system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: I don't believe that artists owe anything to society other than self-expression.

In a conversation with a friend about Kendrick Lamar, he said that Kendrick "owes" his listeners and the young people of America a certain message. In other words, if he (Kendrick) had released an album of party songs about innocuous nonsense, he wouldn't be fulfilling some kind of obligation to society of elevated, socially conscious art. I think that any artist should make whatever they want, and public reception is ultimately irrelevant at the time of the art's creation. (Obviously, this does not take into account commercial success or appeal.) EDIT: This does not include acts that break laws such as child pornography, selling pornography to minors, etc.
gpt
Conscious message-oriented art suffers when the message is forced on the consumer of the art.  However if the message the artist is trying to convey involves socially conscious stuff, you can't avoid that or the overall art will suffer.  

For instance Kendrick's vision for music, art, and self-expression is socially conscious.  That's great.  He makes great music.  If he tried to make exclusively party rap, it wouldn't be as good because he'd be neglecting part of what he felt in his vision.  

Take somebody like A$AP Rocky on the other hand.  He makes primarily anti-"conscious rap" about partying and all that good stuff.  That's great.  It works because that's part of his artistic vision.  

In summary, an artist owes a positive message to society if that's the vision the originally conceive.  If not, then nah it doesn't matter.  Society deserves an accurate manifestation of the artist’s vision.