Introduction
Works of art are by definition methods of conveying feeling, consequently, they appeal to the moral perspective within their observers and would therefore be subject to moral scrutiny.
Whether works of art are immune from moral judgment
Works of art cannot be immune from moral judgment because morality itself is a central portion of human life. This is largely because man is guided by his or her religious beliefs; where religion itself is a reflection of the highest understanding of life’s meaning. Throughout time, man has ceaselessly tried to comprehend his reason for living and this has been made possible through religion. It is through religion that great men and women have arisen who have been able to articulate what man’s purpose truly is. In essence, these very leaders and the rites associated with their beliefs are what constitutes a religion.
Given the latter assertion, it is imperative to understand how this argument ties in with moral judgment on art. First of all, people always convey different feelings to one another depending on and when this is taking place, there are judgments on whether those feelings are moral (good) or immoral (bad). If the feelings tend to move away from religious ideologies, then chances are that those feelings will be labeled as immoral. Likewise, good feelings are those that fall in line with people’s religious perceptions. Since art is characterized by the transmission of feelings between various parties, then it must also be subject to the same level of scrutiny as any other method of conveying feelings. It must conform to society’s perception of righteous or immoral actions as this is something inevitable in every being. Art that captures this yearning towards religious perfection will therefore be categorized as good art and vice versa.
However, some people have put forward differing arguments concerning this matter – they have stated that subjecting art to moral judgment solely because religion is at the center of people’s lives does not incorporate the views of atheists or non-religious individuals.
Adherents to this school of thought claim that even during the renaissance period when individuals started rejecting religion as the standard for enjoying art, they resorted to a different standard for assessing art i.e. beauty. At that time, members of the upper class felt that their lifestyles were contradictory to religious teachings and that choosing to stick to such teachings would be self-defeating. Nonetheless, they still needed a parameter against which they could judge the moral worth of action and this was its aesthetic form. While the latter view may have become a very common one, several problems emanated out of such a theory. First of all, it was retrogressive because it mirrored occurrences in ancient empires such as Greece. At that time, society had not yet fully comprehended the difference between what is good and what is beautiful. Most of them mixed up the three elements of moral ideals i.e. beauty, truth, or good. In other words, the ancient Greeks had not yet fully developed these concepts.
Aesthetic theory adherents cannot claim that their standards for assessing art are valid because there are some fundamental differences between these three terminologies of art. ‘Good’ things are those that tend to ascribe to the highest ideal in life. ‘Beautiful things’ are those that please the observing party while ‘true’ things are those which have a commonality between their essence and their definition. Consequently, when a particular art piece is judged solely based on its beauty, then it will be conforming to a very simplistic method of assessment. When individuals judge art according to its ability to conform to what is good or bad, then they are recognizing the importance of that particular object. This means that art ought to be subjected to moral judgment because doing so would mean that art is being treated in high esteem. Merely reducing art to an object that causes pleasure would be making art too shallow or simplistic.
It is imperative to understand works of art in the context to know whether these types of art forms should be subject to moral judgment. According to Plato, no single art form should be treated as a unique provider of social utility because it is a form of imitation. He further adds that when society focuses too much on art, then it starts dwelling on irrational thoughts that are far removed from reality. This argument can be quite useful in the discussion topic of morality because it is also founded on the premise that the arts are designed to appeal to man’s emotional side. Any aspects that touch on the issue of emotion must also entail a standard of measure against which to assess those feelings as either good or bad. Consequently, since a form of art is usually designed in such a manner as to appeal to the senses, then it can and should be subject to moral assessment.
Plato further brings out an interesting perspective to art where he asserts that artists fall below craftsmen in the creativity chain because they can imitate an imitation. In this case, the first imitation is the true form of the object they are trying to portray (which is normally made by craftsmen). Artists are masters of illusion because they can make an object seem perfect. Artists such as painters are capable of drawing a piece of furniture and giving precise details of all its features even when they have never made even a single table. This means that the latter category of people is highly capable of making impressions that they may not even have engaged in.
Given the latter assertion, David may not fall in line with some of the assertions brought out by Plato. David claims that his form of performance art has no direct linkage to the moral world because the two aspects are completely separate. He claims that performance should be judged purely on its aesthetic value and nothing more than that. However, to make such a presumption would be very dangerous because as it has been seen by Plato, art should be criticized thorough examination of its social utility. If art is to be useful to man, then it must possess some relevance to other parts of that individual’s lifestyle. What this means is that there must be the incorporation of an intellectual aspect and a spiritual one as well. Art cannot operate in isolation because the very people that it is designed to appeal to are not necessarily isolated. The truth of the matter is that these individuals are guided by moral dimensions and consequently, one must look for ways in which one can embrace all the dimensions governing man while carrying out one’s art piece.
In other words, art need not be assessed purely on one dimension of human life i.e. the moral or the intellectual aspects alone, it needs to embrace all these aspects to be useful to society. This also means that the degree to which a work of art displays the latter aspects needs also to be examined and a decision made on what could be the most relevant way of aging it. For instance, the pyramids of Giza contain both elements of morality and intellect intertwined. However, their appeal to the sense is more intense than its appeal to emotions. This is because the moral standards broken to complete such a project were acceptable at that time i.e. slave labor and so were its intellectual aspects. On the other hand, when one looks at David’s suggestions concerning art i.e. that murder is an expression of art, one’s moral aspects are immediately awakened here.
This means that there is always a limit that may necessitate the awakening of a certain sense. When the action that has been committed is completely out of tune with society’s moral standard at any one time, then that piece of art must solicit moral judgment. On the other hand, if the work of art has only slightly violated these moral standards, then chances are that it can be accepted by other individuals or groups as part of the moral climate being propelled. This also means that it can be classified as good art. The Pyramids of Giza had not violated any of society’s values at that time because slavery was tolerated and people assessing that project could get past this moral issue. However, there will be a problem with David’s piece of art because society regards murder as an immoral act today. This means that it ought to be categorized as bad art because the extent to which the artist has gone to defy moral standards is very extreme.
Tolstoy in his article ‘ What is art’ attempts to get to the actual definition of art. This is an important step because when one understands what art truly is, then it can then be possible to locate the exact role that morality plays in the assessment of art. Numerous art lovers believe that art is how people can derive beauty; where beauty is seen as either an ideal issue or pleasure derived from a certain object without bringing out lust. Tolstoy further points out how both these definitions of beauty are subjective because they both depend on the feelings that are created by that art. Consequently, such definitions are imprecise.
Even before unraveling the accurate definition of art or beauty, one can still utilize the latter argument to oppose David’s standpoint. David claims that Murder can become a form of art and that it should not be subjected to any form of moral scrutiny. However, such a premise would not be realistic because there is an artistic circle of individuals (usually the upper class) who decided on what versions of art accord them pleasure and then justify any flaws in other works of art once those works have been accepted. The latter dimension may be very unpredictable but it does not undermine the fact that such behavior exists. Since judgments on good art are sometimes pre-determined by the existence of certain artistic circles, then it would be imperative to understand that an act such as murder will also be subject to intense scrutiny by the latter group. This group has already come up with its expectations of what ideal art should be and they are usually able to tolerate some deviations. It is highly unlikely that they will accept murder as one of these forms because it does not embrace some of these common perceptions.
Irrespective of the assertion made by Tolstoy that the latter definition of art is vague, one can still find counterarguments concerning David’s assertions through the accurate definition of art. According to this critic, true art should not be defined by its ability to create certain feelings in other individuals. Instead, it should be defined by its significance and importance in the world. In this regard, little attention should be given to the reasons behind liking one piece of art compared to another. Tolstoy asserts that art occurs when a certain individual can induce in another individual the same feelings that the initiator is undergoing through certain external features. This is the reason why some people can find any of the following ideas in a piece of painting
- Sadness
- Fear
- Peace
- Rejection
- Transitions
- Cheer
- Etc
All these forms are not just restricted to the conventional forms of art that most people are accustomed to. Art is in all phases of human life i.e. when people are telling jokes, wearing clothes, buying utensils, and the like. Tolstoy asserts that there are two ways in which people have interpreted art wrongly. First, some have asserted that all art should be rejected because it would be corrupting. On the other hand, others have asserted that all art should be accepted because denying it would be minimizing the amount of pleasure that could emanate from it. Both these perspectives are inaccurate because they stray from the more balanced definition of art which incorporates the two perceptions being propelled by these individuals.
David needs to realize that not all forms of art can be tolerated. This is because the feelings being conveyed by the artist must first be in line with what the observer believes for him or her to conceptualize those feelings. It would therefore be very difficult for David to communicate his feelings to such an extreme form of art as most people do not relate to it.
Conclusion
From the latter assertions, it has been seen that religion and hence morality play a central part in people’s lives. This means that people are bound to assess the extent to which an art piece is either good or bad through this very parameter. Aside from that, true art is depicted by the ability to create in others similar feelings. Consequently, people who do not accept murder will not be able to understand. This is the reason why murder as an art form is simply not acceptable.