Art/Individual Expression and Morality?

[Hermes]

I wasn't quite sure if this was the place for this thread, but it seemed the most fitting.

Do you believe that art, regardless of its aesthetic qualities, has certain moral qualities which can devalue it or enhance it? For example, is Am Adolf Hitler Platz evil simply because it was used as Nazi propaganda and has questionable lyrics due to that? What about Erika?

Can art's aesthetic value be decreased or enhanced by the nature in which it was written? For example, is a 'good' open form poem the same aesthetic quality as a 'good' early Welsh nature poem (for those who don't know, the poetry style of that time was incredibly strict and complex, and mostly written for rulers)? Are Michelangelo's works inherently devalued because he relied on the patronage of others?

Or is art, once finished and complete, truly immune from exterior morality and simply has the morality we put into it?

Sorry again if this is the wrong section or if the question is a silly one.

[Ostrinski]

This question is not silly.

In my opinion, it is possible to separate the quality of art from one's perception of its content. We have this debate a lot on here regarding music. You can appreciate any form of art outside of a political context and simply within the context of art. So for instance, a lot of people on here listen to hip-hop, NSBM, etc. with reacionary content but appreciate the execution of the art itself while acknowledging the reacionary nature of its content.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

This question is not silly.

In my opinion, it is possible to separate the quality of art from one's perception of its content. We have this debate a lot on here regarding music. You can appreciate any form of art outside of a political context and simply within the context of art. So for instance, a lot of people on here listen to hip-hop, NSBM, etc. with reacionary content but appreciate the execution of the art itself while acknowledging the reacionary nature of its content.

Well, but part of the appeciation of music/art in general is relating to what its saying, or having an emotioanl response/engagement with it, so while nobody is saying you cannot appeciate say, a good beat or well put together lyrics, it is unlikely that you will be as attached or moved by a piece sung about the glory of the 3rd reich as you will about some lovely communist art,

[MotherCossack]

i think it is a absolutely sound question. indeed well done for asking it.... cos it leads to just the kind of juicy, interesting debate that makes life worth living.
i have a very dangerous confession to make.
PLEASE DONT BAN ME I AM NOT, HAVE NEVER BEEN, WOULD RATHER BE RIPPED LIMB FROM LIMB AND DEVOURED, BY A HIDEOUS MONSTER, THAN EVER BECOME....
A FASCIST OR ANYTHING APPROACHING IT......
but................
I do have a secret soft spot for ....."Tommorrow belongs to me."
AHHH! i've said it now.......
only the thing as a piece of music. it does not seem to matter that it meant a lot of very bad shit to blonde aryans in germany once..... i cant help liking the sound of it just as
an uplifting song.
does that make me evil?....
or just lacking any ability to omit truths that could be very troublesome...and therefore an idiot....
Again, all i can say is ... it such a stirring tune!

[hatzel]

Interestingly enough, the old Nahua 'philosophies' don't distinguish between aesthetically good and morally good and so on. For a piece of art (I use this word to refer to products of creation, even though it is totally unfitting, as these societies had no concept of 'art' as understood in Europe) to be 'good' it had to both embody and direct the 'artist' towards all that was 'good,' the correct balance, the expression of Man's place on the Earth etc. As such it wasn't art-art as the term is often understood - that is to say a creation to be admired for its elegance in isolation - but was a mere extension of Being, and thus necessarily required that it was ethically, epistemologically and ontologically 'good' in order to be aesthetically or artistically 'good.' Though here I have also used terms (ethics, epistemology, ontology, art) which did not exist as separate concepts in this philosophical system. There's an interesting article about this here (http://www.iep.utm.edu/aztec/), particularly §4d "Flower and Song."

In order to answer whether 'art' is immune from 'morality,' one would have to define these terms and establish that they are, in fact, distinct categories. Personally I adhere to a position far closer to that which does not distinguish at all between art and morality, art and ontology, art and epistemology, art and politics - at least in my own creativity, - leading me carelessly down the road of so-called 'conceptual art.' And making me kick out at people for all their pretty pictures with no meaning. I wouldn't call this other stuff 'immoral art' or anything like that, I don't look at Futurist art saying 'you filthy fascist, your art is nothing to me!' (though at the same time I see nothing wrong with a bit of healthy desecration of ignoble or 'boring' artworks, teehee) - in fact I'd rather see art expressing a sentiment I disagree with than art expressing no sentiment at all, as the former does nothing but further compartmentalise 'art' in some little box totally removed from the rest of existence.

[MotherCossack]

In order to answer whether 'art' is immune from 'morality,' one would have to define these terms and establish that they are, in fact, distinct categories. Personally I adhere to a position far closer to that which does not distinguish at all between art and morality, art and ontology, art and epistemology, art and politics - at least in my own creativity, - leading me carelessly down the road of so-called 'conceptual art.' And making me kick out at people for all their pretty pictures with no meaning. I wouldn't call this other stuff 'immoral art' or anything like that, I don't look at Futurist art saying 'you filthy fascist, your art is nothing to me!' (though at the same time I see nothing wrong with a bit of healthy desecration of ignoble or 'boring' artworks, teehee) - in fact I'd rather see art expressing a sentiment I disagree with than art expressing no sentiment at all, as the former does nothing but further compartmentalise 'art' in some little box totally removed from the rest of existence.

good point and i agree with your preference for art that is born out of feeling and sentiment, over that which is pointless... however pretty...
i must admit, though..... some of the so called "art" i have come across, especially that which relies upon substantial supporting material /a sub-text/ much explanation to give it meaning.... i consider to be stretching the term ART.
I suppose what i am saying is i have a big problem with a lot of "modern art"
sometimes i see something and think.... that is a very clever comment/statement/ illustratation about the
state of things or whatever...... but it is not a work of art.
it is of worth...[lets say] but something different!
that is only my opinion though... a humble self-taught , [un-schooled in the history and proper protocol of art,] artist.

[manic expression]

in fact I'd rather see art expressing a sentiment I disagree with than art expressing no sentiment at all, as the former does nothing but further compartmentalise 'art' in some little box totally removed from the rest of existence.
I think that purposefully looking for a sentiment is far less important than looking for what a work is and the place it holds in the human experience. If it is beautiful or otherwise alluring then a sentiment will come naturally enough, depending upon whom beholds it; if it speaks to us then of course we will speak of it. Impressionist art oftentimes has very little intended sentiment and yet it is still quite powerful to viewers.

All art is, after all, quite useless...and that is precisely why it is so important.


Do you believe that art, regardless of its aesthetic qualities, has certain moral qualities which can devalue it or enhance it? For example, is Am Adolf Hitler Platz evil simply because it was used as Nazi propaganda and has questionable lyrics due to that? What about Erika?
I do think the purpose of an artwork does have something to do with how it must be viewed. However, we can still recognize the artistic skill and originality in something even if its purpose is entirely disgusting. Art is not just a political statement or belief, it involves more than that, so our view of it should be a bit more complex than a simple judgment of its purpose. I think it's important to note the purely artistic qualities, the purpose it is used for, the society that gave rise to it and its relationship with that and finally the place it holds in our world today. Take those factors into account (along with others, I'm sure), and then you begin to have a clearer picture of that art.


Can art's aesthetic value be decreased or enhanced by the nature in which it was written? For example, is a 'good' open form poem the same aesthetic quality as a 'good' early Welsh nature poem (for those who don't know, the poetry style of that time was incredibly strict and complex, and mostly written for rulers)? Are Michelangelo's works inherently devalued because he relied on the patronage of others?

Or is art, once finished and complete, truly immune from exterior morality and simply has the morality we put into it?
Michelangelo's works are hardly at all devalued because he needed patrons: without the patrons the art wouldn't exist. Further, his art is enriched, I think, when we understand the world he was living in and the rules he had to live by. Art is surely an extension of those who produce it...Michelangelo could do nothing but what he did when it came to relying on patronage, and that imbues his work with not only its aesthetic qualities but the stuff of history. I find that art's imperfections are what make it human.

[Ostrinski]

Well, but part of the appeciation of music/art in general is relating to what its saying, or having an emotioanl response/engagement with it, so while nobody is saying you cannot appeciate say, a good beat or well put together lyrics, it is unlikely that you will be as attached or moved by a piece sung about the glory of the 3rd reich as you will about some lovely communist art,You are right in that I would relate to communist-themed art/music/film etc. more than fascist themed art or whatever the case may be, but what I was trying to say is that it is possible separate the emotions that art elicits from the execution of the art itself.

[Thirsty Crow]

I wasn't quite sure if this was the place for this thread, but it seemed the most fitting.Come to think of it, yes, this nis probably the best place for it.


Do you believe that art, regardless of its aesthetic qualities, has certain moral qualities which can devalue it or enhance it? For example, is Am Adolf Hitler Platz evil simply because it was used as Nazi propaganda and has questionable lyrics due to that? What about Erika? This really depends on the art in question.
I think that, for example, instrumental music and to a much lesser extent painting are resistant to social and moral connotations and implications.
But literature, any discursive art in fact, thrives on these, especially in relation to its potential for ambiguity.
Now, as far as I'm concerend, I do care for the social, political implications of art works. I wouldn't word it as you did, but I think that certain works of art do carry a potential for socially destructive effect. And these implications, explicit or implicit, can in fact enhance the overall aesthetic quality of art IMO, though that depends on the view one has towards art in general. If one's more or less of a formalist, then the answer would be that social and political content merely debases art by itself.


Can art's aesthetic value be decreased or enhanced by the nature in which it was written? For example, is a 'good' open form poem the same aesthetic quality as a 'good' early Welsh nature poem (for those who don't know, the poetry style of that time was incredibly strict and complex, and mostly written for rulers)? Are Michelangelo's works inherently devalued because he relied on the patronage of others?I don't think it's possible to compare the aesthetic quality of art forms which are separated by the long passage of history. The approach I would advocate here is that each cultural period establishes its own paradigm, and art forms should be judged by either accepting the rules of the dominant paradigm or by challenging them and showing how they are socially motivated or otherwise invalid on purely aesthetic grounds. As far as the last question/example goes, art as a social institution in times of Michelangelo was in fact based on patronage, and it would be very silly to think of his works as devalued because of this.


Or is art, once finished and complete, truly immune from exterior morality and simply has the morality we put into it?By "we", do you mean us as readers/consumers of art? If so, then I'd say no, social content does not depend solely on what the consumer reads into a work of art, it has its definite basis in the historical period in question (and that should be brought up to light by a careful job of both close reading and historical analysis). You can't simply twist a work of art to make it say what you want it to without regard for its specific context. I can't force Chaucer to adopt the ideas of the enlightenment.


Sorry again if this is the wrong section or if the question is a silly one.
Far from being silly, very far. I think this is a very important question, in fact.

[Hermes]

To Menocchio, this is just to make sure that my reading of your post is correct. Sometimes I have trouble distinguishing meaning in a person's post, through entirely my own fault.

Would you say then that while aesthetic qualities are inherent in a piece of art (be it literature, painting, music), it is inevitably shaped by the surrounding political/social climate (though literature is shaped more easily due to word choice, etc that is available to the author)?

The reason I brought up Michelangelo and Welsh poetry is because I know of some people who think that if a person is restricted in any way or controlled in his artistic pursuits, his/her work will be lesser because of it.

Also, when you say that art can be socially destructive, you also mean that other art can be socially beneficial, correct? Or would you say that it is either negative or neutral?
----

If you had to describe a piece of art that would be your 'favorite' (whether this means it is profound and thought-provoking, or emotionally powerful, etc), how would you do that? It could include a description of the surrounding political/social atmosphere if necessary. Or if you have a favorite work of art, and are fairly sure it will remain as such, what is it?

I'd answer, but I really don't know enough about art/creativity and how it's influenced by external sources to say reliably, nor have I viewed/listened to/read enough art to give a rough estimate.

[MotherCossack]

this is so interesting... i feel i have to say thankyou for creating this thread.
it is a bit like art really.... like someone said.... of no real use [my intention is by no means to devalue it] but so intricate and full of possibilities, avenues to explore and in many ways very personal and dependent on the individual.
art is one way to celebrate the huge diversity in life and to cope with the horror of life. to express the experience of living .it enables us to tell a story, our story..or for that matter choose to express whatever we feel like expressing, pretty much.
important elements that come into play are:
a/acknowledging that we are all individuals and see things in our own unique way.
b/what matters is how we choose to interpret and express it ....but that is up to us.

there are loads of factors that will have an effect, to varying degrees, on that process.... but i believe it is at the crux of what real art is about.

i really thought i had made sense... but re=reading my post i'd be amazed if anyway can make head or tail of it!
blabbering buffoon!

[Hermes]

For me, at least (and I'm probably entirely wrong for the rest of you) the pursuit of art is, for most individuals, the desire to express who and what you are, what you believe in, and what you love. To me, at least, a photograph will never have quite the same feeling, because it's so entirely dependent on chance occurrence of symbol, lighting, scene, etc.

Maybe because I'm a little of an idealist, but I want to be able to paint my being into the clouds, to write and express my feelings so not only will people know what I'm saying, they'll know simply and completely who I am. This sounds like Romantic era Europe, and I guess it kind of is. I just think that in painting and literature and music, there's more than simply what is, there's what you're able to put into it. Not a simple grafting on, but to make a whole new creation of what's there and what you're putting in.

A painting of the countryside is rarely just a painting of a countryside, I guess.

[black magick hustla]

art sucks i ejaculate on all your paints/pomes etc

[MotherCossack]

art sucks i ejaculate on all your paints/pomes etc

err...
what do you mean?
You are a man?!
and......

my paintings and poems are rubbish...? or

My paintings and poems are that sexy and arousing...?!

hmmmm!

or the whole thing is a crock of shite..!

[Thirsty Crow]

To Menocchio, this is just to make sure that my reading of your post is correct. Sometimes I have trouble distinguishing meaning in a person's post, through entirely my own fault.
I've gone through my post and it does seem a bit vague, so don't place the blame only on yourself ;)


Would you say then that while aesthetic qualities are inherent in a piece of art (be it literature, painting, music), it is inevitably shaped by the surrounding political/social climate (though literature is shaped more easily due to word choice, etc that is available to the author)? I don't think there is such a thing as aesthetic quality inherent to a work of art. What is inherent to it is the way it is constructed or written, and it's quality is a value judgement, one which is socially produced. Now, we might distinguish two factors here:

1) institutions of official culture - like the academia and art journals, which provide a "dignified" value judgement, one which had a lot of influence in the past especially, but nowadays is more or less substituted for the mass media; education institutions also play a role in this process

2) the subjective response of a consumer of art, which is not only shaped by the above mentioned institutions

As for your question, I'd say that almost universally literature brings forward social content of one kind or another. It is rather vague to say what you did, that it is "shaped by the surrounding climate", that could mean lot (for instance, that the structure of a poet's free verse is shaped by his social background, something which is almost impossible to prove). But content, as in explicit or implicit judgements, assertions, messages, derived in one way or another from the literary text, that yes, though literary forms which move away from the poetics of realism tend to conceal these or try to drop it altogether. One


The reason I brought up Michelangelo and Welsh poetry is because I know of some people who think that if a person is restricted in any way or controlled in his artistic pursuits, his/her work will be lesser because of it.I'd say that almost any cultural worker (cue jargon of "socialist" Yugoslavia :D) is in one way or another retricted and controlled in their pursuits. And I don't think this is a reasonable attitude because it has nothing to do with assessing the work of art on its own, but rather focuses on the personality of the author, which is quite silly. Anyway, if we were to follow this advice, then we'd appreciate only rich little fucks who have all the time of the world at their disposal and aren't restricted by anything. I don't like the sound of that.


Also, when you say that art can be socially destructive, you also mean that other art can be socially beneficial, correct? Or would you say that it is either negative or neutral?Yes, I think it can be socially beneficial. Examples come to mind: Bertolt Brecht, who balanced purely artistic concerns and social/political motivation in a truly glorious way, and the play Waiting for Lefty by Clifford Odets (it ran during the Depression and actually caused a mini demonstration by those who went to see it, in support of the taxi drivers' strike - while the play staged a taxi drivers' strike, which was coincidental).
----


If you had to describe a piece of art that would be your 'favorite' (whether this means it is profound and thought-provoking, or emotionally powerful, etc), how would you do that? It could include a description of the surrounding political/social atmosphere if necessary. Or if you have a favorite work of art, and are fairly sure it will remain as such, what is it?This is much, too much difficult a question. It would take me some time to think about it, but on the top of my head, I'd say that, when literature is concerned, I'd definitely include the social content and connotations of the work (I won't say which one is it because frankly, I can't think of a single one), but I also enjoy the very technical aspect to it very often, how is it written. For instance, I can't stomach Hemingvay's rudimentary writing style.

[manic expression]

art sucks i ejaculate on all your paints/pomes etc
Ironically enough, most modern art is about as vapid and worthless as the opinion expressed above.

[MotherCossack]

sad.. but has the ring of truth about it.
although... i should say... with one hand grasping the palette knife and the other punching a hole in what has become, again, the latest in a long line of infuriatingly uncooperative artistic endeavours.....that i am only one of many who strive to create art which is not born out of thin air, an eye on the spreadsheet and about as much artistic intergrity as you could expect from this made to measure climate ... in which unengaged individuals produce formulaic, fashionable, clinical and often largely souless fodder.
without any traditional art school background ...i am aware of my vast shortcomings in terms of basic skills like draftsmanship and simple things like perspective and horizen lines , and loads of technical stuff about processes...
yet it seems that i am part of a diminishing minority who actually value such skills in modern day art.
it seems that a clever statement is sufficient to substantiate art works nowadays ... indeed it has become more important than the image /object/artpiece itself .

i dont get it....to be honest...visual art is not supposed to be clever, particularily, it should express feelings.... and touch/affect people into an emotional response.
it has to be truthful, created with integrity, and contain something unquantifiable /inexplicable which is the hallmark of the best art work ... at least that's how i see it

[Hermes]

I often agree with you, it seems like today more and more people don't want something like that, they just want something different, whether or not it's any good. I could just be pessimistic, though.

[Luís Henrique]

err...
what do you mean?
You are a man?!
and......

my paintings and poems are rubbish...? or

My paintings and poems are that sexy and arousing...?!

hmmmm!

or the whole thing is a crock of shite..!

He is trying to prove that trolling is a form of art, just that. :lol:

Luís Henrique

[Revolution starts with U]

Good trolling is an art. Normal trolling is a travesty

[Dean]

I wasn't quite sure if this was the place for this thread, but it seemed the most fitting.

Do you believe that art, regardless of its aesthetic qualities, has certain moral qualities which can devalue it or enhance it? For example, is Am Adolf Hitler Platz evil simply because it was used as Nazi propaganda and has questionable lyrics due to that? What about Erika?

Yes, but not in the same way you think it does...


Can art's aesthetic value be decreased or enhanced by the nature in which it was written? For example, is a 'good' open form poem the same aesthetic quality as a 'good' early Welsh nature poem (for those who don't know, the poetry style of that time was incredibly strict and complex, and mostly written for rulers)? Are Michelangelo's works inherently devalued because he relied on the patronage of others?

Or is art, once finished and complete, truly immune from exterior morality and simply has the morality we put into it?


This last statement is approaching what I think about art. I think its value is directly related to the extent to which it lays bare human emotions and experience. So if a song or painting is deeply related to the human experience of its author, or if Hitler's propaganda is a reflection of his own true beliefs, they can be considered highly valued art.

Art is a language of human expression - therefore its value is equivalent to its lucidity and depth of relevance to the subject at hand.

An interesting aspect of commercialized art, propagandistic art, and "scene" art* is the tendency to alienate the artist from the final work of art - for instance, including elements meant to make a work more accessible, or to propagate an idea through cynical and dishonest messagery, makes the final piece of art less relevant to the experience and emotion of the artist. The inclusion of a corporate symbol for pay cheapens the image of a piece of art, something common to cartoons these days. It reduces the freedom of the artist to express an idea, since they are bound to the inclusion of aspects that make their expression of art easier, but these aspects do not come from the artist, but rather the market, the political scene, or the academic scene, depending on what kind of corruption has taken over the art.

*Scene art here means that art which is self-referential, like that only other art students could appreciate - sometimes called abstract or minimalist, though not all of these are)

[Hermes]

Yes, but not in the same way you think it does...




This last statement is approaching what I think about art. I think its value is directly related to the extent to which it lays bare human emotions and experience. So if a song or painting is deeply related to the human experience of its author, or if Hitler's propaganda is a reflection of his own true beliefs, they can be considered highly valued art.

Art is a language of human expression - therefore its value is equivalent to its lucidity and depth of relevance to the subject at hand.

An interesting aspect of commercialized art, propagandistic art, and "scene" art* is the tendency to alienate the artist from the final work of art - for instance, including elements meant to make a work more accessible, or to propagate an idea through cynical and dishonest messagery, makes the final piece of art less relevant to the experience and emotion of the artist. The inclusion of a corporate symbol for pay cheapens the image of a piece of art, something common to cartoons these days. It reduces the freedom of the artist to express an idea, since they are bound to the inclusion of aspects that make their expression of art easier, but these aspects do not come from the artist, but rather the market, the political scene, or the academic scene, depending on what kind of corruption has taken over the art.

*Scene art here means that art which is self-referential, like that only other art students could appreciate - sometimes called abstract or minimalist, though not all of these are)

I might be, and probably am, completely misreading you here, so please correct me if I am.

Would you say then that (and this is just an example, because I think it might be the most frequent to happen in life) if a person devoured by love wrote a poem that truly expressed his feelings, it would be good regardless of whether or not the rhymes were off, the form was bad, etc?

It could still be highly emotional, it could just be formally wrong. Some people think that's perfectly okay, while others tend to disagree. I waver and have no idea.

[Thirsty Crow]

Would you say then that (and this is just an example, because I think it might be the most frequent to happen in life) if a person devoured by love wrote a poem that truly expressed his feelings, it would be good regardless of whether or not the rhymes were off, the form was bad, etc?The problem is that the reader can in no way ascertain whether the poem is the result of genuine personal feeling. Poetry anyway, as well as literature in general, functions well as simulation of sorts where language is used not to express a personal feeling but to produce an impression or a chain of associations. Anyway, I think that this question of genuine emotions behind art is irrelevant because I tend to value it on the grounds of what it does for me. And to answer the question, no, even if I read an interview where the poet swore that he is devoured by emotions, I wouldn't think that this makes their poems inherently good.


It could still be highly emotional, it could just be formally wrong. Some people think that's perfectly okay, while others tend to disagree. I waver and have no idea.As I've stated, I don't think that the criterion of emotions is really crucial when it comes to poetry. It's one of those preconceptions inherited from the literary practice and theory of romanticism (and mind you that the romantics themselves were first of all masters of the verse).