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?