h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The second one is easy. Painting someone without their consent is immoral.

The first one...can Art be immoral. Hmm. Trickier and will need thinking about. Gilbert and George's eroticisation of Nazi regalia? Carravagggggio's and Degas' kiddie porn? (see thread passim).

What if you paint someone without consent, perhaps even against their will, but it actually improves their quality of life?

This strikes me as a bit of a silly discussion, where is there any separation between morality of art and morality of everything else?

What if you paint someone without consent, perhaps even against their will, but it actually improves their quality of life? >>> how do you work that out ,painting someone would inprove the quality of there life .

Well maybe they get sexually assaulted by young nubile women who loved Braveheart or something...

Leni Riefenstahl, actually, I think...

Given that men are created in the image of god (no, some people *honestly* believe that), then disfiguring that image in any way is blasphemy.

Dunno how that would affect women though...

I tend to think of Art as being amoral, because in general I think it's usually either a reaction to something, or a way of capturing something, or else it's just a massive woooohoooo act of creation.

I do think art can be used towards immoral purposes, and it would be really hard to draw the line between the thing and it's function.

Art can't be immoral?
What if, for example, an "artist" records the screams of animals he's torturing and calls it art? Stranger "art" has been made...

*I* wouldn't call something like that Art, Malabrista.

I'm not sure I'd call a recording of that nature immoral, in itself, but I'd consider the maker of it to be one sick puppy, and I'd find it immoral to support brutality and exploitation of that nature by listening to it, buying it, or giving the maker any further public attention than a call to the police.

On the other hand, if someone were to create something that *sounded* like their idea of animals being tortured by using musical instruments or local tools or a computer, and tie it into a concept(like How Critters Feel About The Things People Do To The Environment, for example) I would probably consider it to be Art, and I'd not find it immoral to support it.

Art can't be immoral?
What if, for example, an "artist" records the screams of animals he's torturing and calls it art? Stranger "art" has been made...>>.

tha'ts not art anyone would have a mental ilness to carry on like that .

I find it extremely interesting that we're having a discussion about art having a moral content, and Malabarista (?) posts a link to an art piece and it's yikes'd.

Which says to me that yes, there's something about that piece that someone finds immoral. Would I? Don't know, can't see it. Which is perhaps the real issue. Even if YOU find a piece of art immoral/degrading/disgusting/whatever, do YOU have the right to refuse to allow others to come to their own decision about it?

Leni! I knew the first name didn't look right!

>Even if YOU find a piece of art immoral/degrading/disgusting/whatever, do YOU have the right to refuse to allow others to come to their own decision about it?<

Nope. Though if the piece of art were the end result of an illegal activity (i.e., photographing nude underage models), I would be likely to report the crime to the proper authorities.

Otherwise, if it's something I don't like, I should let others decide for themselves. Which is why I resisted my original impulse to yikes tig/shifty's posting a few back which insinuates that (1)anyone with tastes different from his must be mentally ill, and (2)mental illness makes people violent and nasty.

What if, for example, an "artist" records the screams of animals he's torturing and calls it art?>>>>

well candy what would you call a person who likes doing the above comment .

shifty's posting a few back which insinuates that (1)anyone with tastes different from his must be mentally ill, and (2)mental illness makes people violent and nasty. >>

no thats not what i said look back ,

Good point MR, excellent point. Whether or not art is immoral, it is definitely immoral to censure art.

Agreed!

(I'd also like to add that just because certain activities are illegal/prohibited does not mean that I personally agree that they are immoral. I see nothing exploitative in taking a photo or painting a willing model regardless of their age. My parents have plenty of nude photos of me as a kid in the family album, is that also wring?)

I see nothing exploitative in taking a photo or painting a willing model regardless of their age. My parents have plenty of nude photos of me as a kid in the family album, is that also wring?) >>>>
that is Different most people have them type of pics in there albums of the childhood ,

<>

So majority rule is what determines morality? What if most people had those types of pictures in their photo albums, but with a carrot jammed up the child's rectum? Still okay?

I would say yes, jokingly and sarcastically, but it would get yikes'd and pulled. So I say emphatically NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!