Sandra,
Re your comment belwo:
> I¹m not Miker, but this is what I want to know from
those who think
art does
> have a moral imperative:
You're making it sound like I'm singling out art. I don't say
artists have a moral imperative. I say EVERYONE, in every
aspect of their lives, has a moral imperative.
So why should artists be different?
> 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?
I would, never read NEVKSY'S DEMON, despite having enjoyed
NEVSKY'S RETURN, because it was plagiarized.
I would never read THE TURNER DIARIES, because it promotes
bigotry and hatred and violence. It doesn't just depict it.
It promotes it.
Understand, never's long time. I might read, say, MEIN KAMPF
for historical reasons. I HAVE read THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
and THE MAR/ENGELS READER for historical purposes.
I might look at a piece of child porn in order to build a
criminal case against the organization distributing it.
But, special cases aside, no. I don't think wrong-doing
should be supported.
> 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 think people have an obligation not to support wrongdoing.
And if that means not buying something that is fundamentally
immoral, then, yes.
Can an immoral person produce a moral work? In the context of
this discussion, I was talking about the way in which the
work IS produced. NEVKSY'S DEMON was probably a moral work in
the sense that it depicted a character who was trying to do
right and help people. But it happened that Dimitri Gat
ripped off JDM to produce that work. It may be quite
enjoyable is its own right, but it's immoral because of the
way it's produced.
Andrew Macdonald, by contrast, didn't rip anyone off when he
wrote THE TURNER DIARIES. But he used fiction as a medium to
promote hateful and immoral ideologies and action. It's
immoral less because of how it's produced than because of the
hatred and violence it's trying to sow.
Child porn is immoral both because of how it's produced and
what it does once it is produced.
> 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.
Yeah, but no one can agree on what's beautiful,
thought-provoking, compelling, etc. Even less so at the time
it first appears. That's why the "test of time," imperfect as
it is, is the best arbiter for what is and isn't worthwhile.
Is it not art in the meantime? Of course not. It's all art.
Some of it's good, some of it's bad, most of it's probably
mediocre. And some of it, whether good, bad, or mediocre, is
just immoral.
Plagiarism is certainly theft. But if the plagiarist is a
good writer notwithstanding that theft (as Gat was), and the
resulting novel, on the basis of the thief's individual
talent, is a beautiful, compelling read, it's not any less
art. It's just immoral because of the way it was produced.
The artist failed to follow a moral imperative that one does
not steal something that belongs to someone else.
A piece of child porn, similarly, may be exquisitely
photographed, and may be an excellent example of the art of
photography notwithstanding the victimization of the model.
But a model IS being victimized every time a piece of child
porn is made or displayed. The photographer failed to follow
a moral imperative that children should not be sexually
exploited.
> 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.
By your definition, it sounds like the arbiter of whether or
not it's art is how much the photo sold for. What if the
photographer who produced that $300 image used every single
iota of his creative, artistic, and photographic talent to
produce a piece of child porn? Not the child porn equivalent
of a mass-produced assembly line school photo, but a work
that displays real talent. Would it be any less a piece of
child porn for the artistic effort that went into it? What if
it sold for $300?
You can't escape the notion that we all, even artists, have
moral obligations to each other simply by saying that if an
artist does something manifestly wrong, like plagiarism, like
promoting racial violence, like sexually exploiting children,
it's not really art anyway.
> 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.
Now I'm really confused. You say you like procedurals and yet
you wonder whether THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, one of the
all-time great procedurals, is, or might be, immoral.
In any case, you're getting into a grayer area, here. There
may be things I think are immoral that others don't (like
Altman's unconscionable trashing of THE LONG GOODBYE).
But to say that, because one doesn't think Altman was doing
anything wrong by following his own muse instead of adapting
the novel into film with a modicum of fidelity, it follows
that, as Miker put it, "Art has no moral obligations," is
silly.
Everyone has moral obligations. Including artists. And I used
the examples of plagiarism, child porn, and promoting racial
violence precisely because I though that the immorality
behind works based on those acts would be manifestly
evident.
> 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 - ?
You're misinterpreting me. And I can't help wondering if it's
not deliberate.
Wagner, by most accounts, was a vicious anti-Semite.
Beethoven, according to some accounts, was terribly
unlikeable and treated other people like dirt.
Nevertheless, I've got no problem attending th Ring Cycle or
listening to the Fifth Symphony. The Ring Cycle doesn't
promote anti- Semitism (despite the Nazis' adoption of Wagner
as a kind of musical patron saint), and the Fifth doesn't
promote treating other people badly. And I've got no evidence
that either work specifically grew out of an act, or series
of acts, of anti-Semitism on Wagner's part, or ill-treatment
of others on Beethoven's.
> 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.
I'm not talking about religious beliefs, or about works that
challenge one's religious beliefs. I don't think a book like
THE CASE AGAINST GOD is fundamentally immoral, for all that I
disagree with it. It's an honest expression of an opinion. I
have no evidence that the author is dishonest, dishonorable,
hateful, or mistreats others. And even if I did, for the work
to be immoral it would have to specifically grow out of his
dishonesty, hatefulness, etc.
As it stands, not having read it, it's just a book that takes
a point of view I disagree with.
That's fundamentally different than plagiarizing someone
else's work, exploiting children, or preaching white
supremacy.
I'm not really sure what your problem is with the passage of
mine that you quoted. Do you think that people do NOT have
moral obligations to each other? Do you think that honesty
and charity are merely options to be exercised when
convenient, but discarded whenever it suits us?
And if you don't think that, if you acknowledge that we all
have moral obligations to each other, why doesn't imperative
apply to artists as much as it does lesser mortals?
JIM DOHERTY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 24 Feb 2007 EST