12. Art & Ethics 1: Is Art Moral?
Notes for this lesson come from this video by Wisecrack , a philosophy channel on Youtube.
This first lesson asks if the creation and promotion of art is, in itself, an ethical or moral endeavor - and should it be?
Let's look at this from a historical perspective. For most of human history, whichever institutions held power over people, also held power over notions of ethics, morality and what constituted appropriate art. And, since art was so expensive to make, only those artists who were accepted and groomed for the position were granted access to the tools and materials to make the art that the rich and powerful wanted.
The Sistine Chapel, by Michelangelo - he was practically forced to paint this.
This was institutional art - for kings, emperors, popes, and their temples and priests. We find this power dynamic almost everywhere on Earth, in every culture throughout history. It was a chance to create an official story, a set of myths of gods and heroes, to answer all the big questions, silence opposition, a way to legitimize the royal family, their laws, and decrees.
Occasionally, there would come a tear in these power structures, leading to new beliefs and practices - like when the Dominican friar Girolamo Savonarola convinced people in Florence, Italy, in 1497, to burn thousands of artworks, musical instruments, poetry, books, cosmetics and wigs, in what is now referred to as The Bonfire of the Vanities. Savonarola considered these objects to be heretical, as they celebrated human achievement, artistry, and love over devotion to God. Even if some of these works expressed some moral or ethical notionss, Savonarola wasn't impressed, insisting that every artwork must thank and celebrate (his) God in order to be ethical. His devotion to weeding out sin and corruption was so zealous that the Pope had him imprisoned and burned at the stake in 1498.
One of the greatest achievements of The Renaissance Period was that the great artists of this time: Da Vinci, Raphael, and Michelangelo managed to convince the populace that art could be both moral and great - something to take pride in as a nation, rather than to hide in shame. They did this by focusing mostly on Christian themes and stories - sharing the glory and morality of the great heroes of the Bible - while developing new skills and styles that would make each work an act of genius.
Da Vinci's Annunciation, 1472-76.
During the Protestant Reformation, European art saw these Christian artworks as a form of idolatry (worshipping manmade objects rather than God himself), and signs of the wealth and corruption of the Church. All of a sudden, secular artwork was seen as more ethically acceptable, and so, depending on the country, many artists turned to portraits, still lifes, landscapes, seascapes, and historical battles as their subjects.
In the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers like Kant and Hume argued that aesthetics were determined by taste, whereas morals were guided by a different set of principles. It was fine to develop taste and moral development separately. Art no longer needed to be nor teach morals.
Fragonard's The Swing, 1767-68.
As art became more secular, the question of morality became murkier. Artists still felt their art should contain not just aesthetic qualities but ethical merit as well. Gericault painted The Raft of the Medusa as a social protest for the just treatment of sailors. Delacroix celebrated the French Revolution with his Liberty Leading the People.
People still fretted over the ethical implications of art. Some artists and writers, like DH Lawrence, Oscar Wilde, and James Joyce were accused of obscenity - laws were written to censor their work. Oscar Wilde famously wrote, "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all." Of course, he died in 1900, twenty five years before Hitler's publication of Mein Kampf... What would he have said about that?
Similarly, writer Leo Tolstoy warned of the dangers of "sensuality". It wasn't enough to enjoy an artwork, it needed to be for moral reasons, like the difference between eating healthy and eating junk food.
Then there was the question of quality, checked under a new kind of priesthood - the critics. When James Abbott McNeill Whistler began painting his Nocturnes, the critic John Ruskin condemned them, saying, "I have seen, and heard, much of Cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face."
Whistler's Nocturne in Blue and Silver, The Lagoon, Venice, 1879-80
As new art movements emerged, there were always similar critics, quick to dismiss and mock them - most of the labels we give to art movements started as jokes from critics.
It was around this time, the turn of the 20th century, that artists began rejecting their traditional role of moralistic preacher, telling others what to do or how to live. Artists, like Whistler, advocated the Aesthetic Movement - Art For Art's Sake. Let the art be pretty and enjoyable, and set aside completely the question of ethical merit. This new "amoral" approach to art was radical at the time, but soon became the norm, as modern art began to focus more on formal, aesthetic principles (combined with new theories of psychology) to gain legitimacy - how to arrange squares into attractive compositions, how to create abstractions of trees and mountains, how to paint who someone is on the inside, not the outside. Art became less about moralizing and more about discovering who we really are.
Of course, there was still moralizing. The Dadaists were an anti-war protest movement more than anything else. The Surrealists were simply all the Dadaists who kept creating, after 1925. Picasso, Otto Dix, and Salvador Dali, all protested war. But, most art of the time, whether pretty or not - the landscapes, portraits, and abstractions were not meant to be good or evil, merely experiments in formal aesthetics - like a sudoku for the soul.
The question of morality and art grew more complicated as Modernism gave way to Post Modernism in the 1950s. As art became a lens with which to view society, it became a means for artists to preach new social, political and feminist ideals. Some artists saw capitalism as a corrupting influence, and so they created news kinds of art: environmental art, performance art, happenings, that defied the marketplace. Other artists embraced capitalism with open arms, turning their studios into factories, to mass produce pictures and turn a huge profit.
Meanwhile, popular art and entertainment became big business, frightening conservatives with provocative new artforms: rock and roll, hip hop, violent tv shows, films, and videogames. People began to worry what effect these immoral works would have on children.
With the new rise of social media, and as society has become more progressive, there has also been a backlash against older artworks that are now considered racist, exploitative, sexist, simplistic, skewed, or otherwise offensive.
So, there's the history, Let's see what questions it raises...
1. Are Aesthetics and Ethics truly autonomous and separate? Can and should we judge an artwork on its aesthetic merits alone? What do you think of this quote by Edward Winkleman:
"To suggest that “art” can be either ethical or unethical is to personify an object. We don’t talk about the ethics or morality of a hammer or an ocean. We may discuss the ethics of what humans do with a hammer or what they do to an ocean, but ethics are a means of measuring human behaviors. Therefore, it’s actually nonsensical to me to discuss whether an art object must be ethical or unethical. Art cannot be either. Artists can and, to my mind should, be ethical, being fellow human beings within a society, but “art” itself is not human."
2. Alternatively, there is a moderate stance that suggests we should consider the ethics of an artwork, but at the same time evaluate it formally. So, a film like Avatar might have a strong ethical message about the importance of conservation, the beauty of nature, respecting other cultures, and the courage to fight for what's right. But, none of that negates its simplistic storyline, one-dimensional characters, logical plot holes, McGuffins (unobtainium), and the overall predictability that kills most of the suspense and audience investment.
Consider the opposite, a film like The Joker (2019), widely considered successful (the acting and storyline) even as it seems to encourage revenge, violence, crime, and self interest. Do these themes ruin the film? Certainly, for some people. But, it also provides audiences with a chance to self-reflect, to consider who we really are, or want to be. Do we have violent thoughts or tendencies, like the Joker? Do we see ourselves in the film's characters? When do we feel this way? What sorts of situations trigger us? Do we see that The Joker's acts are not justified, that he's blinded by his own psychosis? Do we realize that, while our own anger may be justified, acting out violently is not?
These are valid questions for a film to pose - you could even argue it's ethical to pose them. But, they're not for everyone. Many audiences aren't at the level where they should be exposed to it - and some people don't need it, feeling no interest in violence to begin with.
So, what makes for a better or more valid film? The one with the clear, moral lesson, that hits you over the head with it throughout the film, or the one that offers no lessons, only questions, and you have to decide for yourself what is right?
3. Consider this quote by Clive Bell:
"Art is above morals, or rather, all art is moral because . . . works of art are immediate means to good. Once we have judged a thing a work of art, we have judged it ethically of the first importance, and put it beyond the reach of the moralist."
Do you agree or disagree?
4. Do you see anything moral or ethical in non-representational, abstract artwork?
5. Leo Tolstoy warned against junk food for the soul. What do you think? Is it wrong to enjoy something just for fun? Is it really bad for you to enjoy "low brow" art and stories? And, speaking of junk food, is it immoral to make and sell chocolate or ice cream? Sure, some people over-eat it, and that's unhealthy, but imagine a world with no chocolate. Isn't there something it provides that nourishes us in a different way?
Comments
Post a Comment