Miker,
Re your comments below:
"There are three basic questions being batted around."
No the question you raise aren't the question being batted
around. At least they weren't the question I meant to raise
when I first brought up the subject.
"First, can art be moral or immoral?"
Yes. And that's obvious on its face.
"Second, if art can be moral, is there an artistic imperative
to make it so?"
No. There's a MORAL imperative to make it so. Just as there's
amoral imperative to do the right thing in every aspect of
one's life.
That's why I took such issue with your original statement
about art having no moral obligations.
In the sense of being an inanimate object incapable of moral
judgement, a work of art has no moral obligation.
But since you made this comment in response to my assertion
that, by deliberately trashing the source of his film
adaptation, Altman was acting immorally, I too you response
to mean that ARTISTS have no moral obligations, which I
though, and still think, to be a silly thing to say.
You may agree or disagree that Altman's lack of fidelity to
the source material was immoral, but to broadly declare say
that artists have no moral obligations, simpoly because
they're artists and, consequently, above such petty
considerations is monumentally arrogant.
Plagiarism is wrong, even if the plagiarized work has
literary merit, notwithstanding its being based on a
theft.
Child porn is wrong, notwithstanding that the photography may
be superlatively beautiful.
Deliberately not living up to a contract is wrong, however
gifted the painter, sculptor, author, etc.
"Third, is morality a required theme in art?"
No. On the other hand, I would argue that there is a moral
requirement to refrain from an immoral point of view.
For example, Andrew Macdonald's novel THE TURNER DIARIES is
immoral because it depicts racism, white supremacy, and
murder as acceptable and laudable choices and encourages its
readers to make those choices. It's been suggested that
Timothy McVeigh was an avid fan of TURNER and that his
bombing of the Murrah Building in OK City was inspired by the
book.
Of course, to some degree an author is not responsible for
the evil that a reader does after reading a book of
his.
Ed McBain was not responsible for the kids who set homeless
men on fire after seeing the film version of FUZZ, and
Patricia Cornwell was not responsible for a serial killer who
used the same method to troll for victims that the villain of
her debut novel, POSTMORTEM, did.
In the first place, it's clear that neither author was in
sympathy with te characters in their stories that carried out
these acts. In the second, it's likely that the people who
replicated the acts in real life would have done something
similar anyway. The hoods who burned homeless men would have
found some other way to prey on those who are too weak to
defend themselves, and the serial killer would have found
some other way to acquire victims. FUZZ and POSTMORTEM were
just convenient blueprints.
The difference is that William "Andrew Macdonald" Pierce
wasn't just telling a story; he was trying to inspire
converts. McBain and Cornwell clearly didn't want readers
dupicating the acts of their villains. Pierce, just as
clearly, DID want his readers to duplicate the actions of his
"heroes."
And, just so there's no misunderstanding, I confidently make
these comment about THE TURNER DIARIES without having
actually read it.
Dimitri Gat's NEVSKY'S DEMON, by way of contrast, is not
immoral because it argues for a hateful ideology, but because
the author plagiarized JDMacD's THE DREADFUL LEMON SKY. And,
though I haven't read it, I have read NEVKSY'S RETURN, and
enjoyed it, so I suspect that NEVSKY'S DEMON is also a good
read, for all that it's the result of a theft.
A pice of child porn is immoral both because it encourages
immorality, the exploitation of children for sexual pleasure,
and because it exploits actually does exploit children in its
production.
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.
A novelist who uses his art to promulgate a hateful and
debased ideology is immoral, and so is his novel.
A novelist who steals from another to produce his book is
immoral, and so is his novel.
A filmmaker or photographer who exploits children to derive a
profit from sexual predators is immoral, and so is the film
or photos he produces.
By the way, I've stayed out of this discussion for many days
now, so I now deny any and all responsibility for THE LONG
GOODBYE thread continuing to generate comments.
JIM DOHERTY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free
Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 24 Feb 2007 EST