Morality and the Artist: Toward an Ethics of Art

The British Journal of Aesthetics, 2008

works and arts. Its main aim is to underscore the correlation of art and morality and to analyze, contrast , and interpret the functions, meaning ,sense and applications of art in different time or period. This Article is prepared by reviewing the period and time of English literature related to these issues.

Art and morality share a complex, almost paradoxical, intersection of interests; often an offence levied against one is offered the possibility of acceptance in the another. But art is not created in an environment of isolation; they are to a certain extent bound by the rules of society, the socio-cultural space of whose landscape it utilises for its creation, reception and preservation. And the moral codes of the society are often guilty of cultural relativism and religious or historical dogmatism. Hence, neither the fair practice of Art without any moral obligations nor social ethics without consideration for artistic freedom can be accepted when theorising a rationally founded cultural utopia. The present paper engages with the particular issue of animal treatment in contemporary artistic practices to rear further insights on the legitimacy of using moral standards as an evaluatory framework to judge art objects and the aesthetic value of 'immoral' art.

Paul Macneill (ed.) Ethics and the Arts. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, and London: Springer, 2014

This chapter explores the nature of any relationship between ethics and the arts. At one time, the dominant position in the philosophy of art was that there was no relationship. Aesthetics and ethics were seen as autonomous spheres. The various ‘new moralists’ argue that, in some circumstances, there is a relationship. Noël Carroll and Berys Gaut, for example, argue that moral ‘flaws’ in some works of art may detract from the work’s aesthetic value, while others, such as Daniel Jacobson and Matthew Kieran, counter that a morally reprehensible quality in a work may contribute positively to its aesthetic value. Although the polarities are reversed, both of these positions accept that there is—or may be—a relationship between morality and aesthetics. Others however take a less theoretically based view in acknowledging that there may be a relationship in which a moral quality is seen to add to, or detract, from the aesthetic value a work of art, but that this can only be maintained by a critical assessment of a particular work of art and not by rigid application of theory. This chapter sides with those who are resistant to applying prior moral standards in judging art and puts the view that ethics and aesthetics are independent discourses, although they potentially illuminate one another. The chapter also explores whether moral repugnance, in responding to particular works of art, such as any of Michel Houellebecq’s novels, can be indicative of aesthetic merit or deficiency. It is argued however that no one aspect (moral, affective, or cognitive) can be assumed, in advance, to trump another, and the relative weight given to any of these, is itself a part of a reflection on the aesthetic merit of a particular artwork.

Philosophia, 2007

The goal of this paper is methodological. It offers a comprehensive mapping of the theoretical positions on the ethical criticism of art, correcting omissions and inadequacies in the conceptual framework adopted in the current debate. Three principles are recommended as general guidelines: ethical amenability, basic value pluralism, and relativity to ethical dimension. Hence a taxonomy distinguishing between different versions of autonomism, moralism, and immoralism is established, by reference to criteria that are different from what emerging in the current literature. The mapping is then proved capable of (1) locating the various theories that have been proposed so far and clarifying such theories' real commitments, (2) having the correct relationship with actual art making and art criticism practices, and showing the real weight of the alleged counter-example to a moralist position of a work that succeeds artistically because of its immorality.

Paul Macneill (ed.) Ethics and the Arts. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, and London: Springer, 2014

This book sets out to explore many facets of a relationship between ethics and the arts in (almost) all the arts: literature, music, painting, photography, film and documentary, dance and theatre. There is a section dealing with the relationship between ethics and the arts from philosophical perspectives—and a chapter in that section considers the role of the media in framing ethical issues. Ethics and the arts are also explored in relation to bioart—a new mode of art that draws on the biological sciences and techniques for manipulating life forms. The final section considers uses of the arts in relation to science and medicine. In particular: the arts as they are employed within the medical humanities; rhetorical devices in supporting ‘medical progress’; and artists and their works in response to climate change. The contributing authors write from many different disciplinary perspectives and discourses. These include discourses from within the various arts, and the authors’ different philosophical positions and commitments. Many of the authors are both academics and practitioners. Philip Alperson, for example, is both a philosopher and a saxophonist. Debora Diniz is an anthropologist and documentary-film maker. Rachael Swain is a theatre director who drew on her own work for a doctoral dissertation on theatre practice. Both James Thompson and Phillip Zarrilli are university professors and theatre practitioners. Zurr and Catts are artists within an academic research laboratory. The book is inter-disciplinary in approach and composition: drawing on the arts in practice and theory, philosophy (from analytic and European perspectives), and many other disciplines. This, I claim, is one of the books strengths. However, such diversity may attract criticism from purists who stand firmly in any one of the fields covered: which is the fate of many interdisciplinary works. However the collective strength of these chapters is that they relate the arts—including a broad range of current and original work—to aesthetic philosophy, science, medicine, perceptual psychology, cognitive science, and (to some extent) law and politics. This is to take a broad approach to what counts as knowledge by including both cognitive and experiential approaches. A possible outcome is that ethics itself could be re-conceived (at least in part) as aesthetic practice and experience, informed by this wide-ranging theoretical discussion.

2015

The art world seems to be dedicated to bad art. That is ethically bad art. By analyzing the work of Damian Hirst, Jeff Koons, and Vannessa Beecroft, this account works to decipher the definition of morals according to Georgio Vasari and how they amplify the artists who work tirelessly to defy this moral.

2021

The #metoo movement has forced many fans to consider what they should do when they learn that a beloved artist has acted immorally. One natural thought is that fans ought to give up the artworks of immoral artists. In Why It's OK to Enjoy the Work of Immoral Artists, Mary Beth Willard argues for a more nuanced view. Enjoying art is part of a well-lived life, so we need good reasons to give it up. And it turns out good reasons are hard to find.Willard shows that it's reasonable to believe that most boycotts of artists won't succeed, so most of the time there's no ethical reason to join in. Someone who manages to separate the art from the artist isn't making an ethical mistake by buying and enjoying their art. She then considers the ethical dimensions of canceling artists and the so-called "cancel culture," arguing that canceling is ethically risky because it encourages moral grandstanding. Willard concludes by arguing that the popular debate has overlooked the power of art to change our lives for the good. It's of course OK to decide to give up the artwork of immoral artists, but -as Willard shows in this provocative little volume -it's OK to continue to enjoy their art as well.

Contemporary Aesthetics, 2004

isara solutions, 2014

The word 'ethics' is derived from the Latin word ethicus that means character. 'Ethics' refer to the study of what is 'right' or 'good' for human beings. Thus ethics are system of accepted believes, morals and values which control human behaviour is referred to as 'ethics'. The paper presents the salient features of ethical practices and human values form Indian philosophy as discussed in detail in numerous Indian scriptures and treatises.

Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 2019

Is it appropriate to honor artists who have created great works but who have also acted immorally? In this article, after arguing that honoring involves identifying a person as someone we ought to admire, we present three moral reasons against honoring immoral artists. First, we argue that honoring can serve to condone their behavior, through the mediums of emotional prioritization and exemplar identification. Second, we argue that honoring immoral artists can generate undue epistemic credibility for the artists, which can lead to an indirect form of testimonial injustice for the artists’ victims. Third, we argue, building on the first two reasons, that honoring immoral artists can also serve to silence their victims. We end by considering how we might respond to these reasons.

2007

What is art's function today, in the early 21 st century? It is argued here that, while art's function has changed dramatically throughout history, its formal features are usually regarded as being paramount in ascertaining whether something is art or not. It is further argued, with reference to specific works by contemporary artists (Serrano, Mapplethorpe and Reggio), that it is impossible, and inadvisable, to reduce the importance of art to its formal-aesthetic properties, as some people tend to do. Moreover, while the formal and the conceptual aspects of art are linked, there is reason to promote certain functions, such as the ethical, the critical and ecological, at the cost of reducing others (such as the commercial) in the contemporary world.

Is it appropriate to honour artists who have created great works but who have also acted immorally? In this paper, after arguing that honouring involves picking out a person as someone we ought to admire, we present three moral reasons against honouring immoral artists. First, we argue that honouring can serve to condone their behaviour, through the mediums of emotional prioritization and exemplar identification. Second, we argue that honouring immoral artists can generate undue epistemic credibility for the artists, which can lead to an indirect form of testimonial injustice for the artists' victims. Third, we argue, building on the first two reasons, that honouring immoral artists can also serve to silence their victims. We end by considering how we might respond to these reasons.

International Journal of Cultural Property, 2021

This article analyzes the debate between the proponents and opponents of artistic moral rights and, more specifically, the right of integrity as recognized in the Berne Convention, with the aid of agonistic political theory. Envisaging art as a site of antagonistic struggle, the right of integrity is conceived of as a state-backed mandate to claim an inviolable place for artistic work, founded on a Romantic notion of authorship. The plea against the entrenchment of this right is considered a counter-hegemonic response that challenges this notion in favor of an unfettered development of art and its surrounding discourse. As such, this debate seems to revolve around a conflict of alleged interests: those of artists, of art's public, and of art itself. It is argued that insights into the discursive behavior of rights, and, by extension, into the effect of rights discourses on antagonistic struggle, are needed to foster this debate.