Should Art Be Moral?
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 04. 2022
- Thank you to BetterHelp for sponsoring this video! get 10% off your first month at www.betterhelp.com/wisecrack
Should you care if art is moral?
The morality of all types of art has become a contentious issue in the media lately. But does art have a moral obligation? And does being immoral make a work of art less good? Let’s find out in this Wisecrack Edition: Should Art Be Moral?
Subscribe to Wisecrack! ► wscrk.com/SbscrbWC
Support us on Patreon! ► wscrk.com/32Q7huu
Check out our Merch Store! ► wisecrack.store/
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
How to Sound Smart About Modern Art ► wscrk.com/3qgl73Y
How NFTs Explain Everything Wrong with Art ► wscrk.com/3skgwPX
Animaniacs: The Ugly Business of Making Art ► wscrk.com/3gubaMp
Research by Jake Galgon
Written by Amanda Scherker
Hosted by Michael Burns
Directed by Michael Luxemburg
Edited by Mark Potts
Motion Graphics by Benji Dunaief
Produced by Olivia Redden and Griffin Davis
Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound
#Art #Morality #Wisecrack
© 2022 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc. / Enthusiast Gaming
Thank you to BetterHelp for sponsoring this video! get 10% off your first month at www.betterhelp.com/wisecrack
....I think people should stop watching tik tok
Why are you partnering with BetterHelp? Haven't you heard they are a scam? I'm so disappointed with you...
"Your boos mean nothing. We've seen what you cheer for."
A quote related to the video about morality or what is moral regarding society.
I’m definitely one of those people that didn’t care for Joker, but still Great Stuff! I mean… this channel did at one time claim that Disney films were rotting the brains (or self esteem) of young girls… sooo…
GTA 5, is a great game, because it shows us our limits, so long as we are engaged. What acts would repulse us and which would not.
This whole video couldve been summed up by "morality is both relative and subjective."
In many cases a lot of people miss the point of the art piece, in one side some people idolize characters or stories and in the other side people think that a character doing bad things means that the movie it self is endorsing those bad things.
Agreed.
@@Joe-- Agreed. People often watch and read stories and see things in them the author never wanted to tell.
as a Writer, I’m happy with a story if only 1 person ever truly Accepts and understand the Deepest meaning I put in my works.
That’s the one person I write for, whoever they may be, if more people get it, all the better.
Almost like art is personally interpretive and often the best art doesn't have an exact reasoning, emotion, or message behind it.
the difference between whether or not the evil character seams to be endorsed is framing, which is inextricably linked to artistic skill. sometimes a film becomes morally bad, but because its just poorly framed, which means poorly made. you can ask the author if he/she endorses said evil, but if his input is needed, then the art isn't good enough to speak for istelf to astute observers and might be aesthetically problematic. I think this is what people might say about Joker, in that the Joker turning a new violent and nihilistic leaf was framed as preferable to the way he was before his "self actualization". I however do not agree and see this as an abtuce and reactionary interpretation: the Joker is framed as devolving, all without neglect for the Joker's unreliable point of view (kind of brilliant). I, however, would say it unintentionally frames Joker's weirdness as being concomitant with madness and violence, which I would say is both implicitly reprehensible and a mistake in framing; an aesthetic flaw in the character development unintentionally leading to a bad message (probably the thing that inexplicably bothered me about it from the beginning).
I once heard it said, "Good art comforts the disturbed, and disturbs the comfortable." I think that's pretty true.
uhhh, that's a good one.
Good one
cringe
Where did you hear it??
I heard it too and I'm dying to know where
@@SpaceAntEater1 I don't remember exactly. had something to do with red paint being spilled on a statue of open hands in from of a jail or courthouse in Salt Lake city, I think.
The emotional expression of an artist doesn't make them responsible for the actual, tangible actions of others.
If your moral backbone, convictions, and self awareness are so flimsy that watching The Joker makes you commit murder, then experiencing morally grey art is a privilege that YOU have proven you don't deserve, NOT the artist.
Not only this but if you can be swayed by art so easily it's very likely that you commiting murder would be something you already had with you prior.
FACTS
Yeah I feel like we all project a lot so people who protest art subconsciously know they're susceptible to shit like this and then have to act like they're protesting because others will fall prey to it l.
Whereas other people who think its a ridiculous idea because they would never fall for it.
Yeah, propagandists share no responsibility whatsoever in the genocide provoked by their propaganda (insert eyeroll). Individual responsibility is a cancer in society. Sure the people actually doing the genocide are responsible, but responsibility isn't a zero sum game, you can have more than one person responsible for something and in that case the artist and the person acting on it are both responsible.
Most of the time this responsibility only takes the form of perfectly legitimate criticism from people reviewing their work. But in case where you call to something more sinister, that responsibility can be bigger.
@@ILoveGrilledCheese Exactly. Anybody who murders after seeing a movie probably had a murderous nature to begin with. As in most horrible events in history, it usually cant be linked to one thing. People do horrible things because they have lifetime of personal individualized history leading up to that moment.
Censorship and limiting artists’ creativity? Heck naw man
Heck yah man
@@ratedr7845 are u joking bruh
This is black and white thinking. To acknowledge that art affects morality is not inherently to endorse censorship.
@@ltlbuddha Doesn't mean it equates , it just happens to serve as one argument for the foundation of censorship as it has been done in the past , based on the morals prior.
Art is personal, products are products. You cant rule art
I think ethics & morality should be focused on actions, not thoughts.
Thought crime is clearly becoming a thing, thats how you end up with the CCP or russia where "wrong think" will get you jailed and tortured. If a govt or majority decides something is immoral, its just an excuse for tyrannical oppression. Whenever someone says something is wrong or immoral or taddles, I think you should spend a long time looking into what this person motivations may be, before even bothering to consider their words because chances are they are just trying to secure their own clout.
A consequentialist I presume? I'm a virtue ethicists and I'm always prompted to ask, if someone has evil intent and stumbles into good action, can they actually be said to be good?
Action and intent are intertwined and can't be seperates.
@@moonblaze2713 Thought is different from intent. You can imagine immoral things without intending to make them a reality.
If someone has thoughts of murder or assault, but doesn't act on them, would you consider them more or less moral than someone who never had a bad thought in their life?
@@deadstones1
He asked “if someone has evil intent…” not a thought.
What we do know is the more you have those thoughts the more likely you are to act on them. Invasive thoughts are one thing but what happens when someone is fixated on a thought and takes no action to prevent it. Even before intent is it not immoral to do nothing about preventing yourself from escalating? Other people shouldn't be making moral decisions about an individuals thoughts but the person you does action and thinks thoughts are one in the same so on a personal level I'm not sure how you can separate the two
Bill Moseley, the lead of several Rob Zombie’s movies, was having a discussion with Zombie about his character, Otis. Otis is, by any count, is a reprehensible human being. Bill was saying to Rob that he was bummed out because of it. Rob told him “Art is not safe.” Regardless of what you think of his movies, that sentiment is succinct and accurate.
nice!
Tis the wrong debate: ethics is important. Morality ain't.
If art is dangerous as this quote insists then it gives credence to regulate it and protect people from it. There is the rating system (G, PG, R, etc.) but art is otherwise unregulated and I like it that way. Education I think is the most important tool to make sure people don’t use art as their “dumb” excuse for doing bad things
Artists: Just do the best you can to tell the truth deeply, creatively, authentically.
Consumers: Be engaged participants willing to resist the knee-jerk reaction and go beneath the surface.
Short answer: nope. Art can be whatever it wants to be moral, transgressive, heavy-handed, vapid, experimental, tropey, etc.
Great video, as always.
Art can be whatever it likes, indeed, but art doesn't exist in a vacuum. Promoting and celebrating so called "inmoral art" is a moral act that can and should be judged in my opinion. "It's beautifully done, i just don't like what it's doing".
Art usually refers to some kind of product since most of us live in something approximating a free market. So "should art be moral" is very similar to "should you consume only moral art". If you just declare "you can sell anything " and "you can buy anything", I don't think you're really answering the intended question...
Exactly!
@@mollistuff - False analogy. Art is the expression of information. Torture porn films, while distasteful to some, are not analogous to lemons on a used car lot. Artists don't have to "sell" you on the functionality or accessibility of their art. They simply put their art out, and whether you think it is "good", "moral", or "worthwhile" becomes a subjective question to whoever is consuming it, BUT at the end of the day, art does not have to be "in good taste", or "easy to interpret", or "pleasing to the masses."
@@Jobsih - Who gets to decide if art is "immoral"?
Morality is subjective, same with art.
Also, art doesn't even need to have any meaning or a message for it to be good. In some cases it is better if it doesn't.
This!
See Drawn Together, The Movie.
It’s a Horrid, awful Raunchy Adult cartoon movie that’s REAL DUMB.
But even it makes this point as it’s primary theses.
@Yimina Meami it.......it is
@Yimina Meami Morality is subjective (because it's dependent on culture). Ethics is the one that is objective, as it is the discipline that studies the mores that make up a morality. I see where you might be coming from tho: There are some mores that are supposed to be universal (trans-cultural), and from there it's theorized that a Universal Morality exists, but that's more of a metaphysical and theological assumption. I think you might be confusing and conflating some of these terms.
I think you might be confusing art with expression, and artist with their public.
Artistry requires quite a lot of intent and it's difficult to make or imitate, which is why it's often a for-life career. On the other hand, anyone can create expressions. This doesn't mean that purposeless expressions can't be enjoyed or are irremediably lesser aesthetical experiences tho.
Also, it's impossible for art to be meaningless or without message. That appreciation you mention of said artifact to be "better when it has no meaning or mesaage" rather comes from you (part of the public) giving it your very own meaning that wasn't imposed by any authorial intent (and something tells me you loathe impositions). But even if there was no authorial intent, just a need for expression by the author, there is messaging going on, because art is the dialogue between artist and public. Can there be art if there is no one to experience it?
The great thing about art is because it allows to visualize hypothetical scenarios, and engage with ideas at a distance.
"a monk convinced mobs to burn anything he found heretical" ...yeah that definitely sounds like twitter ngl
Why Twitter when we have actual Republican legislatures literally burning books in the South on actual bonfires?
There should be some rule where every exaggerated metaphor has an actual example right there next to it that people ignore all the time.
No, the very nature of art challenges culture even in the tension of the most controlled societies.
Art never challenges culture, it enriches it.
@@dragon67849 it's like you thought you said something smart, but you really didn't
@@kirstyc2176 Irony thy name is
@@dragon67849 I recommend looking at British art around the time of WW1 where fragmentation, isolation, and alienation entered the realms of novels and poetry for the first time in a radical and defiant way consequently altering the world of art and culture of that time period and well beyond it.
@@thebalrog2277 And how did it "challenge" culture? You must be able to adequately explain it to me right?
Art, especially when commissioned, is always telling a certain point of view.
Moral? Then you'd be limiting the way people express themselves through art.
Should all expressions be shared?
@@zacharybosley1935
Who gets to decide what's allowed to be shared?
@@zacharybosley1935 Personal choice.
@@zacharybosley1935 by shared no is forcing you to watch? you curate your own experiences of art
@@zacharybosley1935 not all art is shared
The issue is you have to ask "Who decides what art is "immoral"?". People every generation always think this or that will lead to immoral behavior while data usually shows the opposite. Take the Joker EVERYONE thought it would lead to death and violents while nothing happened however you know what movie did technically lead to violence? Star Wars A New Hope. The Oklahoma city bomber was inspired by the rebels and felt he was doing as them or look at the guy who shot John Lennon he was inspired by the book Catcher in the Rye. If pieces of art like these can cause death and murder then in a scenario where we censor "immoral art" who decides and how? My opinion is art is expressive subjective and censoring it would be like putting blinders on narrowing our view.
Right, moralism always has that central flaw: Who decides? It's Hitchins's rather invincible platform, because moralism requires an arbiter and no arbiter is beyond reproach, ever, in the history of mankind.
Nothing happened? What about the serial stabbings in Japan by a guy in Joker makeup this Halloween? Hell, a guy dressed like the Joker from that movie tried to fight a bunch of dudes that same night and almost bottled my bartender.
Could be a coincidence that guys dressed like the Joker turned into violent dicks. Could be that violent dicks love the Joker.
I would say that the Oklahoma City Bomber misinterpreted Star Wars: A New Hope or just lied, to shift the blame on George Lucas for his crime. Likewise, J. D. Salinger never meant for his "Catcher in the Rye" to be interpreted by mass shooters and assassins as a murder manifesto! Murder is caused by murderers, who chose their reading material, interpreted their own way and decided to kill people. The problem with censoring art is dictators putting artists in concentration camps, torturing them and shooting them at dawn. Everyone decides the morality of art. It's okay for ethnic audiences to protest hate propaganda, such as "Birth of a Nation" and "Triumph of the Will" for inciting genocide against their people. Growing up without hate expands our social circles.
Also two add in, the two movies Wisecracks talked about the people at the time thought were morale. We see them immoral because we seen the end results in history. But as of now we have new propaganda and they also can lead us to darker paths. Good art seems to be more about expanding our horizons on thought and emotions so we can make better decisions. And propaganda seems to seems to do is narrowing it to help agendas.
Daniel Sloss has a really good bit about Art and it’s meaning in his “Jigsaw” comedy special on Netflix. I encourage you to watch it, but the gist of his point is: “Just because you can find meaning in Art, doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what the artist intended, and vice versa”.
Yeah and that was a great special btw.
@@JaydevRaol it was
I feel like American Psycho does a great job of threading through that needle of morality in art.
The book is a scathing satire of yuppie culture told from the insane perspective of Patrick Bateman while you can find video essays holding up the film as both a feminist movie by changes made in the directing/screenwriting when it was adapted and a role model for men who see Bateman as this archetypal man lashing out against modern society.
Tis the wrong debate: ethics is important. Morality ain't.
@@jose.montojah interesting take, aren't they tied together though?
It's hard to argue that the film "Joker" was encouraging people to be like the main character. Rick and Morty isn't suggesting you be like Rick. And Iron Man isn't suggesting you be like Tony Stark. Just because they're the main character doesn't mean you should try to be like them. Protagonist =/= Goodguy.
Took me a second to realize you were not being sarcastic with that first sentence
I'd say Rick and Morty was better at influencing it's audience to act like Rick than joker was at making people act like joker.
Joker, however, it portrayed as a sympathetic, relatable character. Like it or not, he stands as a fiercely countercultural role model.
I'm the Joker babyyyyy
People misunderstand that because most protagonists are heroes. However, the most common misunderstanding is moral panics by religious fundamentalists, who think movies about Villain Protagonists or antiheroes will turn the audience into baddies, like their protagonists, because they think all secular culture is evil.
Problem is, Rick from Rick and Morty is presented as a dysfunctional character. We are not meant to want to be like him.
Agency/intent is what needs to be evaluated. Is it art, depicting immoral injustices or is it PROPAGANDA meant to spread immorality with its message?
Propaganda can still be art tho even if the intent is bad
In the moment propaganda is of course bad but looking back on it can really teach us a lot, in a way I believe it has value as art. Art imitates life, and life imitates art it's a product of it's time and reflects that current reality if that makes sense.
@@tiquezgraham7963 I'm not really questioning if propaganda can be art, but I think that's where the line is. If a work of art is intended to be hurtful propaganda, then it is immoral and should not be acceptable in public society.
@@otakupower1048 Sure, lessons can be learned from bad things, but that doesn't make it morally right in its original intent. It's good to learn from the mistakes of the past, but that doesn't excuse repeating those mistakes in the present. That's not learning, but insanity.
@@tiquezgraham7963 propaganda is ill-intended... that's why it's called propaganda.
🤦
Sadly, I feel like the crux of this "issue" of art having to be moral or not ultimately comes down to the same thing that every other issue ultimately comes down to: There's a lot of stupid people out there.
It's easy for intelligent, mature adults to sit back and say, "I can handle watching immoral things on-screen and knowing they're bad." ... but the reason people always hide behind kids when they have a moral panic is because kids are the go-to, universally-accepted example of humans that might be too stupid to understand dramatic irony. Kids aren't the only ones, though... it'd just sound bad to hide behind "dumb adults" as well.
So the problem isn't really one of "should art be moral". It's more "Should we trust that the audience for morally-complex subject matter will be mature enough to understand it. or should we be tip-toeing around the idiots out there who are prone to taking the wrong message?"
I guess it ultimately comes down to your faith in humanity. We can have all the best art ever that expertly explores morally-complex subject matter... but if you're handing it to a world full of idiots, then chances are, it's not gonna be worth what you want it to be, and could likely cause some bad trends. The Matrix can be an expertly-crafted allegory for the trans experience... but if you hand it to an audience full of bigoted right-wingers, they're gonna interpret it as their libertarian fantasy and use "Red Pill" as a slogan to spread far-right ideas. Does that mean that you shouldn't make a movie like the Matrix, if you don't want it misinterpreted? It's probably inspired a lot more crazy right-wingers than it has trans people, to be honest. To that end, the movie has almost done the exact opposite of what it was intended to do, on a moral level. Everybody tends to agree it's a great movie, no matter how they interpret the meaning of it, so does the exact moral takeaway from it actually matter? Is making a movie that's seen as well-made the only thing that matters, or should we care about what messages we're either intentionally or inadvertently sending? Should we care about people taking the supposed "correct" meaning from it, or should we just allow people to interpret it however they will, right or wrong, and whatever consequences there are, be damned? The example of Birth of a Nation is definitely apt on this point, and that one was actually INTENTIONALLY racist. Yet American History X is obviously intended to be anti-racist to anybody with a brain, but some people DO watch that movie and ENJOY the curb-stomping scene instead of seeing it as a dramatically ironic depiction of evil. Now what if that person then goes out and curb-stomps a black man? Does the difference of intention matter on the artist's part, when the result is the same? Should the artist be expected to tip-toe around the idiots out there and spoonfeed their audience a flashing sign during the whole story that says "Dramatic Irony Alert! This is not meant to be seen as okay!"
It's a tough question, and it's one I definitely struggle with as a writer. I do often find myself worrying about my stories being misinterpreted, and I'm not sure if my attempts to mitigate those fears have resulted in better or worse storytelling. I usually have the instinct to just go for it and be brutally realistic in my depictions, but there is always that feeling of "You're gonna have to pull this back and handle it carefully." as well, anytime I think about my work actually being SEEN by people. Because I know people, and people ruin everything. I end up spending a lot of time worrying about trying to make a script "people proof" and try to account for any and all misinterpretations I can think of. Again, not sure if this makes the story better or worse, but I do tend to feel better if I can anticipate some kind of "Is this meant to mean x?" question and I can just point to a line of dialogue, twist in the story or something that addresses such a notion. Ideally, the hope is that people will just be engrossed by the story and not be worrying about what it means so much that it potentially ruins it for them. But ideals seldom turn out ideally.
I think of the movie Whiplash, where I saw somebody review the movie by essentially saying, "I don't know if I agree with the message of that movie... but I definitely enjoyed watching it." And the message of that movie could be entirely different for different people... but if a movie can make you enjoy a story that you don't even feel you agree with... that is indeed a pretty powerful thing. And maybe a dangerous thing. The guy was likely interpreting the movie as endorsing the notion that bullying a student into being better will actually make them better and is maybe worth it. Is the movie actually saying that? Probably not. Can I see that being the takeaway from it? Easily. So is it a good movie or a bad movie? A successful movie or a failure? Somehow both? Do people admire the movie for its storytelling and what message you take away from it, or do they just care about the acting and intensity of the editing with the drumming, etc, and don't even care about what the movie is saying? Because that's a concern as an artist as well, which is that you can put all your effort into crafting a really perfectly moral message that you're proud of and wholeheartedly endorse... and then it just falls on deaf ears, because you made your movie too cool to just look at. And even then, how much is the message, whether interpreted accurately or not, still seeping in sub-consciously?
Is it worth it to worry about it so much?
I honestly don't know.
exactly!
I think you're mostly discussing a question of how to make art in a moral way rather than the question of whether it should be moral in the first place. If we agree that art should be moral in the basic sense that it shouldn't be harmful, then an artist's attempts to safeguard against interpretations that encourage harm are part of that. To that question, I think it's not unlike the measures we take to make electrical appliances safe. They should be designed so that they aren't immediately dangerous when misused to some degree, but we don't really have to make sure that they're safe to use in very obscure contexts that go way beyond the stated purpose.
Allow me a retort, the moment we allow the lowest common denominator to influence how we do things, is the moment we're are utterly and completely screwed.
@@magmos6346 Is that really what anyone is suggesting, though? Imagine a film that provides detailed instructions for how to make a chemical weapon that could kill thousands of people. Would censorship of that kind of content be cowing to the lowest common denominator? Note that there is nothing inconsistent about objecting to extremely dangerous content of that sort while still not having any objection to a film like Joker. There is a balance between the need to avoid extremely dangerous content and the need to avoid excessive curbs on artistic expression.
All this to say you don’t take a stance?. I think it’s simple if it leads to more demonstrable harm directly.eg. about 13 reasons why and sucides there is a argument to age restrict and put a content warning otherwise leave the art alone. I also feel it is a strech red pill is the reason for right wingers it could have been any other slogan if not red pill. Political outlook is based on personality and there is an even distribution between liberals and conservatives so I don’t see your point there.
I think the function of art is very layered. Some purely aestetic, some shows mirror of our society. Both is equally important and has its own purpose in our culture. We both need beauty and morals.
I think observing immoral behavior from a distance (like watching taxi driver for example) is ethical and even educational. Storytelling comes from tragedy, witch litterally is watching someone's wrong behavior to better understand and avoid that behavior.
Well said.
This is the discussion I had the other day after watching a documentary about Fawlty Towers. Given the shows age there are now parts that on the surface seem objectionable. However there is a context and ethical truth that gets ignored now.
It's quite a simple answer: No.
There are two specific categories of media/culture that are demonstrate why this should be the case: art and comedy. Comedy essentially ceases to exist if it is held to the scrutiny of ethics (aside from obscure forms such as agent-neutral absurdist humor). Art, similarly, will struggle to push any boundaries if subjected to ethical conventions.
This should not be controversial.
I agree with the end result, but I disagree with the math. Comedy doesn't need to be exempt from morality in order to function; that just justifies the use of humor as a tool to deride or shame the already vulnerable as well as drawing attention to what's already absurd and immoral about reality.
Its not even just a simple answer, its a stupid question. Who decides what is and isnt moral? Why would subjective morality affect the "objective" value of art, when arts value is subjective in the first place? Just because a question is grammatically correct, doesnt mean its a real question. It doesnt make any sense. Theres nothing to explore here.
Cuties 2
@@zacharybosley1935, comedy *especially* needs to be exempt from morality in order to function. Defining the "oppressed" and "oppressor", "victim" and "victimizer" is an impossible task that is usually more reliant on existing power structures than any sort of impartial search for truth. Nothing should be off limits. No one should he exempt from ridicule. Once you go down the road of censorship, it's almost impossible to turn back.
"Comedy essentially ceases to exist if it is held to the scrutiny of ethics" reddit moment
I believe if art had to be moral nothing of value would ever get made.
100% agree! How can you push forward in your understanding of anything if you only see the same thing over and over and over again?
weird statement. positing a world where only "moral" art exists, we'd be pelted with "good" messages all the time and humanity WOULD improve. (because i'm right and you're wrong)
but, this is all subjective because, well, yout definition of value is subjective, and morality is subjective. lol
@@asuka_the_void_witch but those "good" messages are subject to whoever is in charge.
@@adam_stanheight like i said, it's all subjective
I have a degree in Art l, specifically Illustration, and gave a 30 minute presentation on Clive Bell while in college.
You have hit on the crux of the conundrum some, but not many, artists find themselves in, which is making artwork that has a positive affect on the world by revealing a truth in a language that is both universal but ephemeral. And because of this the interpretation of the work itself is often not the intention of the artist, but at best some approximation of it, and at worst a total misinterpretation.
Whether or not art is morally dangerous has more to do with whether the artist intends for it to be dangerous and just as importantly, whether there is a good chance the misinterpretation of that art also can potentially deliver a dangerous message.
Personally I lie on the side that if the art gets across a nuanced message that rings true for the viewer, then it is a success. And the art that conveys a message that is true for the majority of people, while still being specific enough that the message is a nuanced take on the truth, then it is brilliant.
There aren’t many examples of this because to prove these qualities in a piece of artwork, one must verbalize it. And to explain a piece of art in a way that actually gets at what the artist intended, generally means the art failed to convey that message through its particular medium.
This is why anyone who explains what art is or what a particular piece of art means is missing the points. If it was a good piece of art, it would convey its message without words involved. Of course I’m speaking specifically of the visual arts.
Excellent video. You guys and gals at Wisecrack do a great job of exploring the information around a subject and presenting a balanced view. Good job. 🙂
The hottest take here is considering these outrage culture farmers to be the judges of defining morality.
Agreed. I would argue that the best reason not to even listen to them is that there is no way to tell who is being honest and who is just virtue signaling.
Maybe they aren't concerned with morality, but you are valuing thier actions as bad, so placing them within a moral framework. So it still becomes a discussion about the morality and the same subjects.
“The Walking Dead” would likely be seen by “Moralists” as both barbaric and dangerous, yet imagine if the creators of that world never explored its darkest aspects.
What makes it great is how REAL the moral dilemmas become in a post-zombie apocalypse and how community/civility plays a vital role in survival.
This is true even in our zombie-free world!
Same with sad stories of child abuse. For an Artist to never touch that topic would be a disservice to victims who might never have known it’s morally and ethically WRONG without seeing it portrayed in a movie or tv show.
I can’t believe I’ve never seen this channel. Really great well rounded videos
My favorite of your presentations thus far.
I would love for you to do one about what you mentioned in passing, our moral obligations with regard to great art created by bad people. Some of my favorite masterpieces were created by severely flawed people.
Moderate autonomism seems the way to go. Sure some works can be judged morally and perhaps even progress society as a whole like Rent, the Get Out, Parasite, etc.
However overindulging and obsessing with this moral lens when looking at art makes one prone to self righteousness and bias. Because one’s morals may not be the same as others stuff like echo chambers become inevitable. Liberals will only look at identity representation and conservatives will only look at “classic” traditional media for example.
And some works shouldn’t be taken seriously, sometimes media is consumed for the sake of the art itself, and or for leisure. Escapism is one of the many functions of art, where morals and politics cannot shackle an individual with their depressive and nihilistic reality. A realm where one can dream and imagine a better world and relax in that dream even for just a moment. Or release negative and harmful thoughts and emotions in a harmless medium like games. To relieve stress and or be inspired to make something better, is a function of art without regard for moral or political leanings. Sometimes the sublime landscape painting or catchy tune is enough, rather than a video essay on how to save the world.
I think this is the closest I will get to finding A comment describing the nature of fetishes and their relationships with escapism.
I think (and this I admit is highly subjective) that unless we fundamentally look at where our morality comes from and how we define art we can’t really have a good answer to this question. Although I did love the video, ultimately I feel that morality is the way things ought to be and art the way things are and thus I don’t see art as needing morality but it could done properly benefit from it.
Hands down one of the best wisecrack vids !! Such a well done explanation
I can't help but agree with what Heather Ringbell said about Joaquin turning to the camera and saying "now you do joker stuff", the film did come across that way to me, even though I cant put my finger on why.
This is a tough one. Art is communication. Its subjective, by definition outside the artists control. Cant moralize that but then art can inspire people to be better or much worse than they would be otherwise. Ethically speaking. Its like saying unbiased journalism a lofty ideal but non functional as a concept. Since context is so important to measuring the facts, or even filtering out irrelevant information from relevant
We all know the answers no but the videos are always fun to watch
Best example I can think of is Breaking Bad, a tale of bad decisions leading to disarray and tragedy under a broken a system that won't help these people.
Very interesting video. I think about this in the context of hip-hop all the time. Thank you wisecrack team for creating this.
no
Dang, you should've expanded on this with the Hays code, considering you bring up cinema a lot; its probably the most modern example of morality being forced upon on art and look how well that turned out lol
Yep, discussing art needs concrete, practical examples of censorship, propaganda, moral panics and sensationalism and their effects on others.
I like how you showed clips from Taxi driver during the vid, since some people could see the movie as endorsing being a violent vigilante like Travis. But in reality, it’s a cautionary tale and how isolation from other people is pretty bad for your mental health.
Great video! Been on a huge aesthetic philosophy kick lately so this was a pleasant surprise
This topic came up in a college class. The painting of the man eating a baby. I argued because it's disgusting it shouldn't be considered good art. My professor explained if I had these feelings the art is good because they were trying to evoke disgust. I eventually agreed after I thought about it.
Art is, at the end of the day, a window. A window into the artist, into the views that that artist has on society. All art should be viewed critically, evaluated under a lot of categories, including the ethics it conveys/promotes/criticizes.
But, because ethics and values are culturally defined, it becomes a matter of individual interpretation.
A great example is Chick Tracts. Depending on where you land, they are the ramblings of an unhinged, fundamentalist lunatic; the biblical truth and one man brave enough to stand against a decadent society; or some of the greatest satire written in the last 30 years, jabbing at the exact kind of babbling loons that share the values therein.
It's tough to tell. Religious fundamentalists are difficult to satire because they are constantly hitting new lows.
Tis the wrong debate: ethics is important. Morality ain't.
Ethics is the science of choice making. Does this artpiece include slavery or makes us slaves somehow? What consequences and causes does it have? etc.
Tis a framework. Not a checklist, that's morality.
Loved this episode, a question, are you guys going to examine th TV show severance?
Honestly love your video. Sad to see social media continually eating itself thanks to certain political communities such as what many would refer to as "anti's".
If an art medium doesn't hurt anyone in real life, we shouldn't be ones to judge them over fictional art.
I recommend watching The House that Jack buil by lars von trier,that film could be considered "immoral" but is really good.
That film is disgusting and almost made me vomit, so I got the director’s cut on bluray I love it.
Most of his work could be considered that way
That movie spends the last half hour moralizing heavy-handedly on the narcissism of creations that cause harm and how in the end the sheer desire to create does not absolve you of the consequences of your creation.
FFS, dude literally goes to hell and gets made fun of for being a pretentious douchebag.
@@MrBazBake Yes, i liked that, also probably the most realistic representation of a serial killer in a movie in my opinion.
IS this truly a separate question from, "Can you separate the art from the artist"? It seems to be quite a common sentiment these days that if the artist is "immoral", then the art is as well.
I came up with my own ideas about art as truth, but could not find any philosophers with similar positions. Now, I know about Murdoch and have a whole bunch of new reading I can do. Thanks for helping point me in the right direction!
I'm glad you guys kept BetterHelp as a sponsor. The people you recommended Full Sail to with your other sponsorship are going to need it when they are drowning in debt.
OK HERE WE GO I'm super excited to hear Wisecrack's take on this. Thanks for uploading!
I really enjoy the content on this channel but some of the sponsorships are… questionable, to say the least, and undermine credibility
Art is supposed to ask a question to its audience. The artist throws to the world a question he often doesn't have the answer himself, and lets his audience make their own mind.
Products that tell you what to think are not art. It is propaganda.
I don’t know if you are an artist but I myself completely agree with this, well put stranger 👍
Duckman put it best. czcams.com/video/knIroVvPZU4/video.html
Propaganda is best thought of as government messages to civilians, to recruit soldiers, keep military secrets from enemy spies, etc., during wartime.
well said. though that still has some nuance even then. if its a fictional basis it can have much more leeway, if its reality based then far less so. but both have some leeway with it anyway. for example, movies like Shindler's list doesn't exactly ask questions, but is not full on propaganda either, I assume. the Godzilla and Miyazaki films are very explicitly anti-war and other things, but that doesn't get in the way of the story telling, music, characters etc, and still get it across without overshadowing the entertainment factors. then there are other things like one piece that, whilst fictional, actually do give a fair shake of both the good and bad of each viewpoint and action, therefore indirectly asking questions
Think of all the art that has been destroyed, locked away or straight up never made all because of that time period’s moral code
I think there's a difference between presenting a character doing an amoral thing in a good light and a bad light. In Joker, he's shown to be unhinged and delusional. He's sympathetic but killing people who make fun of you is still shown as wrong. Even people struggling with violent thoughts aren't going to find it more socially acceptable to give in to those urges or feel justified killing a rich/popular person because they watched Joker (they would find a different means to justify it or might be struggling with delusions to believe everyone agrees with them). However, in some media, relationships between students and teachers or a parent and their adoptive child are shown to be the desirable choice. The adult is usually portrayed to be young, upper 20s, and the child is portrayed as a mature teenager. The power balance is portrayed as equal and both of them are happy to be together. This can be used for an adult who is attracted to a teenager to justify to themselves that they aren't doing anything wrong in having a relationship with them. Real life is a lot more complicated and if a mentor starts making moves on someone they might not push back because they still want to learn from them or view them as family and humans blind themselves to not notice how uncomfortable someone might be about advances.
TL;DR: Sympathetic amorality is fine, but amorality shown as something desirable can have greater ramifications
What an interesting question. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about the issue. One side of me says "Yes, Art should be moral". The other side of me says "Who's morals do we use for Art ?". This is really interesting, I'm going to have to think on this...Thanks for bringing this up.
I align with Tolstoy's interpretation somewhat in the sense that art, by design, is meant to communicate and elicit emotions and ideas and that it can be an effective tool in doing so. This is not to say that art _should_ be moral but creators should be mindful of what it could be communicating and the extent to which it aligns with their original intent.
Expect the entire body of artistic studies created the principle of death of the author so they could project their reading of art as coding. No artist can bear a moral burden will simultaneously being overruled by the psychological bias of the audience. It a moral catch-22.
@@Mister-Thirteen That is true and hence why I said, "... should be mindful of what it could be communicating..." as part of the death of the author involves aspects of the art that invites alternative interpretation.
13:43 *hat tip to JSM quote* Pretty much summarizes the worthiness of any opinion. I already had an opinion on the question posed in the video's title, but I was still somewhat ignorant of the arguments for the other side. While my fundamental opinion hasn't changed, I do agree with some points posited in the video and achieved a newer, evolved synthesis as an answer to the question.
Hey wisecrack, can you do a video on the jhonny deep case.? Not necessarily the case itself but how people put up clips and then add subtitles at the bottom ( making it seem like inner monolog)
I just find them curious and why we do this
Thanks!
I do believe depictions of immoral art can be moral. Honest reflections can have exaggerations and don’t need to be 1:1 like Animal Farm, but the principles ought to be honest perceptions of the author. The burden of honest interpretation lying with the audience.
I’m all for, “junk food,” art to me there’s a meta there about the authors values at that time and place. They devoted a bit of their limited lives to make this base sensual art. It feels like a hint of the need for humanity to have some audacity in life to make us malleable instead of rigidly moral. Carbon to Iron makes steel.
Still I do see art with meaning as a form of exercising the one trait humanity has above most animals. The ability to reason. Thinking about stuff is good, and practice makes us better.
An ape may see Donato Giancolas empathetic robots and see just a frame. With practice we can show them a little more of the intricacies of life and they can communicate in return via paintings of their own or sign language, but to get better clarity they must know loss, anger, and all the little vices that make up life.
"Should Art Be Moral?"
No.
Also "Educated in the finest Florida public schools" is such an oxy moron, haha!
Great discussion! I can appreciate art that depicts immoral acts so long as I don’t perceive that the author is advocating for those immoral activities, which is why I enjoyer Joker and Taxi Driver.
I think a big issue with social media's moral judgement is that a lot of those vocally outraged by a film haven't seen what they're so outraged about. Cuties is the best example of this I've seen. It caused a massive controversy because of its alleged sexual undertones surrounding children as if the film were in favour of those themes. However, anyone who's seen the film knows that simply isn't the case.
Should art be moral? Wrong question, should artists be moral? Art is a medium, it has little to no impact in and of itself. It's impact is found in the conversation around it which is influenced by the culture and the creator, the artist(s.)
Art may be moral. It should at least do no harm, such as smearing ethnic groups or starting hate groups or dictatorships. Artists have to get along with people, like everyone else, so they should be moral. They shouldn't bully their employees, sexually assault anyone or preach hate on social media or their novels. I speak as an artist.
exactly
Could LOTR be immoral since it's not grounded in reality?
Or 1984 as a counter example?
I know there is no philosophical value to answer a question by a question, but the point of art is about resonance IMO. As much as I loved Joker, it shows a counter example of what we should fight against even if not underlined in the movie itself.
Art can/should/will be beautiful/grotesque/woke/concervative. This is how we can communicate our human experience at best and thrive for something better.
Good day and cheers!
Oh my god I’ve seriously never needed a new Wisecrack video. I suppose as long as your hits keep coming, while the hits keep coming, I’ll be okay. 😅
The word SHOULD should never be applied to art.
The word 'should' is itself a moral imposition and art needs to be free to question and challenge imposed beliefs. Or not.
I recall in primary school we watched A Clockwork Orange and had to write a critique of it.
I hated the film but could see the 'ultraviolence' in it carried 'antiviolent' content. That was what I focused upon in my review.
Yet I also do not think art has a duty to carry morals or ethics. I think the duty of art is to be.
To just be.
To be so it can be viewed, heard, tasted, touched, experienced.
In order for we humans to be.
To be human.
So in that line of reasoning, The Triumph of the Will is as valid a piece of art as is, say, Van Gogh's "Wheatfield with Crows".
Both are experiencable and relate to some elements of being human.
And before anyone complains, all the ugliest, bitterest, most vile elements of humanity are AS human as are all the most beautiful, prettiest and most inspiring.
Each one of us contains an angel. And each one of us contains a shirker, a collaborator, a proverbial Nazi-enabler as well.
Art is both mirror and archive, a discipline of human memory. It contains both dreams and nightmares in equal legitimacy.
It must be ALLOWED to contain both dreams AND nightmares in equal legitimacy.
No. It should represent the delema its trying to present
Honestly and hole heartedly
One central problem with what this video calls art is that it is a comercial product in form of entertainment or similar. A movie is made for people to watch, not (or at least not only) for the self expression of the writer. So if encouraging someone to do something with words require a responsibility of the caller, than the same should be true for encouraging a behaviour with emotion. It should also be the likelihood of the consequences that are evalued and not what the artist intended. Justification for e.g. genicide should be received only by people wise enough not to act fooly by it.
You don't get to define art. You don't get to say commercial products aren't art. Art is anything creative. Mass produced decorations you can buy for your kitchen are art. Posters in a kid's room are art. Michael Bay movies are art. Maybe not fine art, maybe not important expressive art, but it is still art by definition.
So the central problem is not what the video calls art. The central problem for you is what your snobbery considers art, compared with what is actually art.
It's a shame how many people think they're qualified to comment on art, but they clearly need to shut up and listen instead.
Wonderful take. I think intentionality plays a role. Art can inspire a person to draw ethical conclusions, or inspire dialogue about ethics, but art that *intends* to be ethical or instructive falls flat. The former respects the autonomy of the artist and the intelligence of their viewers. The latter not so much.
An artist cannot control how their work is interpreted, any more than an author can control the language that their reader understands. A word may mean something to one person, and have a very different meaning to another. Since there is already such a blurry line between what is "art" and what isn't, what one person might consider moral or insightful may not hold such meanings to another.
It depends on what you see as moral. The Joker movie in my opinion did a good job of showing the Joker as both a villian and a victim.
The main question surrounding that film is whether or not society deserves the consequences of the monsters it creates and how failing to care for those that need help can result in damage to our society as a whole. I think in many ways we're seeing that play out in the America of today.
I think a better film to use for this question would be something like Hostel or Human Centipede. Films that have no higher message but are simply pieces of art that serves as they've been defined "torture porn".
A movie like The Joker isn't really "immoral" it's more of a mirror for the rest of us to look at ourselves through.
Well, "Joker" (2019) didn't cause incel copycat crimes, such as mass shootings in high schools, movie theaters and colleges with AR-15 Bushmasters, as movie critics and the US Army initially feared, because it was set in the '80s, used a snub-nosed revolver and was not about his sex life. It however, showed a powerful message about ableism and classism potentially causing social unrest.
Short answer: „No.“
Long answer: „Fuck no.“
Sensible answer: „For fuck‘s sake! Go away.“
Fascinating topic, and excellent video, thank you for introducing so many questions! Where to begin?...
1. There are so many false choices present here. Yes aesthetics are separate from morality. An artwork can be aesthetic and moral, aesthetic and immoral, unaesthetic and moral, and unaesthetic and immoral. But, the notion we therefore can never use morality to judge an artwork is absurd. It's a free country, we can and should use our moral judgment at all times. Nothing is out of reach of the moralists.
2. Having said that, not all moral judgment is sound. As you pointed out, if an artwork speaks truth to a controversial topic, it is being moral, even if one idiot in the audience goes and does something awful. It's not the artist's fault if one viewer misses the point. When 1497 Florentines burned their vanities, it was based on the unfounded beliefs both that God exists and that this is what he wanted. As if anyone could ever know what God really wants or cares about (don't get me started on the Bible, it's just a book!). And Leo Tolstoy's belief that sensuality is wrong or harmful is equally unfounded. There's nothing inherently evil or harmful about pleasure of any sort, so long as it's enjoyed ethically and responsibly - to no detriment of yourself nor to others.
3. This means there are limits. It's hard to justify spending over $1 million on a car, when most new cars cost $25K and are reasonably reliable. That money could and should be better spent on others. Certainly, it's more pleasurable to drive a Ferrari, and it's worth arguing a Ferrari isn't merely a car, it's an aesthetic work of art, married to the physics of engineering. A Ferrari customer isn't merely a driver, she's a patron of the arts. I get this, and in that light, I'd support the public funding and public display of companies like Ferrari that make fantastic artworks. But it's not something I'd support for mass consumption, while people are starving and dying from preventable illness. That is to say, expensive arts, while valuable, and even ethical, do not exist in an ethical vacuum - a priority of needs should be established at a societal level. We shouldn't all aspire to own Ferraris and then say we've perfected society.
4. It might not be readily apparent to most viewers, but abstract art is absolutely moral, and was largely intended to be moral. Most artwork is moral - it is a gift to the world, left by the artist. Every artwork is a gift (unfortunately, not every gift is a good one, hence gift receipts). But, think of all the great composers. How can we consider Beethoven and Brahms as anything but a gift to the world? I'm an artist. I paint knowing my trade is transactional. I give a painting, I get money. That transaction is, in itself moral, as it's considered a fair deal. I set the price and I don't force anyone to buy what they don't want. But, as an artist, I know I'm giving more than just this painting to a customer. Because, I've created a treasure that, if good enough, will be handed down for generations for their enjoyment and enrichment. When I paint a portrait, I know that grandchildren, and great grandchildren will be able to see it and know who their forebears were, at whatever age, with insights into the character and personality of the sitters. If my art is good enough, it will go to museums where the public can see and know and understand the time I lived in. This makes any artwork moral, so long as it tells the truth (it helps if the work focuses on a matter of import, but I digress). So, Clive Bell was almost right. All artwork is NOT moral. Birth of a Nation is not moral. Triumph of the Will is not moral. You can evaluate it purely on its use of camera angles and panning and this can be of great benefit to a cinematographer (of course, at this point, there are far better films to learn from). If I were going to be a cinematographer I might watch these just to see what I could get out of it, aesthetically. But I would still judge them as artistic failures for their bullshit, racist ideologies. A film is only so good as its story. And, as Bertolt Brecht said, "Sometimes it's more important to be human, than to have good taste."
5. But most abstract art was intended to be moral beyond all this. We say Jackson Pollack's work was non-representational. That's not true at all - he'd probably slap you if you said that to him. He was representing his soul, his spirit. It's not photorealistic, because it didn't need to be. How do you paint a photorealistic soul? All the abstract expressionists saw their works as honest, moral, representations of who they were, and what they cared about. You can say they were bullshitting, and at times they probably were, just like everyone else. It's exhausting to think, day in day out, what colour is my soul today? But the term "non-representation" is ill-fitting. It's a lazy way of saying the works don't look photorealistic.
6. In defense of "safe" art, I would just say there is value in both provocative and lovely, beautiful art. And both forms should be promoted. I find works like No Country for Old Men and War of the Worlds fascinating. Shocking, disturbing, and fascinating, and they enhance my understanding of the world and myself. At the same time, I love landscape painters and cartoonists, and musicians, and dancers, all of whom simply make beauty to be admired. There is a moral purpose to these beautiful works. They inspire us when we are down. When we feel dejected, in despair, at a life crossroads, those "idiotic spring flowers" counteract that despair with their insistence that life is in fact beautiful. Despite everything. So, to say beautiful art is useless is absolutely wrong. It's a survival mechanism. Art is best understood as a human response to an inhuman world, that's where it's greatest power stems from.
7. Now, having said that, it's also worth questioning, can provocative art be done wrong? And the answer is, of course it can. Artists are only human, and humans, given enough time, will get everything wrong at least once. Take artwork like Serrrano's "Piss Christ", or Chris Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary" (the one with elephant dung on it). Neither of these works is aesthetically pleasing, nor do they try or even claim to be. They come from a tribe of art theory that disavows aesthetics. These are political art works, that look for validation with political arguments. One could say they are a form of moral art, in that they find morality in disparaging world religions - and since morality is in fact relative, point taken. But, it's hard to see any truth in the works, any veil lifted. They're not lawyerly arguments against religion. These are more like sticks poking the devout simply for a rise. Is that valid? As a work of art, sure, if you like and appreciate art as a source of humor and a vehicle for bullying others. And, as a painter, that doesn't even bother me that much. But I do appreciate when people object to spending millions of tax dollars to buy and showcase such works in museums. It's not the kind of art I think should be forced on the public, and that's what museum sponsorship does to art. It puts it in the limelight where we all have to look at it. And that is a moral undertaking, when you're playing with someone else's money, so in that respect, we should consider the moral implications of simply giving the public what they want (or even what they need, God forbid), versus spending their cash on crude visual jokes the public neither wants nor needs. Personally, I'd prefer a Ferrari museum. Just my 2 cents.
feels like classic wisecrack!
I think to most people the morality of art is irrelevant right until they disagree with the morals of the art. This is why we have protected speech (free speech) and hate speech (not free speech) and why there is a difference between the two. You know, why the fountainhead is just cringe and triumph of the will is more than that.
I personally think that that is where we draw the line. All texts (and a text is any work, no matter how abstract) are political and any political texts have a thing they are and a thing they do. If the thing they do does harm to people (and I don't mean hurt feelings) by calling for the genocide of a minority or the return to chattel slavery or something like that, than you cannot ignore that harm.
pretty fair
Should you stop telling people how to express themselves through creativity? Yes. Science and art should not be stifled
THANK YOU
Cuties 2
Except through ethics. There's a reason sander Cohen is villified
@@tightwapgrip9773 The difference between a violent video movie and a real snuff film is that in violent movies, nobody actually suffers or is abused, in a snuff film, it often depicts real torment and suffering of real people.
@@zenothemeano4381 Useless
Just as with life, art can depict a full spectrum of moral perspectives. By making art safer and cleaner, we are hiding the ugly yet still very real parts of life, by hiding that, art would just be idealized, unrealistic and I'd even argue it would be boring. It's like being overprotective of a child until they face the ugly parts of society and adult life.
I like the quote about the end about the consequences of having "safer" art. I think Three Billboards suffered from this problem. It may be viewed as morally problematic now but the authors clearly thought it was morally right. But by never considering other sides, they created something "safe" that in reality was very problematic. Don't look up is another good example of this
I think that pure moralism is obviously wrong, we see evidence for this all the time. Like how video games do not make people violent.
However as long as the artist is human, their work says something about their morality. The autonomists are wrong to say that the aesthetic or quality of the art is the only thing that matters. There is no divorcing art from the trappings of humanity. Even abstract or modern art with its meaning left mostly to interpretation, is an avenue for morality. Though in such cases I think they mirror the morality of the viewer and not the artist.
Art can be moral, but it has far less influence on the viewer/consumer than the classic moralist would believe.
First and foremost: Art should be free. Because regulating art is in itself immoral, the Question shouldn't be "should art be moral" but instead: "What role should my own moral standpoints play in my personal artistic creation?"
No, it should be whatever it needs to be if it were to be consumed purely as art. But when art is used by businesses or politics, it becomes impure thus turning into marketing or propaganda. Such things can be toxic and deadly if not reeled in and guided by a moral compass. Art is extremely powerful and needs to be aware of its power and reach.
This is why when I do art, I do it for its own sake and never for profit. No commissions, no corruption. Try to make it for free to free.
Great video. As an artist, I appreciate this a lot.
moral value can definitely effect aesthetics since for many people moral disgust creates actual disgust. also moral people succeeding is pleasing to see. though aesthetic value is completly subjective so it also depends on each viewer.
Imo, I don't think it's shouldn't be reinforced but encouraged through positive reinforcement. And even then only if it is cohesive and makes sense.
Appreciate the shout out to Iris Murdoch. I think centering our ethical compass is around truth is a really compelling way to think about morality
I think I agree most with the idea of moderate autonomists. Art can be good or bad depending on how effectively it full fills its purpose, however we can judge that purpose from a moral perspective
No, that’s the point of art, as long as it doesn’t hurt someone, the environment, or one selves, then it’s valid.
Problem is that people often project their own beliefs onto art, not understanding how 100% subjective it is.
Surely where you say “as long as it doesn’t hurt someone”, that’s a moral judgement isn’t it. You’re not talking about art physically hurting anyone right?
@@Retimana I was referring to physical injuries. Fellings will always be hurt, no matter how reasonable or safe the art is.
You make a slasher film where the characters are killed in real life then you are not an artist, you are a murderer.
@@Garlly34 ????? who is doing that???
@@kirstyc2176 This man clearly doesn’t know what a snuff film is.
The answer to "should X be moral" is always yes. Of course something should be moral, insofar as that thing is possible to have a moral valuation. Some art is morally neutral as it has no truth or other moral virtues behind it, just pragmatic utility or fun (simple wall art, Ikea table, etc.). But is it ok for art to depict immoralities or even center around them? Yes. I agree with Murdoch as far as the artist intends to speak the truth in good faith and have no other ill-intent. "Joker" is moral for discussing mental health earnestly. "Get Out" is moral for discussing woke brand of White supremacy. Fifty Shades of Grey? Trash. Even the Tolstoy must admit that bible itself has depictions of R-rated immoralities, intending to stave off its readers away from said depictions of immoralities. In that sense , Murdoch's thought about art can have some common ground with moralists.
I think all of these frameworks are correct in their own way. The moralist view of art is true to an extent: uncritical audiences will, over time, absorb the moral messages present within mainstream culture without thought if surrounded by it for long enough. I do not believe this is the correct way to engage with art, but I understand that this is the most common way that it's engaged with.
I think the true purpose of art after entertainment is to communicate ideas. The main thing that people forget is that just because someone is making an argument doesn't mean that you have to accept any part of the argument to be true. We can judge an artwork's aesthetics separately from the effectiveness of the moral argumentation. Sometimes we desperately need our own views to be challenged in order for them to be critically re-evaluated at all, which can either embolden our conviction or shake loose misheld beliefs. The artist's intent also matters. Some art is made only to entertain, others purely to moralise (propaganda) and everything else in between.
For example, I think "Joker" was a very aesthetically pleasing film but it was very clearly set out to be moral as it's main objective. I see it as bad art as its intentions were not met. Its message is unclear, vapid and poorly argued. Now all that is very well and good but this kind of criticism is a much less effective with something schlocky like "Die Hard", "The Naked Gun" or "Sharknado". Those films would be critiqued primarily by their entertainment value. This is also why something like "The Birth of A Nation" can be viewed as a masterpiece for its time whilst still being grossly immoral by current moral standards, it met its own goals exceptionally well.
hey can you guys please do a video on moral Orel!
like frfr
Moralism is what drives people to go against the grain and make real art
Pog im early
How was Lolita not mentioned even once in this entire video essay?.. It's the best example of a thought provoking novel that tests the boundaries between the morality of the characters in it, of the author, and of the readers.
I loved this episode because I instinctively already knew that! After watching the joker I was like “this is art” it was meant to be uncomfortable and reflect reality, not to please, just like great works of art that change the world and make us evolve our collective thinking 😌
In fan art circles, depictions and glorification of pedophilia are unfortunately rampant. We've seen this in the My Little Pony and pokémon fandoms. In the pokemon fandom, glorification of female characters being sexualized as underage characters is pretty common for example.
This is inarguably bad. It's an unfortunate truth that mere exposure to content like this in an increasingly connected world is going to lead to desensitization to thinking this is immoral.
By all means, we should attempt to separate aesthetics and morality, but the fact is; Propaganda is art and propaganda is bad and sexualization of children is bad.
"mere exposure" fucking citation needed - unless you think we all wanna shoot people because shooter games are so popular so we should all be desensitized to real violence? dumbest take
Tell that to the generation Z who deems everything as "problematic". I belong to that generation too but I think this is over the top. If art gets limits, we're doomed as human beings.
I didn’t go to that school but I did go to school in plant city Florida so I feel that.