on art and ethics

[linuxboy]

due to this thread, I want to try and bring back some meaningful, philosophic-type discussion to ATOT.

At the same time, my posts usually get the same people responding so I'd like to make this straightforward and get all of us thinking about something meaningful.

With that in mind, my question is: what is involved in the appreciation of art and is it possible to separate art/aesthetics from ethics or does it just depend?

Here is a brief story:

An artist employs the following method to create the art: he takes a picture of a small wooden crucifix, enlarges the photos, urinates on it, and sets it on fire and takes a picture of that. Looking at the work, could you appreciate the art as a detached observer or does the knowledge somehow dminish the quality of the art, whether the art os transcendental or descendental.

My thought is that there are many cases, especially with real-life images, where art or aesthetic properties are indeed grounded in our experiences, including an ethical system. At the same time, the properties do not by themselves imply that the art is good.

If a person who could not appreciate art develops a system that has an above-average chance of recognizing good art, that does not mean the person appreciates or knows the full aesthetic value of the art due to diminished experience.

But what do you think?

Can we separate the ethical from the aesthetic or are they always inextricably bound? Or does it all depend? Depend on what?

Cheers !

 

[gopunk]

i think that in the example you just described, the art was created with the assumption that the viewer would have that knowledge. in a sense, the knowledge itself was a part of the art.

 

[Alligator]

i hate these type topics!
i cannot believe you put it here?
all these topics and one like it in the future should be summarily locked and the poster banned for life!

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< due to this thread, I want to try and bring back some meaningful, philosophic-type discussion to ATOT. >>


Keep trying. You might actually achieve your goal someday. You're off to a very slow start though.

 

[krystalogik]

Personally, Ethics play no part in my appreciation of Art. I may not like what an artist is doing, but I can still, say "hey, a good expression of the artist's thoughts and feelings." without being like "HOLY CRAP!! HE PISSED ON A CRUCIFIX!!"

Of course, this could be due to the fact that I'm atheist.


BTW, I have no problem with threads that you think are inappropriate...(sounds like a direct relation as to how Ilook at art....)

 

[VirusDub]

<< Personally, Ethics play no part in my appreciation of Art. >>

I totally agree with this statement. Aesthetic expression is something that should be free from judgement (in most cases, anyway). As long as the art is lawful, why should it interfere with an ethical system?

If the freedom to speak your mind is acceptable, then so should be the freedom to, in this case, piss on and burn a picture of a crucifix.

 

[AreaCode707]

Ah, good question. I was just reading Matthew Arnold's essays on criticism, where he requires it to be detatched from the practical world, but I find that unrealistic and impossible for mortal beings. Personal bias is ingrained in us. Art such as you described relies on the personal biases of people to draw a reaction - to be distinterestedly critical of it would defeat the artist's (if such he could be called) purpose.

 

[gopunk]

wtf why was #2 locked?

and davidsohmer - stop crapping on his threads

 

[Burnt]

I think a better question is, why did they remove the threads? I always thought they just locked them.

 

[gopunk]

<< I think a better question is, why did they remove the threads? I always thought they just locked them. >>



oh it was locked earlier.

 

[VirusDub]

<< Personal bias is ingrained in us. Art such as you described relies on the personal biases of people to draw a reaction - to be distinterestedly critical of it would defeat the artist's (if such he could be called) purpose. >>

That's a very good point. It is very difficult for humans to leave behind their biases and opinions, even when observing something like art.

As for whether or not this hypothetical artist is truly and artist, I think that would be based on his motivation to create said "work". If he was doing it simply because he could get a reaction from someone, he would be more of an entertainer than an artist. However, if he created the piece because he believed he could influence people and express himself at the same time, he would definitely be an artist.

 

[jbod]

I think there is a distinction between aesthetic and ethical.

What if I were to place something that all atheists value on a canvas and excrete on it and say, "Wow, this is some serious art!"

I think there are boundaries to what is acceptable and what is not.

Shock value is meaningless.

 

[AreaCode707]

Ah, here we go. From Matthew Arnold's The Function of Criticism at the Present Time. Criticism: a disinterested endeavour to learn and propogate the best that is known and thought in the world. Therefore criticism of this 'art' would involve determining whether it propogates the best that is known and thought in the world. I, though far from being disinterested in this hypothetical case and so incapable of being the necessary critic, have difficulty finding this to forward anything beneficial to human thought.
I can imagine my position being argued by those who would say that it benefits human thought by taking a step forward in removing the superstition of religion, but they would not be the necessary critic either, having a bias themselves, as I do.

 

[VirusDub]

<< I think there is a distinction between aesthetic and ethical. What if I were to place something that all atheists value on a canvas and excrete on it and say, "Wow, this is some serious art!" >>

I think it would only be unethical if it was created simply for the purpose of offense. It is possible to offend and yet stay completely within the realm of good ethics. A large part of modern art is expressing a message, often though suprise or shock. Often the easiest way to influence someone's convictions is by attacking them, which is what "shock art" does.

 

[AreaCode707]

Well, now we run into a point of possible contention. What is the purpose of art? For the artist to express his/her own thoughts or feelings? To affect the thoughts and feelings, and possibly actions, of viewers? To make it on the evening news or rake in the dough?

Can art stand alone and still have its full affect or is it necessary to look at it in context of the artist's intent, culture at the time of its creation, and the subject matter of the art?

 

[VirusDub]

I think it is possible for a work of art to stand on its own, though it loses quite a bit of meaning. An artist's motivation for creating something is often one of the most significant aspects of art. Would a 17th painting of an angel mean as much if you didn't know that the artist meant to revere God and all His creations? In the same respect, would Guernica have any significance if you didn't know that it depicted the horror of the Spanish Civil War?

I fully believe that "art" can be created by anybody. However, an artist is one that has a deeper meaning for creating said art. It could be that they wish to affect the minds of society, or it could be that they just feel like expressing themselves. However, creating art simply to make money does not make one an artist, at least in my opinion. Producing simply for money negates my fundamental perception of art.

 

[linuxboy]

Ah, good question. I was just reading Matthew Arnold's essays on criticism, where he requires it to be detatched from the practical world, but I find that unrealistic and impossible for mortal beings. Personal bias is ingrained in us. Art such as you described relies on the personal biases of people to draw a reaction - to be distinterestedly critical of it would defeat the artist's (if such he could be called) purpose.

I agree with you here due to my following argument:

1) To appreciate art, we require knowledge of the features of aethetics.
2) Knowledge of the aethetic is grounded in the non-aesthetic
3) The non-aesthetic does not really imply the aesthetic

in effect, what I'm saying here is that while we can find commonalities in great art, the experience is grounded in our very own biases and delving deep into the art instead of detaching ourselves from it leads to better awareness of the athor's intention, message and aesthetic quality of the work.

to summarize this thread:

some claim complete withdrawal is necessary and don't care about the ethics of the piece
some claim that ethics are always bound up with the work
some claim that it depends on the work, but in most cases, detachment actually can lead away from experiencing art fully.

I think I agree with the last one.

Any more insight to be learned here? I think the lesson is that if we are withdrawn from the world around us, we can miss out on alot of cool stuff.

Cheers !