Can we have immoral art; and how might we characterize it?

I believe there are three theoretical categories of immoral art and that real works of art can be found in all three theoretical categories.

I would characterize the first category as art produced by an immoral person, where the judgment of immorality is based upon the artist’s character and is not necessarily related to the actual production of said art. In such a case, a value judgment of immorality levied against an artist would then be transferred to the object of art through the association of its creation from an immoral source. Examples of this category of immoral art would be the art produced by Adolph Hitler, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, and Michael Jackson. (For more of Hitler's paintings go to http://quazen.com/arts/art-history/10-paintings-by-adolf-hitler/)

The second category would be characterized as art produced through immoral actions. Here, a value judgment of immorality levied against the method of artistic production would then be conveyed to the art object by virtue of its immoral fabrication. Examples of this category of immoral art would be: art produced from stolen materials or ideas; art produced involuntarily (from coercion in any form on any sentient being, i.e., slave or child labor, blackmail, all wild animal performances, inhumane domestic animal performances); art produced or performed through immoral actions such as killing a sentient being for the purpose of using their bodily fluids or other parts as a medium in an artistic creation (blood for paint, skin as canvas, bones in sculptures), utilizing paint drenched bodies in an orgy directed on canvas or sculpting medium (this has the potential to be a painting or sculpture created from an immoral act or a performance of an immoral act (category #3) or both); and art conceived, created, or performed while the artist/s are using illegal substances, i.e. heroin, cocaine, marijuana, peyote, and alcohol (when legal age-applicable). This category would also have to contain art conceived, created, or performed in a drunken (or other legally sanctioned, mind/consciousness altering substance) stupor – a morally deficient state. Here the immorality lies in the method and the means of production.

The third category would harbor any art offering for consumption representational, or actual, immoral objects and activities, including vocal and verbal communication. Art (including literary works of art and opera) depicting killing, maiming, raping, pillaging, war, crucifixions, slavery, domination, classism, prejudice, elitism, sexism, ageism, species extinction, lewd and lascivious dancing, music, or performances, acts of love-making or fornication, elimination of bodily wastes, expletives, or artistic performances involving any immoral language, gestures, sounds, or activities fall into this third category.

All three categories share one thing; we are not judging the morals of the art itself. Instead, we are judging the morals intrinsic to the art’s creators, or judging the morality of the manufacturing methods these creators employed to produce their art, or judging the morality or immorality of the ideas, objects, sounds, and actions, i.e., the content presented by the art’s creators.

Richard Westwood-Brookes, a historical documents expert at Mullock's of Shropshire auction house, on being questioned about the sale of Hitler-related artifacts said, "I don't take any moral position. You can't say this guy was a bad guy, so I won't sell his memorabilia, this guy was a good guy so I will sell his. If you do that, where do you stop?"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/23/hitler.auction/index.html

Morals and art are interpreted through the different perspectives born of culture, educated by life-experience, curiosity, and reflection. Art, which is itself an object and therefore lacks agency, is morally neutral. It is only within the context of the interaction between the art and its observer can the question of morals be raised. Moreover, that context will either be informed by, or ignorant of, the personal morals of its creator and/or the morality or immorality involved in the production and presentation of said work of art. It is within the framework of that context our reflections on morality should be deliberated. That context is ripe with “eyes of the other,” opportunities for Socratic Moments, and self-and societal-enrichment.

My Questions:

1.Do moral considerations, whether they concern the artist or the artistic object itself, have any relevance to whether or not a thing qualifies as a work of art?

2.Should the moral or immoral actions of artists effect how we evaluate their art?

3.Once created, does a work of art have its own existence, separate from its creator?

4.Once created, does a work of performance art have its own existence, separate from its performers?

Classifying Art in Nature

A response to Tania's question: In regards to art, how does one classify nature, clearly nature is functional, and as far as intention one may need to first consider a divine force in order to follow the question out a bit further, but if one were than where would it fit?

Some non-human sentient beings intentionally create architectural structures, others intentionally create (or recreate) music (performed solo, in duets, or in a chorus), some perform elaborate dances, some purposefully seek out specific objects that they then intentionally arrange in a unique pattern (“found art”), some adapt human-made instruments to create visual or musical arrangements. Given these facts, we should consider these types of non-human creations from an artistic point of view.

I believe beings with certain capacities far superior to human beings exist, however, I do not think that would necessarily make them divine beings. I do believe these meta-human beings intentionally create and express themselves in what human beings would consider artistic modes.

My Questions: Why do you think most human beings are so reluctant to consider the intentional artistic expression of mammals and birds as art?

Self-consciousness and Others

I believe the understanding in class is that, thus far, we have been discussing art philosophy from the anthropocentric perspective (a perspective I find incomplete in certain ways). After reading "Personhood and the Paradoxes and Challenges of Cultural Progress" I found myself wondering why many philosophical discourses continue to omit the potentially valuable inclusion of sentient non-human others. I assume there is a logical explanation for this purposeful omission, but I believe this omission interferes with our personal exploration and understanding of our world, with attending negative consequences for society.

Yake's discussion of Hegel's insight "we are what we can become as we see ourselves reflected in the eyes of those who look on us," was prefaced with the statement that "the flow and growth of personhood via self-consciousness is primarily the consequent of human interaction..." In today's disjointed society, with its incohesive families, estranged by divorce, physical, generational, and moral distances, more human beings find solace, companionship, and community in the company of non-human beings.

I am aware of how much I have grown (and seek to continue this self- and other-consciousness) from seeing myself reflected in the eyes of other (not human) beings. I believe that self- and other-consciousness would lead to moral considerations of others, creating a system of compassionate ethics that would encompass all sentient life forms.

My Question:
Can a self- and other-consciousness ethic be implemented in art?

Response to Jaime's Question: Does art exist without humans?

I believe that some members of nonhuman species engage in artistic expression on a par with human artistry; and that some, at times, experience ecstatic states, or metaphysical awareness from their own creation, or the appreciation of an other's artistic works. I believe that some birds, elephants, cetaceans, primates, monkeys, and canines produce art (some aural, some visual, some architectural).

I enjoyed your examples of feline art - they are extremely visually orientated beings, however, your point is well taken in that we are unable to determine (human limitation) what their intentions are for producing this art.

My Question:

Do you think art is necessarily metaphysical, meta-hedonistic, and should produce distinguishable evolution through insight, epiphany, increased understanding or awareness of self, others, or one's world to be considered as art?

Scruton's Claim of the Superiority of Instrumental Music

Scruton's claim is based on his belief that music has been designed as an inherently moral and religious tool for the evolution of humankind as individuals into morally and aesthetically superior societies. He uses the musical forms of historic Western/European societies as the standard against which he judges current musical forms. He chose traditional formation dance as the instrument to illustrate his claims of a properly ordered (and sexually obsessed) community, and that modern dance represents a decline in morals as well as music (p. 119).

I disagree with Scruton’s claims for a number of reasons. First, he is applying an historical culture-specific standard to the tapestry of a globalized, modern, culturally integrated (or at least, exposed) expression of music and dance. His references are temporally and spatially inappropriate for such modern globalized societies. Second, formation dance is well practiced in country music, contra-dance, polkas, Celtic and other traditions. Third, his claims ignore the universal biological element of music’s affect on sentient organisms.

Music is an undeniable force of life; sentient beings are compelled to respond to it. The degrees of response experienced by a species and by an individual exist on a continuum. I agree with Plato, Aristotle, and Scruton's assessment that music has potential for offering a character forming nature for us; some of its affect - the biological and emotional responses it elicits from its audience can be aspirational.

The majority of these responses have their origins in biology. I believe these original and primarily functions were engineered to facilitate reproduction in sentient beings (maybe this is why Scruton can't disengage dance from sexual expression?). As a species or an individual evolve, the physiological functions formerly served by music (or any inessential for life function an organism has evolved beyond) can be replaced by aesthetic, hedonistic, or spiritual patterns. Music’s primary role can shift; it can become a tool for socio-political purposes, or artistic and/or spiritual evolution of individuals or societies. I think music has always served individuals in this way, although I think the degree to which that occurs has been undervalued. Today’s society is a diverse, multicultural aggregate of class, age, and spiritual beliefs; and music is clearly a reflection of the societies that consume it.

My Questions:
1. Is globalization a greater influence on modern music than melody, harmony, tonality, or musical style?
2. What impact (if any) has globalization had on religiousness as it relates to music?