Ethical Responsibility of Art

cardboard adolescent · 07-20-2010, 05:41 PM

I think "What is Art?" by Tolstoy would be a good reference point, although he's offering the exact opposite argument you are. Clive Bell in his writing talks about the purpose of art being to offer the "peculiar emotion" which can only be delivered by art, so that might be closer to the aestheticism argument you're going for. Andre Breton talks about art as a gateway to a higher experience of reality, and Hans Hoffman believes similarly but in more spiritual terms. Then you have people like Ad Reinhardt who believe that "art is art and everything else is everything else," which is to say, the only point of art is to be art, or rather, to not be anything else that isn't art...

Sol LeWitt talks about art as the manufacturing of ideas, but not just any idea... art ideas. Robert Motherwell and Sartre are good sources for talking about art as the expression of individuality, which Foucault and Derrida will then tear to pieces.

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.

TheBig3 · 07-21-2010, 11:24 PM

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.

07-20-2010, 05:41 PM	#1 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,511	I think "What is Art?" by Tolstoy would be a good reference point, although he's offering the exact opposite argument you are. Clive Bell in his writing talks about the purpose of art being to offer the "peculiar emotion" which can only be delivered by art, so that might be closer to the aestheticism argument you're going for. Andre Breton talks about art as a gateway to a higher experience of reality, and Hans Hoffman believes similarly but in more spiritual terms. Then you have people like Ad Reinhardt who believe that "art is art and everything else is everything else," which is to say, the only point of art is to be art, or rather, to not be anything else that isn't art... Sol LeWitt talks about art as the manufacturing of ideas, but not just any idea... art ideas. Robert Motherwell and Sartre are good sources for talking about art as the expression of individuality, which Foucault and Derrida will then tear to pieces. 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. Last edited by cardboard adolescent; 07-20-2010 at 05:49 PM.