I¹m not Miker, but this is what I want to know from those who
think art does have a moral imperative: Will you boycott a
movie/book/album that you believe is immoral? And how do you
determine that if you haven¹t seen/read it? In Jim¹s case I
can ask the specific question, because of the statement
below: If you know the author isn¹t an honest, charitable
person will you boycott their books?
If art has a moral imperative do consumers have a moral
obligation to support what fits their moral imperative? If
you purchased something that was what you would consider
immoral would that make your purchase an immoral act? What
about the concept of fruit from the poisoned tree? If the
artist is immoral can they produce moral work?
I don¹t consider child porn art, or plagiarism. That¹s not
art, that¹s theft. Art is the creation of
beautiful/thought-provoking/compelling work through painting,
drawing, music, writing etc. If you¹re stealing, not
creating, it isn¹t art.
I have worked as a professional photographer. At one point I
spent a few months taking school photos, along with a number
of other photographers. Were those photos art? Not by my
definition. The art was what sold for
$300/image, not what was produced from moving lines of kids
past an artificial backdrop. So, I don¹t consider child porn
to be art either.
The problem I have with the statement below is that it
presumes into how people must live their life in order to be
an acceptable artist. It would certainly be nice if people
were all that way, although then we wouldn¹t have crime
fiction because we wouldn¹t have crime. I¹ll admit this is
why I am more of a police procedural junkie, because I prefer
to invest my thought in how to get the bad guy, instead of
dwelling on how to get away with murder. It would be fair to
say my own values influence my reading, but does it make
someone who likes Silence of the Lambs immoral? No.
I balk at starting down a path that ultimately leads to
investigating the author¹s background first to determine if
they are suitably moral before reading their work. Now, if
I¹ve met someone who is not a nice person and I am put off by
their behaviour and then find out they¹re an author, I¹m not
as likely to try their book. But if I read an author and love
their work and then find out they¹re a jerk, should I stop
reading? What if I find out they¹re an alcoholic? Should I
boycott the books to keep them from buying booze? If my
imperative is ³to protect those who can't protect themselves²
surely I must have a responsibility to make sure they aren¹t
using their money for things that will hurt them - ?
I haven¹t heard people make arguments like this since I was
being lectured not to listen to secular music or read books
written by heathens.
Sandra
On 2/24/07 11:54 AM, "JIM DOHERTY" <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> So the question isn't about artistic
imperatives.
> It's about moral imperatives. All people,
even
> artists, have an obligation to be honest, to
be
> charitable, to be respectful of others, to
protect
> those who can't protect themselves, to keep
their
> promises, to live up to their committments,
etc.
> That's the essence of moral behavior.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 24 Feb 2007 EST