SchoolTube Community
From the dramatic landscapes of Jacob van Ruisdael to the evocative portraits of Paul Cézanne, art has the power to move us, challenge us, and even make us deeply uncomfortable. But what happens when art pushes the boundaries of morality? Does artistic expression grant a free pass for potentially unethical actions?
This question isn't new. Think back to Plato, who believed art was too focused on emotions and could lead us astray from reason. Fast forward to the 20th century, and philosopher R.G. Collingwood argued that while some art is pure entertainment, the best art – the kind that truly matters – changes how we interact with the world.
Take Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin. This powerful novel didn't just tell a story; it helped shift perspectives on slavery by humanizing enslaved people for a white audience. This is what Collingwood called "magic art" – art that compels us to live better.
But the line between entertainment and impactful art can be blurry. Your favorite escape, like the world of Harry Potter, might be someone else's guide to navigating friendship, loyalty, and perseverance.
The intersection of art and morality gets even more complex when we consider real-life situations. Remember the case of Naruto, the monkey who snapped a selfie with a photographer's camera? Who owns the copyright – the photographer who provided the means or the monkey who clicked the button? This debate raises questions about artistic intention and whether a non-human can be considered an artist.
Aristotle, unlike his mentor Plato, saw art as beneficial. He believed experiencing a full spectrum of emotions, even negative ones, was crucial for balance. Art, he argued, provides a safe space for us to explore these emotions, leading to a sense of release he called catharsis. This explains why we willingly subject ourselves to tearjerkers – the emotional purge can be surprisingly satisfying.
But why do we get so invested in fictional characters and stories? This is the paradox of fiction. Do we experience genuine emotions, or are they "quasi-emotions," as philosopher Kendall Walton suggests, triggered by fiction but not as deep as real-life feelings?
The debate continues, with some arguing that the intensity of our emotional response to art, regardless of its fictional nature, validates those feelings.
Ultimately, the question remains: Where do we draw the line? Does art have a moral obligation? Autonomists believe art exists in its own realm, separate from moral judgment. Aesthetic moralists, however, argue that ethical flaws taint a work's artistic value.
Consider artist Marco Evaristti's controversial installation, "Helena," which featured live goldfish in blenders. While intended to provoke thought, the potential harm to living creatures sparked outrage. Was it art? Was it ethical? The answer likely depends on your own perspective.
As you engage with art – whether it's a breathtaking landscape by Asher Brown Durand, a thought-provoking news story about Vincent van Gogh, or even a whimsical cartoon – remember that art has the power to inspire, challenge, and sometimes even disturb. Embrace the complexities, ask questions, and let art enrich your life in all its messy, beautiful, and thought-provoking glory.
You may also like