Ethical Responsibility of Art

Inuzuka Skysword · 07-24-2010, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

i believe in the world as love and art: love is the paradox of the self-sprung which is more than itself, and art are all its representations, which is the totality of everything we know. that's exactly why i think art has an ethical responsibility, because i think existence has an ethical responsibility to reflect its source, which is love.

I don't quite understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the privation of love does not exist? If it does exist, cannot art represent this privation by definition. Therefore, art would not have an ethical responsibility by virtue of what it is. If it did have a responsibility, it would be a responsibility that is imposed on it by something else.

cardboard adolescent · 07-30-2010, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

I don't quite understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the privation of love does not exist? If it does exist, cannot art represent this privation by definition. Therefore, art would not have an ethical responsibility by virtue of what it is. If it did have a responsibility, it would be a responsibility that is imposed on it by something else.

And no, I don't believe in the privation of love. I've come to realize recently that everything deserves love, because everything has the potential for perfection and showing something love is the best way to guide it to that potential.

Inuzuka Skysword · 08-03-2010, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

And no, I don't believe in the privation of love. I've come to realize recently that everything deserves love, because everything has the potential for perfection and showing something love is the best way to guide it to that potential.

Okay, let me make sure I understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that there is no opposite of love? When I am talking about the privation of love and its existence, I am saying that there is an opposite to love, which is its absence. What I am interpreting your statement to mean is that you don't believe that love can be absent at all. If that is the case, then it is impossible to be unethical, (assuming that you said earlier that reflecting love is the ethical responsibility). If it is impossible, then can we really call it an ethical responsibility? Instead, we come back to what I was saying earlier, which is that you are using ethical responsibility as a synonym for necessity.

As far as the "using love to perfect" thing, I don't know your definition of perfection, though it seems that you see perfection as unity based on your posts. I don't see how loving inanimate objects would make them any more perfect though.