Morality in Art: A Video Essay

Summary

The video script explores the debate between aesthetic moralism and aesthetic autonomy, questioning whether art should be judged by its moral implications or solely on its artistic qualities. It delves into the subjective nature of art, examining how audiences interpret works based on personal beliefs, and highlights case studies like *Jaws* and *The Wolf of Wall Street* to show the impact of art on society. The script also emphasizes the role of the artist’s intentions versus the audience’s interpretation, concluding that while morality in art is subjective, clear artist intentions can help guide the viewer’s understanding.

Takeaways

• 😀 The debate over morality in art was sparked by Mike DeLuca’s comments on the *Fifty Shades of Grey* trilogy, where he claimed that morality is disconnected from art.
• 😀 Aesthetic moralism, as introduced by Plato, argues that the aesthetic value of art should be judged based on its moral value.
• 😀 Aesthetic autonomy, the opposing view, holds that art should only be evaluated by aesthetic standards and moral judgment is irrelevant.
• 😀 Art is inherently subjective, as it is a product of human imagination and creativity, which varies from person to person.
• 😀 Morality, on the other hand, is objective and defined as the distinction between right and wrong, often tied to a higher power.
• 😀 Noël Carroll suggests that art inviting morally defective perspectives is itself morally defective, supporting the aesthetic moralism viewpoint.
• 😀 The artist, the art, and the patron (audience) form a model to analyze the disconnect between moral reactions and the intrinsic qualities of art.
• 😀 Using *Jaws* as an example, the moral impact of art is often disconnected from its intended themes or the artist’s intentions, as the film led to the killing of sharks despite its otherwise neutral moral themes.
• 😀 The artist can’t 'make' a work of art moral or immoral; rather, the audience interprets the moral value of the work based on personal perspectives.
• 😀 The speaker concludes that morality is a human quality projected onto art, not something intrinsic to the artwork itself.
• 😀 Artists should be clear about their intentions to guide how their work is interpreted, especially when the art may critique societal issues or moral flaws, as in the case of *The Wolf of Wall Street*.

Q & A

What was the trigger for the speaker to start considering morality in art?

The speaker began considering morality in art after a visit from producer Mike DeLuca to Biola University. DeLuca's discussion on his films, including 'Fifty Shades of Grey,' sparked the speaker’s reflections on the relationship between morality and art.

How did Mike DeLuca define the relationship between morality and art?

Mike DeLuca suggested that morality is disconnected from art, proposing that art is given a 'free pass' when it comes to moral standards, an idea that the speaker disagrees with.

What are aesthetic moralism and aesthetic autonomy?

Aesthetic moralism is the belief that the moral value of art should determine its aesthetic value, as supported by thinkers like Plato. In contrast, aesthetic autonomy holds that art should be judged solely on aesthetic standards, independent of moral considerations.

What does the speaker believe about the definition of art?

The speaker agrees with the Oxford dictionary’s definition of art as the 'expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.' The speaker emphasizes that art is subjective because it is rooted in human imagination and interpretation.

How does the speaker define morality?

The speaker defines morality as 'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong,' with the belief that morality is objective and stems from a higher power.

What is the speaker’s critique of aesthetic moralism?

The speaker critiques aesthetic moralism by pointing out that it ignores the subjectivity of art. The response of the audience to art cannot be the sole determinant of whether the art is moral or immoral, as this disconnect proves the subjectivity of art.

What example does the speaker use to challenge the idea that immoral outcomes make a work of art immoral?

The speaker uses the example of the movie 'Jaws,' which, while not inherently immoral, contributed to the killing of sharks, an immoral outcome. This example illustrates how unintended consequences of art do not necessarily make the art itself immoral.

What analogy does the speaker use to explain the relationship between a writer and a book?

The speaker compares an artist to a writer, arguing that just as a writer cannot 'make' a book intelligent but can only fill it with information for readers to interpret, an artist cannot make their work inherently moral or immoral. It is up to the audience to interpret the work.

What is the speaker's stance on aesthetic autonomy?

The speaker supports aesthetic autonomy, arguing that art is a reflection of human ideas but not a living entity that can hold moral qualities. It is humans who project and interpret morality from art, similar to how an exclamation point is perceived as loud despite being inherently silent.

What does the speaker identify as a limitation of their argument?

A limitation of the speaker's argument is that it relies on a theistic worldview, where morality is objective. If morality were subjective, the argument would collapse. Additionally, the speaker acknowledges that not all human ideas are art, and some immoral thoughts cannot be classified as art.

What is the speaker’s recommendation for how art should be approached?

The speaker recommends that artists should be clear about their intentions. If the audience understands the intent behind the art—whether it promotes good or critiques immorality—they can interpret it accordingly. For example, in the case of 'The Wolf of Wall Street,' the audience should view it as a critique of corruption, not as an endorsement of that lifestyle.