, this right should be exercised based on accurate information, fairness, and respectful boundaries.
Creative freedom must go hand in hand with cultural responsibility.
Journalist: With debates over the lyrics of certain musical works like “Vietnamese Love Each Other” by Chau Dang Khoa, where do you draw the line between creative freedom and conformity to cultural norms? – Associate Professor Dr. Bui Hoai Son: Creative freedom is essential for art’s survival. But freedom does not mean creators disregard all cultural norms, knowledge, or social responsibility. Particularly in songs that celebrate the country and nation, each word is not just art but also ties back to memories and shared community feelings.
The debate over the song’s lyrics raises a thought-provoking question. Rather than focusing on judging a specific passage, this story offers a valuable lesson: creativity can enrich the meaning of a symbol but should not break away from its culturally recognized significance, especially when the symbol is linked to morality, worldview, and a rich heritage of proverbs, folk songs, and popular philosophy.
Here, the boundary is not a rigid line imposed by others but rather a space for dialogue between the new and the true, artistic inspiration and cultural knowledge, creative individuality and community acceptance. Artists have the right to find new ways to express familiar things, but the more creative they are with traditional materials, the deeper their understanding of tradition must be. Creative freedom must always be accompanied by responsibility.
The good news is, if artists know how to listen, explain, and adapt accordingly, controversy can also become a positive cultural process, contributing to the flourishing of both artists and the public.
Journalist: How can we differentiate between public scrutiny and actions that may lead to public pressure or cyberbullying against artists? – Associate Professor Dr. Bui Hoai Son: In a modern society, public scrutiny is essential. When artists engage in behaviors, statements, or create works that violate norms, the public has the right to express opinions, criticize, demand explanations, or even boycott, within the law. This is a fundamental cultural right and a self-regulating mechanism of cultural life.
However, it is crucial to distinguish between critique and attack; surveillance and persecution; and fighting against injustice and compromising human dignity. Constructive criticism focuses on behavior, productions, statements, social impact, and the responsibility to rectify the situation. Cyber violence, on the other hand, involves personal insults, invading privacy, and spreading unverified information. One contributes to a healthier cultural environment, the other makes the online space more toxic.
Errors should be corrected as soon as they occur; responsible parties must assume their responsibilities; criticisms should be well-founded, targeted, and constructive. The public should not be deprived of its oversight rights, but it should also not be encouraged to transform into an online “emotional tribunal.” Artists must be accountable for their social impact while also being protected against acts that compromise their honor, privacy, mental well-being, and legal security.
From the perspective of regulatory bodies, the press, digital platforms, and professional organizations, it is essential to establish standardized critical analysis. The press should disseminate verified information and refrain from inciting hatred; digital platforms should have mechanisms to limit violent and hateful content; professional associations should quickly promote ethical standards; and artists should explain themselves, apologize when necessary, and correct their mistakes as needed.
When all stakeholders behave in a civilized manner, public scrutiny becomes a healthy force rather than a destructive pressure.
Journalist: In the current context, digital platforms and brands also play a role in disseminating artistic content. How should we consider the role and responsibilities of these entities when controversies arise? – Associate Professor Dr. Bui Hoai Son: In the digital entertainment world, artists are no longer the sole influencers. A piece of music, a video, performance, or statement can spread widely through an ecosystem involving digital platforms, record labels, producers, media, sponsor brands, and fan communities. Therefore, in a controversy, it’s impossible to place all the blame on the artist, even though they remain primarily responsible for their actions and creations. Responsibility must be viewed in the context of the cultural value chain.
Digital platforms have a significant responsibility as they are not just neutral publishing sites. Recommendation algorithms, trend mechanisms, and moderation policies directly influence the content being disseminated. If they only prioritize engagement, shocking or deviant content will easily gain prominence. Therefore, platforms must be more transparent, promptly respond to inappropriate content, and promote community standards.
Brands cannot remain indifferent either. When they select artists, they use their cultural prestige to create commercial value; hence, they must be responsible for assessing their image and reacting appropriately in controversies, without blindly following passing public opinion or ignoring social norms.
It’s time to talk more about the “cultural responsibility of the distribution chain.” Artists, distribution platforms, sponsor brands, media, and the public are all part of this ecosystem. A healthy cultural environment cannot develop if each entity seeks only to maximize its profit without considering its overall impact on society.
Ultimately, developing the cultural industry is not just about creating more products, stars, and revenue. It’s about creating a cultural life where talent is encouraged, creativity is respected, the public is protected, norms are preserved, and individual growth is ensured. The more open the digital entertainment environment becomes, the more we need a strong cultural foundation; the faster the spread, the greater the social responsibility must be; the more influence artists gain, the more they must realize they are not just performing for an audience but also shaping the values society will choose for the future.
Article concludes with a thank you message from the journalist to Professor Bui Hoai Son. Source link provided.
