Should art carry a moral message?

Question

does the artist's sense of morality comes inextricably with his/her perspective?............. or is there a line to what they are expressing that artists must not crossed so as not to be patronizing?
What d'ya think?

Thanks all for your answers :-)

Answer 1

Artists have the skill and audacity to do things that are provocative in the name of their craft or creative gift. Let them do as they choose and live with the results. But, can a specific artist distinguish between morality (individual choices) and ethics (collective choices) when recognizing where that metphorical "line" is? Let those who do, and do not, appreciate the art decide...yes, it is risky.

Answer 2

I don't think it should but it's up to the artist to decide if they want to carry a moral message in their work.

I think an artists sense of morality does come form his/her own perspective, as it does for all of us. We all have our own morals.

I don't know about a line not being crossed to think they might be patronizing with their message. I think creative expression is the most important thing. If an artist has a message to convey than it's only subjective anyway. A true artist usually paints from what comes out of his/her mind/heart; what inspires them---and even if it has a mes sage it should still be left up to the person viewing the piece of work to derive their own message--moral or otherwise---from it.

great question.

Answer 3

There is no rule for where the inspiration comes...some moral values that are not respected may cause the artist feelings expressed later in his work for example....and you can say that his new creation carries a moral message...like Picasso's "Guernica", that impresses due to some war scraps recreated artistically...and his message is somehow moral if you think that wars are immoral...

Answer 4

I assume the answer to be yes, because in and of itself, ALL art is a moral message. Each individual has morals, whether or not they allign with ours is irrelevent in art. The artist's personal response (artwork) is molded and formed by these morals. No matter if their personal response (piece of art) is negative or positive, it is a message to it's audience, leading them to interpret their own response and their personal morals. This is what leads to the drawing of lines to be crossed.

Answer 5

Not sure but this is what I read according to some Pew Poll. The majority of Americans get their news from Cable. About 80%, Of that percent, Fox News has by far the biggest audience. So does that mean most of the country is controlled? That would leave a real small minority listening to "liberal" media yet they "parrot there reactionary ideology" are they controlled also? How come fox is doing a better job?

Answer 6

The moral message of post- modernism is such banality that their attempts at moralization answers your question. If you have a moral message to convey do not conflate morality and artistic status seeking.

Answer 7

No way, art express the feelings of a composer not public morality.

Answer 8

Art certainly CAN carry a moral message, but it is not its DUTY to do so. Art can be for art's sake. For beauty. Why limit art's function to just one thing? It can be polemic, educative, entertaining, provoking, funny. The beauty of art is surely in its diversity.

Answer 9

Well, morals is an easier topic to speak about than type about, here are some strong examples of morals...

http://youtube.com/profile_videos?user=irishdictator

Answer 10

Art represents what the artist intends & nothing more. It is theirs to put into it what they want. Your responsibility is to like it, or not.
You can't put external morality or anything else on it.
It is what it is.