Can the artist be immoral in his pursuit?

Answer 1

Who's morals?

(That should answer the question)

Answer 2

I disagree with the answerer above. I realize this, in your mind, may be the ultimate example of emotionalism, but I feel that the pursuit of an "investment"( in this case, his art) through art isn't immoral. I realize this is situational, but if this artist is planning on using such an investment's benefits with the intent of self preservation, the preservation of a loved one, or philanthropy, the artist isn't immoral. I also realize that the question is can an artist be immoral in his pursuit, and if this is meant to be a yes or no question without shades of gray, than yes.

Answer 3

Yes, when the purpose of the artist is not art.

For example, a talentless alcoholic who spills paint on a canvas and rationalizes why its art and charges thousands of dollars for a splattering is clearly not in it for the art.

Anthony Blunt, the famous art historian for the British Royal family, said he thought modern art was a hoax. I tend to agree.

Some modern artists are more interested in creating 'investments' and not art. So just find some derelict in a homeless shelter, have him do something controversial on canvas (like Andy Warhol urinating on canvas and selling it for thousands of $$$ to some fool) and create this great story about the artist's 'unusual life' and 'unusual life view', and then market and hype it up to death, then find someone to buy the art for really big bucks. Its done all the time. Some fool paid $11 million dollars for a Jackson Pollock paint splattering.

So when the purpose of the artist is not art but to create an investment for big money, then YES any artist can be immoral in their pursuit.

Answer 4

In Gender Studies, I sometimes think of if there is a boundary between Pornography and Art. One judge in the States made a sensational statement, "I cannot define what a pornography is, but I know when I see one." Setting aside the debate on if Pornography is immoral, just for the sake of an argument, take it that it is immoral. The question becomes really tricky when it has to draw a line for art that depicts nudity. It is because both art and pornography depict nudity.

I once tried a bit of an experiment. I had a picture of Michelangelo's David and I put a sign saying CENSORED on his genitalia. I also had a picture of the Birth of Venus and I put two stars on her breast and put a small banner covering her genitalia.

I also had a reenactment picture of David done by a real human model and also the same for the Birth of Venus.

The response was a rather mixed. I did not take any poll on how people reacted, but "CENSORED" signs made it look art more pornographic. For the real human body, the reaction was interesting in that ordinarily some would say it is pornographic, but nonetheless the impressions of the art they say through the naked bodies also made them perceive of nudity as art...

Perhaps the knowledge of what counts as pornography (immoral) each of us has ultimately makes art seem pornographic or immoral.

There are certain art I believe is purely immoral. For example, art that depicts and advocates pure violence. For example, heroic depiction of Hitler or SS officers at Auschwitz. These can be extremely controversial because what is being presented is the same, but how it is being perceived is not the same.

I once saw a T-shirt with a castration theme. Most people do not even think twice and some do take it as cool. (I don't) I cannot be certain as to what they really have in mind or what is it that they are trying to express through such a t-shirt or art. Perhaps the authors are to be asked as to what their intentions were... Perhaps that T-shirt was advocating respect for people or sending off a message "think twice." Or perhaps it was literally advocating use of castration on some people.

Some people can be smart enough to further point out that their point in their art is to make people think; but I do not think that can go on without any limitation. For instance, you would not even dare think of a t-shirt with following words: Lets have sex with kids or Incest is Cool. Those are just to show that there are lines that cannot be crossed and beyond those lines, arts can be immoral...

The problem further goes into where people generally draw a line. One thing that is not in question is that there is no such a thing as unlimited expression of art: most people do agree that there are arts that can be immoral.

Interesting question...

Answer 5

The artist, if a true artist, is motivated from an insatiable desire to create...this passionate pursuit leaves no room for moral or immoral thought.

Answer 6

any person can be in an immoral pursuit

Answer 7

The design maybe and biography, should someone choose to research it's form.

Answer 8

look at Picasso. I rest my case.

Answer 9

Yes, but we wouldn't know it