Art and Morality 27/4/09

Today we discussed about art and morality

We went through some pieces of art that contained "immoral properties" as a starter

We also discussed: Does the artist make a difference about the moral property of the art piece? (e.g. If Hitler drew a piece of art does it express his immorality?) We agreed that it we think this is so as the "evilness" of people is usually expressed consistently hence leading to the idea that the art pieces they make likewise is immoral (e.g. Britney Spear's music?)

We also went through some terms : Epistemic, ontological and aesthetic (Ref. KM for full notes)

Epistemic : The capacity of an artwork to possess ethical knowledege
Onotological: The categorical quality of an artwork to bear moral properties
Aesthetic : Relationship between aesthetic judgement and moral judgement

We agreed on certain statements : It is not necessary for art to bear moral properties but artwork can bear moral properties
Under what circumstances?: We discussed "piss Christ" which showed a crucifix in a vat of urine. Does the religious element in the art piece give it it's moral properties?

We also discussed the issue whether Morality is innate. Is the morality in us or in the artpiece? Does the content of the art piece gives it its moral properties or is it because of the viewer that the art piece "given" moral properties?

Lastly we discussed : When we are making an aesthetic judgement are we also making an aesthestic judgement? Hence we decided to make a "fair" judgement we must be very specific i.e. From the purely objective POV of the artwork (strokes, colours, contrast etc.) , the art is good art however it is morally wrong. However we also agreed that this makes an art piece hard to judge as we must always separate the art from the morality.

-Scribed by Jia Sheng ;D