Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent
I personally do believe that art has an ethical responsibility, otherwise, what's the point? That doesn't mean I think there should be a limit on the feelings and situations art can express or simulate, but I think they should be placed in an ethical context. For example, I think there is a place for angry music, and anger can be a good driving force behind music, but I don't think the purpose of a song should ever be to provoke anger, but rather to show music as an outlet for sublimating anger.
Also, the idea of not imposing any standards on expression seems pretty silly. Don't you impose standards on your expression? I mostly try to say things I think will help other people or which they will at least appreciate in some way. If I just talked for the sake of talking all the time I'd probably get on peoples' nerves and I would feel bad about that.
|
Is that what he's saying? I was pretty sure by ethical responsibility he meant should it promote good social values. I don't think anyone condemned an artists right to have an emotional response. I would think saying that art
did have an ethical responsibility would do more to curb things like anger and emotion than it would do to promote that ethos.