where does one draw the line really. at what point do you require "artists" to censor themselves and become merely "entertainers"?

I, for one, DON'T require that - however, anyone that does, it seems to me, would have to answer to that question: "at the point just before they offend or bore me"

where do these consumer "rights" come from?

it seems pretty clear that everyone has the right NOT to buy something from an artist/entertainer whose views they don't appreciate

who dictates what is expected or unexpected in a public performance situation? is the content of a performance situation the province of the artist or the spectator?

good question! in part, it's determined by the audience and their feedback (applause, booing) in amerika, it's also now largely determined neither by artist nor spectators, but by corporate entities such as clearchannel - the "dixie chicks" situation being a good example of this

Right. I realize I forgot what I was trying to get to. Art is really about self expression. Webstuff feels that Art is to "speak out". Why can't the artist just paint a painting expressing how much he loves his wife? Write a sonnet because of a particularly beautiful sunset? Why does he have to make an antiwar statement?

while I DO feel that the role of the artist is to speak out, I also recognize those other things you mention are legitimate expressions it just depends on how you look at it - in particularly ugly times such as these, a poem or painting about beauty IS "speaking out"

There's nothing wrong with McCartney, for example, writing a song speaking out about vegetarianism. I don't have to agree with it but he has the right to do it. But what I think Dan was trying to say, and what I was trying to explain to Webstuff, is that if I go to a McCartney concert and he starts overdoing it then I have the right to be annoyed. I didn't pay $135 to hear a 20 minute speech about animal cruelty and have him try to educate me. Not that he ever did this but I think you see what I'm trying to say, or at least trying to interpret what Dan meant when he wrote "and then instead of entertaining me, lecturing me like a child about the state of the world." To be fair, however, McCartney does put his money where his mouth is, but not all entertainers, sorry, artists do.

there's a couple problems with that example, however (besides the obvious "not that he ever did this") I mean, would someone interested in mccartney really be surprised by a veggie lecture, considering the mccartneys used to have a line of veggie meals available at your local grocer? maybe the reason people are getting lectured like children about the state of the world is because we've acted like spoiled children and let it get so bad and, confirming this, complaining about having to get lectured is spoiled and childish artists don't know exactly which persons in their audience need the lecture - presumably, the ones that don't need it shouldn't mind hearing it again, out of recognition that the word needs to get around so, if one doesn't want to be lectured like a child, one should stop acting like one

Hope that made sense.

it did - it's not that I didn't understand what he was trying to say, it's that I hadn't gotten to that part yet, trying to clear up some (mis)understandings in other parts of the (mis)statement ;)