On 2/24/07 8:09 PM, "jimdohertyjr" <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 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 referenced Silence of the Lambs because it delves into a
very depraved mind. There are plenty of procedurals that
don¹t tread into the darkness the way that one does. Silence
of the Lambs has a definite subgenre crossover aspect to it,
in the same way that Val McDermid's Tony Hill/Carol Jordan
books do - they tell the story from the criminal's point of
view as well as the cops. That's different from a standard
police procedural. I only saw the movie Silence of the Lambs,
and decided that I wouldn't be able to stomach the read at
that time. As little as three years ago you wouldn't have
found anything other than standard police procedurals on my
bookshelves.
>
>> 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 honestly don't see how you can say "I think people have an
obligation not to support wrongdoing. And if that means not
buying something that is fundamentally immoral, then, yes"
and leave the life of the artist out of it. By buying the art
you might be supporting all kinds of wrongdoing. What about
even the history of the art? Is it moral to sell a painting
that you've come to possess because it was stolen from a
Jewish family during WWII? Is it moral to buy it? Then what
about buying an ARC that has it marked on the front that it
isn't to be sold?
The thing is Jim, I'm not so far from you in many respects.
We have a strict policy with Spinetingler that we will not
publish work we believe incites hatred against any group, for
example, or hard-core erotica. Someone submitted a story that
involved sex with a teenager and we flat-out rejected it
because the editorial view was that it was borderline porn. I
have the right to impose those values on what I chose to
publish or not publish. Do I have the right to tell anyone
else they can't publish it? No.
I absolutely do think people have moral obligations to each
other. I am not saying that artists are exempt, but look at
this from another perspective. Is it moral that we deprive
people in our own countries of jobs and farm the work out
overseas, where employees are paid miniscule wages they can
barely survive on? Is it moral to shop at Wal-Mart? On the
face of it, I can make a good argument about why it isn't,
about how the big companies are pushing out the local stores
and the people who actually care about their towns. About how
we're losing a sense of local identity by having the same big
stores every other town has. About how stuff is produced in
sweatshops, and let's not even get into how some of the
employees are treated here.
But do I have a right to impose that moral judgment and say
that everyone who shops at a certain store is immoral, when
maybe that's the only way a family can afford to feed their
kids? They can't afford the luxury of my morals, because they
have to put food on the table and (insert name of unliked big
business here) has the cheapest prices.
If a moral imperative is required of all artists it's
required of everyone, across the board. You said yourself,
"special cases aside, no. I don't think wrong-doing should be
supported."
The problem is where you draw those lines and who gets to
decide.
The fact that there can't even be a consensus on what is art,
never mind what is moral, is a big part of the problem. I
think that if we're going to go by percentages the
overwhelming majority of people would say that child porn is
not art - therefore not a valid comparison to use in this
argument.
I can say that I want my art to be moral, make my own
determination of what constitutes moral art and shop
accordingly, but to say that all art has a moral imperative
is something different.
You mention yourself in your post about getting into gray
areas. It would be nice if the world was black and white but
the overwhelming majority of the world is in the gray shades.
It's very easy to point fingers at things like child porn and
say it's evil and immoral. I have no problem agreeing with
you on that. But it doesn't stand to reason that, because
some things created are immoral that all created things have
a moral imperative. I know some men who would consider some
vehicles to be works of art. I know of whole communities who
believe vehicles are of the devil, defiling the earth. In
some parts of the world women beautify themselves with
multiple piercings. I know others who think that if god
wanted you to have holes in your earlobes he would have put
them there.
The difference for me, Jim, is that if I know someone uses
their money to support immoral activities I won't continue to
put money in their pocket. That's a choice I'm willing to
make for myself, but it's not a choice I can impose on
another.
This is what I call the slippery slope. I don't believe art
has a moral imperative. If I believed that by the same
reasoning I'd have to believe that pizza has a moral
imperative. It is, after all, something created, some might
call it beautiful, and having known a few chefs, some of them
are as temperamental about their "creations" as any artist I
know. What if the ingredients were produced on a farm that
isn't organic? Is an artist's job to entertain, possibly
inspire or enlighten, or is it to lecture people on how to
live? If art has a moral imperative it must all be value
laden, and if it lacks appropriate values then it can't be
art and must be trash.
I can agree to disagree on this and most certainly let it go,
because this is one thing you won't persuade me to change my
mind on. I have a strong personal preference for books that
provide social commentary, that touch on important issues
within the context of the story.
The reason I have a problem with your position is that I can
see where it goes. I've been where it goes, right down to
people who won't look for business services outside of The
Good Shepherd Directory of local Christian businessmen
because they don't want to support anyone who's living in
sin.
Take something real and contemporary - Harry Potter books.
Some people believe those books are immoral. Does that make
it acceptable for them to ban the books and, in some cases,
burn them? Because that is the ultimate end of imposing moral
values on art - setting up those who determine what fails to
meet the standard and then dealing with it accordingly.
Fahrenheit 451 comes to mind, as does The Chrysalids. And Ayn
Rand's Anthem...
Sandra
>> 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