Art is a freedom of expression and through history has often been at the forefront of controversial movements and pushing the boundaries of societal rules. Does art need to be considered and judged through not just an aesthetic lens, but also a moral one? Should we, as Plato suggested, supervise and control the worlds artists and prevent art from celebrating the immoral? These questions are often posed in the world of philosophy and the arts with varying attitudes through time. One of the most important things to remember is that morality is not necessarily the same around the world. The scandalous and immoral are not objective and although many art pieces praise ideas that would fall under these labels, the morality of subject should not devalue …show more content…
Art that shows things in a disgusting light or celebrates things that are offensive are not automatically immoral. People feel disgust at moral transgressions, however, also at many other things that are not considered immoral (Caruso). Some immoral actions will not invoke disgust. Offence often can be caused by “violations of moral, religious, or political norms; general nudity; and fear, resentment, humiliation or anger” (Caruso). The audience is offended because they believe that something should not be done, because it is immoral, and the artwork does it (Caruso). However, offence is not necessarily an end all in determining if something is immoral, if someone reads in a paper about a robbery they will not necessarily be offended, perhaps upset or angry, but not personally offended, even though this is an immoral act. For example, the painting Olympia, by Edouard Manet. In this work the nude woman’s, presumably a prostitute, defiant expression and casual sexuality were extremely controversial when first shown in the mid 1800s, however today we do not find it so. What is controversial and immoral is not an objective truth, but there are certainly art pieces that will celebrate and explore the
What is art and how is it used as a tool for communication? These multifaceted questions are answered by analyzing ancient and modern art. In the article “When Art Loses Its Sting: The evolution of Protest Art in Authoritarian Contexts” Jacqueline Adams explains how art captures the interest of sociologists. Art executes a unique duality in society. In both recent and ancient history, art has been used as propaganda. Now, contemporary art works to challenge or protest ideologies. Analyzing art provides an interesting insight: the art of today holds as much influence as it did in history. Art has not “lost its sting,” but rather gained a phenomenal impact.
The attempt to set up a standard for assessing the merit of works of art, based upon contingent connections between these works and the sentiments (feelings of pleasure or displeasure) of spectators, was famously made by David Hume. His attempt remains the locus classicus for those philosophers who attempt to found the aesthetic judgment upon empirical, rather than a priori, grounds. I have myself given it a limited defense (1). Recently, Hume's argument has been severely attacked by Malcolm Budd (2). His central contention is that Hume completely fails to introduce any normative element into the aesthetic judgment; he fails, that is, to give any content to the claim that some judgments on the value of a work are more warranted or appropriate than others...
Over the decades, art has been used as a weapon against the callousness of various social constructs - it has been used to challenge authority, to counter ideologies, to get a message across and to make a difference. In the same way, classical poetry and literature written by minds belonging to a different time, a different place and a different community have somehow found a way to transcend the boundaries set by time and space and have been carried through the ages to somehow seep into contemporary times and shape our society in ways we cannot fathom.
In existential thought it is often questioned who decides what is right and what is wrong. Our everyday beliefs based on the assumption that not everything we are told may be true. This questioning has given light to the subjective perspective. This means that there is a lack of a singular view that is entirely devoid of predetermined values. These predetermined values are instilled upon society by various sources such as family to the media. On a societal level this has given rise to the philosophy of social hype. The idea of hype lies in society as the valuation of something purely off someone or some group of people valuing it. Hype has become one of the main driving forces behind what society considers to be good art and how successful artists can become while being the main component that leads to a wide spread belief, followed by its integration into subjective views. Its presence in the art world propagates trends, fads, and limits what we find to be good art. Our subjective outlook on art is powered by society’s feedback upon itself. The art world, high and low, is exploited by this social construction. Even when objective critique is the goal subjective remnants can still seep through and influence an opinion. Subjective thought in the art world has been self perpetuated through regulated museums, idolization of the author, and general social construction because of hype.
Artists throughout history have faced ruthless criticism, censorship, discouragement, and even violent oppression of their work. In the face of this adversity, some artists are able to rise up and meet it, creating great art in the process. In the effort to question societal authority’s pressure to conform to what it deems successful art, artists are able to create and solidify their own unique perspectives which produces innovative, significant, and lasting art. Without society’s encouragement or approval, disparaged artists are free from the constraints, influence, and expectations that come with societal acceptance which allows them to make work that is true to their own creative vision. Vincent Van Gogh, a renowned
My definition of art, while short, would be anything that is aesthetically pleasing to a person. But, who defines what art is, and what makes art work a form of expression? I think the cliché beauty is in the eye of the beholder, stands true when it comes to determination of what art is. With specific relations to video games, I believe that these creations are a form of art because of the amount of detail that is put forth to develop a world and an atmosphere to engross a person in. Take for example, Super Mario Galaxy, the colors to capture you attention, the music to drive you forward, and the concept to keep you coming back. All of these combined, make up one great game, and an overall multidimensional work of art. In the article “Why Video Games are Works of Art”, Kyle Chayka talks about what components make a game an artwork, but with every protagonist, there is always an antagonist saying “Oh, no it isn’t!”. On the opposite side, we have Rodger Ebert, and
It’s interesting to note what happened to the art world after Duchamp revolutionized art into meaninglessness. Artists seem to be exempt from the moral laws that are binding to ordinary people. Everything is O.K. under art’s magic umbrella: rotting corpses with snails crawling over them, kicking little girls in the head, rape and murder recreations, women defecating. Where does it stop? What is art and what is porn? What is art and what is disgusting? Where is the line? There isn’t one anymore. The effect of Duchamp’s pranks was to point out that anything could be art. All it took was getting people to agree to call something art.
For over two thousand years, various philosophers have questioned the influence of art in our society. They have used abstract reasoning, human emotions, and logic to go beyond this world in the search for answers about arts' existence. For philosophers, art was not viewed for its own beauty, but rather for the question of how art and artists can help make our society more stable for the next generation. Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived during 420-348 B.C. in Athens, and Aristotle, Plato’s student who argued against his beliefs, have no exceptions to the steps they had to take in order to understand the purpose of art and artists. Though these two philosophers made marvelous discoveries about the existence of art, artists, and aesthetic experience, Plato has made his works more controversial than Aristotle.
To the great extend ethical judgements limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in both the arts and the natural sciences. But in my opinion such a limitations are essential, while people need to be to some extend controlled. The boundaries are needed because giving to people to much freedom and power is very dangerous. The only one problem in case of ethical judgements is that the perception about something wrong or right differs among the people. I think that this comes from the inside, generally there are some “informal laws” how to behave, what is good and bad, but this is a personal matter of every single person which ones from that “laws” he or she accept and reject. The morality is determined by culture and experiences and differs among people. If there would not be something like moral code the production of knowledge in art the same as in natural science would not have any limitations. Using examples from art and biology I will try to show how ethical judgements limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in both the arts and the natural sciences, but also I will try to explain my statement that such a limitations are necessary.
Art education is often underestimated by many who believe that school was created to teach only analytical concepts such as mathematics and literature. However, research has shown that art courses are important, even necessary for students in elementary, middle, and high schools. These art classes may include not only visual arts but performing arts such as dance, theatre and choir. Barbara Streisand said, “Art does not exist only to entertain, but also to challenge one to think, to provoke, even to disturb, in a constant search for the truth,” (Quotations). Streisand points out that there are multiple benefits to art whether it be painted by a brush or sung from the heart. Art has the ability to allow people to see situations from different points of view not merely to look beautiful as decoration. Those who believe that art education is unimportant are simply ignorant to the benefits that involvement in the arts holds for not just the individual but for society in general. While some in society may not recognize the immediate results. Art education is beneficial to students in primary and secondary schools.
When I was in high school, I was very involved in the arts. I took a band, choir and two years of visual art. During the years of high school, I knew that the fees for the art courses cost much more than other electives at my school. I also observed that the school focused more on their athletic and academics programs, than on their art programs. We had many fundraisers to raise more money for the art programs even after paying an already expensive fee to takes these electives. Schools are neglecting the visual arts programs and placing all of their money and focus on academics and athletics programs. I propose a balance between the arts, academics, and the athletics.
Art has had its roots, one may argue, when civilization was born. With each respective civilization and time periods from the past, humans have formed a diverse and unique society, a group of people with their own individual characteristics, cultures, as well as philosophies within which all kinds of differing ideas, thoughts and opinions are always brought upon for challenge and evaluation. These distinct aspects of a culture and/or time period may be recorded by people in varying forms of expression we all know as art. Directly from where culture had originated, events and/or emotions from that time period have been reflected or directly recorded in the arrangement of pictures i.e. paintings from the past which inform us about the people’s experiences and events in the past historical periods. Ultimately, History is the record of the development and how we have evolved as humans together in a society. History can be expressed and reflected in different kinds of music, sculptures, as well as paintings. There are several different periods of Art, each has contributed and reflected to how a society was. Art has been usually used by historians as one of the vehicles of history to illustrate and illuminate it as they are able to recognize that some types of art may be able to help them identify and explain the nature of societies and periods in history. Art and society have counteracted with each different type bringing forth new arts and new societies for many generations to come. Ideas have caused responses by citizens and therefore bring forth several different types of influences on a period’s background, heredity, and environments. These influences are then translated into new a idea, which then triggers the circle to repeat it...
Art and science (to be more specific, natural science) are essential parts of our society and areas of knowledge, as are ethics. One must wonder what impact our ethical judgements, our decisions based on moral principles, have on these two. Our morals are the laws and standards that we make and believe in. Ethical judgements often limit the production of knowledge from the natural science as well as from art; however, art can be born out of ethical judgements. Ethics are often deeply involved in anything we do and in much of our knowledge. We ask ourselves if something is ethical or not based on one system of morality of another. Individuals who are proficient in the natural sciences often confront ethical roadblocks that seem to hinder human innovative progress. The same has been and continues to be seen in the arts. Artists are often tempted not to follow through or even begin with projects that they believe to be immoral according to their own beliefs or the beliefs of others. Such art is often censored if it ever is produced; however, it is our morals that allow us to create art and separate it from the rest of the world. Our ethical judgements limit and create much of the art that is (or could have been) around us today.
Throughout the ages art has played a crucial role in life. Art is universal and because art is everywhere, we experience it on a daily basis. From the houses we live in (architecture) to the movies we see (theatre) to the books that we read (literature). Even in ancient culture art has played a crucial role. In prehistoric times cave dwellers drew on the wall of caves to record history. In biblical times paintings recorded the life and death of Christ. Throughout time art has recorded history. Most art is created for a specific reason or purpose, it has a way of expressing ideas and beliefs, and it can record the experiences of all people.
As literary critics, Plato and Aristotle disagree profoundly about the value of art in human society. Plato attempts to strip artists of the power and prominence they enjoy in his society, while Aristotle tries to develop a method of inquiry to determine the merits of an individual work of art. It is interesting to note that these two disparate notions of art are based upon the same fundamental assumption: that art is a form of mimesis, imitation. Both philosophers are concerned with the artist's ability to have significant impact on others. It is the imitative function of art which promotes disdain in Plato and curiosity in Aristotle. Examining the reality that art professes to imitate, the process of imitation, and the inherent strengths and weaknesses of imitation as a form of artistic expression may lead to understanding how these conflicting views of art could develop from a seemingly similar premise.