Ethics in Art

My personal opinion on Gaut’s theory is in disagreement. I disagree with Gaut’s theory because I support the notion that the ethics behind the art work is irrelevant to the aesthetic evaluation of the piece itself. There are several possible scenarios where an incredibly detailed painting could be construed based off of a morally flawed character while a less well executed piece could be created based off of a well known moral character and the evaluation of the works would become problematic under the ethicism theory. For example, if a painting is created based off of an image of Hitler, Gaut would claim that it is ethically flawed because the subject of the painting is not a morally good person. In comparison to a painted created based off of an image of Jesus, the image of Hitler would clearly be identified as ethically flawed. A problem arises when the painting of Hitler is created by a famous artist who is clearly talented by means of the way that the painting of Hitler comes out to be very realistic, almost as though it were a photograph. If the image of Jesus was painted by a seven year old, who is clearly not as talented in art if only by means of lack of experience, it would be difficult to judge the image of the more moral figure (Jesus) as a better aesthetic piece than that of the unmoral figure (Hitler) because of the clear difference in aesthetic detail. Judgments on how an art work is evaluated should be divorced from ethics in order to reveal the true value of aesthetics. To what degree would Gaut argue the importance of ethicism in aesthetic value?

Contradictions

Gaut’s idea behind the importance of ethics in evaluating aesthetics is subjective. Gaut seemingly seems to contradict himself multiple times in his essay where he argues ethical importance. Although Gaut believes that the morality of a work of art is an important component in how it is evaluated, he remains open to the idea that great works of art exist which are ethically flawed. Gaut’s ethicism theory on aesthetics maintains the idea that “if a work manifests morally bad attitudes it is to that extent aesthetically flawed,” (page 590). Here he seems to be interchanging the ideas that those art works which are ethically flawed are also aesthetically flawed even though he previously clarifies that his ethicism theory does not imply that “manifesting ethically good attitudes is a sufficient condition for a work to be aesthetically good,” (page 589). Gaut’s multiple statements are in contrast with one another here by saying that it is not necessary for a work to be ethically good in order to be aesthetically good but great works of art exist which are aesthetically flawed but that if a work displays a morally bad attitude it is then aesthetically flawed. How would Gaut justify this apparent contradiction? Is there another way of interpreting these statements which would give Gaut’s ethicism theory more or less validity?

In Response to Katie's Question

Yes, I think that knowledge of a subject helps to increase the appreciation of the subject because I do not think that someone can honestly appreciate something without having a solid knowledge about what it is that he or she is trying to appreciate. When a person goes into an art gallery, he or she has a general expectation about what he or she is bound to view. Upon entrance to the gallery, the more that the individual knows about the art pieces at hand, the more likely he or she is to appreciate it for what it is worth. By having a wide range of knowledge on a particular subject matter, it can aid in appreciation in several ways. For example, if a work of art in the form of a play is taken into consideration, the play may be a comedy, consisting of many jokes which the viewers will only be able to appreciate for its comedic value if they have a general understanding of the subject matter discussed in the jokes. This is not to say that an individual must have an intense knowledge base in the subject matter because even if a viewer does not know how to interpret a particular art piece such as a painting he or she may still be capable of appreciating the work for other characteristics which it possesses, such as the medium used or the color patterns that are present. Do you think that it is possible to appreciate something without having any understanding of what it is or what it is supposed to be?

In Response to Jacob's Second Question (Week 11)

I do not think that Walton’s pretend theory is pejorative to artists because it is reasonable that when a person views a work of art and experiences an emotion, he or she is only experiencing a quasi-emotion granted that it is only something that evokes the emotion by being relatable rather than actually arousing the emotion by its own merits. If an artist is not capable of generating the intended emotion in the observer it does not make viewers disapprove of art in general because only a select handful of art works are unable to do so. If all art was unable to generate emotions in onlookers, it would be understandable to argue that disapproval should be made contingent on the concept of art functioning to elicit emotions, but art is still able to hold other functions apart from conveying a particular emotion or emotions. When a work of art does not generate the intended emotion it usually does not do so in all viewers, but rather some are able to grasp the emotions while others are not. Do you think there is a work of art which is incapable of being understood by everyone? Do you think that if this work of art which people do not understand was interpreted in a different way by the majority of the population it would still be considered successful art because it was able to convey an emotion strongly, just not the correct emotion?

In Response to Jacob's First Question (Week 11)

When observing fictional entities, many observers do tend to accept the principal of make-believe. Accepting this principle may be a deliberate act if, for example, a viewer goes into the movie theatre to view a movie clearly marked as fictional with that knowledge in mind. The viewer may then still be frightened by what is on the screen but may be repeating to him or her self “this is just make believe” just as one might explain to a child woken in a state of fright from a nightmare “it was just a dream”. Accepting this principle may not be so much of a deliberate act as an unconscious one though. Many people have the general understanding that the people seen on television or movie screens are just actors playing a character and that the character demonstrated on television does not truly exist. Through common knowledge this notion could be expanded upon to generalize the unrealistic nature of the actors playing a character to creatures present on screens not being real as well. The example of a person passing through a room with a movie playing and experiencing fear at the sight of the content would most likely be explained by Walton as still having been unconsciously understood that the content is make-believe because it was present on a screen, a clear indicator that it was separated from reality. Here, the observer who is effected by accident still accepts the principle even though he or she was not intending to watch the movie and therefore still engages in the fictional world. Do you think movies such as “The Ring” where the villain suggests the breaking of the safety of the screen by coming through the television makes any more of an impression than other horror movies even though the viewer is still clearly protected from the content of the movie by means of it still occurring on a screen and only a screen?

In Response to Brandon's Question

I think that there are several paintings or movie scenes that could be argued as considered better than those which exist in the natural world. Artists may be inspired by the natural world, but chose to alter it in a way in which their painting adds something to the natural world which does not exist in reality. Paintings or movie scenes based off of the natural world but altered to add something that does not exist can add an element of mystery or wonder which is enjoyed by the viewer. Many artists take into consideration what is appealing to the majority of the audience when beginning their creations. In the world of dance, dances are often created on the basis of what the audience has best responded to in the past and based off of this knowledge new dances can be created theorizing about what the audience would like to see because of their reactive history. Painters could easily do the same with their paintings by seeing which of their past pieces created received the most enjoyment and taking that into consideration when creating a new painting (one which may even be considered to be an improvement of their previous works). Here, imitation is not a bad thing because it could help with improvement. Should painters keep their viewers perspective in mind when creating a new painting, or does this hinder the possibilities that could arise if the painter paints without thinking of the viewer’s reactions to the work?

Art and Location

In his essay, Carlson makes the statement in reference to art pieces (in particular, paintings) stating that “its colors are aesthetically important, but where it hangs is not,” (page 538). This statement implies that no matter where an art piece is presented, it will always be considered art. I disagree with this idea because I believe that for some, but not all, works of art the location of its presentation is necessary for its consideration as art. When a painting is presented in a well known art museum which has good standing, it is less likely that a viewer would look at the work and think “I do not know whether or not I would consider this to be art”. Works hung in art museums are less likely to be debated about as falling under the category of “art” because it has seemingly already been decided as so granted that it is hung in a location that centers itself around art. The most prevalent example of this occurring is with many works of modern art. Take a modern art work which consists of just a splash of color as if flicked off from an artist’s paintbrush. Here the artist intended to flick his brush off and let the color splash onto a canvas and then the work was framed and put into a highly recognized art museum. The same artist could do the same thing but to a different location, and have it debatable as to whether or not it should be considered as art. For example, the artist could flick the paintbrush so that some paint landed in a trash can instead of on a nicely presented canvas. Here the artist’s intent was the same, but from an on lookers perspective, the paint flicked onto the canvas which was hung in the art museum would be more likely to be accepted as art than the paint flicked into the trashcan even though intent was the same. Although the argument still exists as to the paint flicked into the trash can as being art, it could be assumed that the paint in the trash can is more debatable as art than the same work being hung in a well known art museum. What is your opinion on this subject matter? Is location important to some art pieces?