Art and Morality

On his blog Griffin asked: "Can art truly be 'evil'? even to a nonreligious person? And is there a difference between 'sinful' art and 'evil' art?"

Personally, I do not believe that art itself can be evil. Despite phrases such as "literature lives" and "live theater", art is an inanimate object. It's not capable of doing anything by its own will.  The same idea applies to sinful; art itself cannot commit a sin. Yet, I believe it's possible for an artist or viewer to commit a sin or to foster sinful tendencies by creating or viewing art, though the frequency of such an event depends on your definitions of both sin and art.

Yet, sin is a term mainly used in religious settings, so what effect does it have on the nonreligious.  While we don't general use the term sin, every part of the world, regardless of religion or lack there of, has a moral code.  The breaking of that code, whatever it may be, would be the equivalent of a sin.

Of course, this entire line of thought might be a moot point depending on your response to the following question: If art influences us to break our moral code, should it still be considered art?

Critic-al Thinking

On his blog, Duncan asked: "Why do people need to be told what to think about art in the first place, why do we need critics in our newspapers and online?"

Quite simply, I believe the answer to this question lies in our choice of lifestyle. First, Americans tend towards laziness. The less effort we have to exert, the happier we think we are. Therefore, if we can get someone else to tell us how to think, we don't have to bother thinking ourselves, which is a very scary thought. Second, despite our laziness, America is a very fast paced place. From a very young age our days are jammed full. We simply don't have or, facing our laziness again, don't want to make the time. More importantly, we don't want to waste our time on "bad" art. Thus, the critics help us direct our valuable time towards "good" art.

What do we lose by avoiding the experience of "bad" art?

Is Good Art Subjective?

Many people think that the qualities of good art are subjective, which would explain why two different individuals can see the same creative piece as a disaster and a masterpiece. While I do believe that subjectivity does play a part in determining good art, I believe there is also an objective factor. For example, let's look at chocolate cake. Personally, I don't like chocolate cake. Yet, the fact that a cake is chocolate does not, in my opinion, make it a bad cake. Rather, when I eat the obligatory slice at a party, I judge the cake compared to pre-existing standards for texture  and flavor, compared to other chocolate cake. I think we do the same thing with art. Even if we do not like a piece of art, we can still recognize it as good art based on objective qualities which the piece shares with other good art. The question is, what are those qualities upon which we form our standard of art?

A Rubric for Art

On her blog, Katie asked: Television is absolutely an art form from every standpoint but again it begs the question, can you ever define it as good or bad?

The terms good and bad imply that there is a standard upon which something can be judge. On an essay, for example, a teacher may give you a rubric to explain what he or she expects in regards to subject, length, grammar, etc. If your paper meets or exceeds the expectations listed on the rubric, it is considered good. If it does not, the paper is bad. So, in order to define television as good or bad art, we must first set expectations for what is good art. Until we find that definition of good art, we cannot tell bad from good. The definition must include qualitative standards for comparison. Before any decisions can be made, we need a "rubric" for art.


If you were making a rubric for art, of any type, what qualities would you include?

Context of Color

On her blog, Val asked: " My friend is color-blind, he sees colors, but not the proper ones. He sees blue and red as the same, so what emotions would he draw, since we generally associate blue as calming and red as passionate and energetic?"

Despite the emotional associations adults have with colors, young children seem to lack this line of thought. Many young children will use colors that adults find displeasing as the main color in a crayon drawing, because they do not yet have an emotional association with that color and view it without a bias. They need to be taught by their society what different colors symbolize. This is not done directly; no one sits a child down and explains that blue is sad or that red is angry.  Children learn these associations over time by observing how colors are used in the world around them.  At an early age, they may see everyone in black at a funeral and associate black with death. Playing outside on a bright day, a child might see the sun and associate its yellow color with their happiness. Children with color blindness would make the same associations, just with their distorted view of color.

A person with color blindness continues to use context clues when viewing colors, just as they did when they were children. Looking  at the ocean, he or she knows that water is blue, not red, and feels the peacefulness we associate with blue. While looking at a painting, there is more room for error, but the same theory applies.  If the lines of a painting are sharp and aggressive, it is more likely to illicit the feelings we associate with red, because those feelings logically connect with the form of the painting, whether or not the painting is red or blue.

When we view visual art are our emotions influenced more by the lines or subject of the painting or by the colors used? Or, if you prefer music, are they influenced more by the pitch or the rhythm?

The Future of Tactile Art

In his blog, Alex asked: Do you think that tactile art will find popularity in the future?  Why or why not

Personally, I think the concept of tactile art is fascinating. It is the logical extension of art into another sense. Yet, I do not believe that tactile art can gain popularity in the modern world, at least in America. As a nation, we are becoming complete germ phobics. If you don't believe it, walk around a public environment. Chances are that you'll see hand sanitizer dispensers mounted on the walls and signs educating you on the right way to wash your hands or cover a cough or sneeze. We've become obsessed with stopping the spread of germs. Our compulsion makes sense. SARS followed by Avian Influenza followed by Pig Flu have made most of us fearful of getting sick. Yet, it dooms tactile art.  Everyone who experiences a tactile art piece will have to, by definition, touch the piece. Billions of germs will be present on the piece within an hour. Would you want to touch it immediately after the person who just sneezed all over his or her hands?

Art engages our senses. Music engages hearing. Visual art engages vision. Tactile art engages touch. Culinary art engages taste. Is there a future for art that engages our sense of smell?

Think About It

On her blog, Sarah asked: How does Minimalism continue to thrive without a point, or with a point that's been made many times already?

I do believe that minimalist art does have a point, though it is difficult to see it. When interpreting minimalist art, I think we often make the mistake of assuming that the brevity of a piece is the point.  I think minimalism is a mode of communication, rather than a point.  The audience has to deeply consider minimalist art before any inkling of a meaning can be reached.  In some forms of art, especially visual art, it is very to look at a piece and say simply "That's a bowl of fruit".  Seeing the superficial meaning, we neglect to take the effort to find a deeper meaning.  We're lazy.  Minimalism discards the superficial image, forcing us to think.

How do our societal behaviors (e.g. laziness) influence our art?

Rethinking Modern Art

While perusing the postings this morning, looking for a question to answer, I stumbled upon Alex's post about the decline of art in our society. He suggests, as schools slash arts funding and more time is spent in the virtual realm, that the value of art is decreasing. In a sense, this is true.  The things that we traditionally view as art are losing appeal.  Classic novels are deemed pointless and are discarded for the ease of television.  Art museums are condemned as boring.  Classical music is forgotten for something with a better beat.  The art of our ancestors is thrown to the wayside by the younger generation.  Yet, does this imply that the value of art itself has diminished.  I don't believe so.  Just as jazz followed classical in the realm of music, I think the form of our art is morphing into the age of technology.  Personally, I find the amount of art in a well-crafted video game staggering.  The efforts of writers, visual artists, and musicians combine to form something that is creative and often conveys emotions or meaning.  Movies are, in a way, the new novel.  They can also use metaphor and imagery to convey a deeper meaning and that's before one even considers the soundtrack or score.  These are just a few examples of what I consider modern art.

So, with new art forms always emerging to replace the old, will the traditional art forms lose their place in society?