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?