Art and Morality

[Pluto]

So that would indicate that you did not even write the text to which we are referring.

Presumably that is why you don't know what it means any more than I do.


Would it indicate that I didn't write it, I don't know if it would. Okay so, I took it from another source and slightly adapted it to fit my idea, therefore when you ask what does it mean I can't really honestly say, is this better?

If you had admitted to your plagiarism earlier this would have avoided the argument.
Thanks for being honest.

That's what I mean, this version makes more sense to you, that I copied the text from somewhere, in a way it is like you prefer this version. But, I did write it. I just don't want to unravel it.

Cheers.

[chaz wyman]

So that would indicate that you did not even write the text to which we are referring.

Presumably that is why you don't know what it means any more than I do.


Would it indicate that I didn't write it, I don't know if it would. Okay so, I took it from another source and slightly adapted it to fit my idea, therefore when you ask what does it mean I can't really honestly say, is this better?

If you had admitted to your plagiarism earlier this would have avoided the argument.
Thanks for being honest.

That's what I mean, this version makes more sense to you, that I copied the text from somewhere, in a way it is like you prefer this version. But, I did write it. I just don't want to unravel it.

Cheers.

You are a moron.

[Pluto]

You are a moron.

Fine.

[duszek]

You are right, Pluto, about the bad news on TV.
There is also some American saying: "Bad news sells" or "Good news is no news".

Repeating bad news again and again makes us worry about things we cannot change. And this is not good.
Why don´t psychologists do something about it and check the news for their ability to impair the mental health of the general public ?

[duszek]

You are a moron.

Fine.

I hope I am able to imagine the right tone of the voice in which you say it ....

[Pluto]

You are right, Pluto, about the bad news on TV.
There is also some American saying: "Bad news sells" or "Good news is no news".

Repeating bad news again and again makes us worry about things we cannot change. And this is not good.
Why don´t psychologists do something about it and check the news for their ability to impair the mental health of the general public ?

There are some psychologists who write books about this kind of thing or at least hit on it in some way, but I think most are financed by institutions which are in some way part of the 'establishment' and so might feel like they are shooting themselves in the foot. The psychologist Oliver James has written a few books that touch on aspects of television watching and content. But in a way the books are more concerned with depression and modern life. It would be a great project book to write for someone who had the time and energy. What happens to a person's outlook, belief system when they've consumed all 192 episodes of '24'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_(TV_series)

http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/po ... ook&id=696

Cheers

[EmilyBaker]

In an age where an almost complete breakdown of morality has occured, does morality in art now hold a much more legitimate and potentially revolutionary coupling? Art as a vehicle with morality as its passenger navigate a way out or way forward from a moribund present.

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-t ... d-morality

This talk below seems to focus on whether a morally dubious artwork can be seen as good art but I'm more interested in whether an artwork can be moral in the sense of opening up a new space of hope. What would this look like. The artworks would collectively create a conduit of sorts through which you would be able to move through unimpeded. Like a non-contaminated space, where present flotsam and jetsam couldn't enter. How to make an artwork that hasn't got the dust of now in its bones. Can I make something outside the now. Why would I want to.

http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1175435;jses ... B4E1210DDA

This idea of art as opening a new space of hope reminded me of a really passionating (and slightly heated) debate between Jake Chapman and Matthew Stone, the central disagreement being on whether art should be optimistic or not. The debate was organised at our philosophy and music festival - HowTheLightGetsIn. Here is the link to the video (this is a short but the whole debate 'Dancing with the devil' should be available on the website):
http://bit.ly/zrXPlU

Although I'd tend to sit with Matthew Stone, Jake Chapman has a point - you can't expect art to fulfill a necessarily optimistic function. Or else you are neglecting at least half of human experiences...
What do you think?

[Pluto]

In an age where an almost complete breakdown of morality has occured, does morality in art now hold a much more legitimate and potentially revolutionary coupling? Art as a vehicle with morality as its passenger navigate a way out or way forward from a moribund present.

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-t ... d-morality

This talk below seems to focus on whether a morally dubious artwork can be seen as good art but I'm more interested in whether an artwork can be moral in the sense of opening up a new space of hope. What would this look like. The artworks would collectively create a conduit of sorts through which you would be able to move through unimpeded. Like a non-contaminated space, where present flotsam and jetsam couldn't enter. How to make an artwork that hasn't got the dust of now in its bones. Can I make something outside the now. Why would I want to.

http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1175435;jses ... B4E1210DDA

This idea of art as opening a new space of hope reminded me of a really passionating (and slightly heated) debate between Jake Chapman and Matthew Stone, the central disagreement being on whether art should be optimistic or not. The debate was organised at our philosophy and music festival - HowTheLightGetsIn. Here is the link to the video (this is a short but the whole debate 'Dancing with the devil' should be available on the website):
http://bit.ly/zrXPlU

Although I'd tend to sit with Matthew Stone, Jake Chapman has a point - you can't expect art to fulfill a necessarily optimistic function. Or else you are neglecting at least half of human experiences...
What do you think?

Hi Emily, thanks for your post. The talk is interesting but also pretty confusing, which I guess is to be expected being such a vast topic. I think both artists outlooks are valid, though I think Stone's conception of art is closer to the kind of art which is needed. I feel he is talking about something that will most certainly be investigated further by a number of artists at the beginning of the 21st Century. And for that I thank you again for posting it.

Art is and can be many different things, it can be foolish, serious, scary, moralist, nihilistic, playful, boring, hateful, beautiful, confusing, obvious, etc. But I think now is a good time to see what it can do as a force against and beyond nihilism.

Art is the distinctive countermovement to nihilism.
—Martin Heidegger

http://australasiannietzschesociety.net ... zschef.pdf

Further reading:
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/ ... chPoli.pdf

[artisticsolution]

Hi Emily and Pluto,

Very interesting conversation. I tried listening to the link but my computer was being difficult, I will try again tomorrow.

A quote Pluto posted caught my attention in regard to Ar and morality.

Art is the distinctive countermovement to nihilism.
—Martin Heidegger


Something very odd happened today that I feel is tied to this thread (at least from my perspective as an artist). That quote made me feel much better about it as I was second guessing myself (thanks pluto). Here's the scenerio:

My husband called to remind me to make a Dr.'s appt, ( last night I found a lump.) I wasn't going to make an appt...not because I am afraid of doctors or of being sick, but simply because I don't know if I would want life saving treatment...so what's the point...right? I think I would rather just die. When I told my husband this he became quite distressed. He said, "If you really believe that then we have bigger problems and I think we need you get you professional help." This came as quite a shock to me that he did not understand where I was coming from.

I don't think there are alot of happy people who are okay with dying....but I am. I am excited about my life and my art but am not overly concerned with the quantity of years I have left. Quality would be nice, but quantity for quantities sake does nothing for me.

I remember once some dr saying that nihilism is a mental illness of sorts...a type of depression...which I thought odd....but the Heidegger quote I think is more accurate regarding nihilism. That there are certain things that are the antithesis of nihilism and I think art is one....at least for me. Death I could care less about...I could get run over tomorrow....nothing I can do....but art...it is something to care for....

Anyway, not wanting to make hubby any more distressed, I called and made a dr's appt for next week. And I will do whatever my husband thinks I should do regarding my health. Seriously, I didn't think it was a big deal...me dying...but apparently he thinks my attitude is a concern. Which got me to thinking about the morality of my actions.

So as far as art is concerned, if we are creating art for others, do we have a responsibility to think about the morality of our actions? I think the answer is yes, if our art will directly harm another. Like for example, I don't think using a child as a model for a nude painting would be okay morally speaking.

Art is just art after all, and even though it is the only thing worth living for...it's still not more important than a human life.

My thoughts about my life and my art are not more important than the feelings of the people I love.

[Tor_Hershman]

[chaz wyman]

NIce nips.

Is that all you are going to do here - fill up the threads with rubbish?

[Tor_Hershman]

quote]


NIce nips.

Is that all you are going to do here - fill up the threads with rubbish?

One being's philosophy is another being's rubbish, yes/no?

[chaz wyman]

quote]


NIce nips.

Is that all you are going to do here - fill up the threads with rubbish?

One being's philosophy is another being's rubbish, yes/no?

Sure.

I don't get this poster.

[Pluto]

This is quite clear yet points to something fundamental in my work:

"In a fractured, post-enlightenment world, painted pictures become sight-models. Creating a participatory space as aid to structured thinking."

[chaz wyman]

This is quite clear yet points to something fundamental in my work:

"In a fractured, post-enlightenment world, painted pictures become sight-models. Creating a participatory space as aid to structured thinking."

Oh - why did you not say that this was didn't mean anything?
All the other's are cheap puns!




Helium moth
Out-a-mytha-retarda

How does that aid structured thinking?