Immoral Art

Dr. Stan Yake presented two essays to the class and posed the question: Can we have immoral art; and how might we characterize it?


When viewing art, I often do not think of the actual work as possessing moral characteristics. Without sounding too literal, I feel that art objects or most inanimate objects for that matter do not possess moral qualities and I would actually describe them as being a-moral if anything. It is the ideas and intentions behind the art, produced by the artist which could be evaluated as being moral or not. Without this context, I don't think art objects can possess any moral qualities. In class, Dr. Yake used the example of a visual artwork such as a commercial designed to promote racism. Although the ideas which are being portrayed here might be immoral, and the intent may be immoral, I can't say that the actual work possesses these qualities.

This belief goes hand in hand with my thoughts that art cannot be evaluated as moral or immoral because the concept of "morals" varies person to person. There are no set standards as to what morals are "the right ones". I will use an example that I feel is similar to the one which Dr. Yake used; A visual art work, such as a commercial designed to promote same-sex marriage. Now, based on my personal morals, I would say that a work such as this would fall within my beliefs of what is acceptable. However, people do not always think the same way, and there are many people who believe that a piece of art which would send a message that same-sex marriage is acceptable is in fact immoral. They could argue that some religions tell us otherwise, and some do. People's views on this are not constant, and therefore how could I evaluate whether or not we can have immoral art if morals are based on individual perception?




check out this link to a blog I stumbled across which discusses Michael Jacksons death in relation to morality and art.