Should Art Be Moral? 

Thank you to BetterHelp for sponsoring this video! get 10% off your first month at www.betterhelp.com/wisecrack

In many cases a lot of people miss the point of the art piece, in one side some people idolize characters or stories and in the other side people think that a character doing bad things means that the movie it self is endorsing those bad things.

I once heard it said, "Good art comforts the disturbed, and disturbs the comfortable." I think that's pretty true.

The emotional expression of an artist doesn't make them responsible for the actual, tangible actions of others. If your moral backbone, convictions, and self awareness are so flimsy that watching The Joker makes you commit murder, then experiencing morally grey art is a privilege that YOU have proven you don't deserve, NOT the artist.

Censorship and limiting artists’ creativity? Heck naw man

I think ethics & morality should be focused on actions, not thoughts.

Short answer: nope. Art can be whatever it wants to be moral, transgressive, heavy-handed, vapid, experimental, tropey, etc. Great video, as always.

Artists: Just do the best you can to tell the truth deeply, creatively, authentically. Consumers: Be engaged participants willing to resist the knee-jerk reaction and go beneath the surface.

Bill Moseley, the lead of several Rob Zombie’s movies, was having a discussion with Zombie about his character, Otis. Otis is, by any count, is a reprehensible human being. Bill was saying to Rob that he was bummed out because of it. Rob told him “Art is not safe.” Regardless of what you think of his movies, that sentiment is succinct and accurate.

Morality is subjective, same with art. Also, art doesn't even need to have any meaning or a message for it to be good. In some cases it is better if it doesn't.

The great thing about art is because it allows to visualize hypothetical scenarios, and engage with ideas at a distance.

It's hard to argue that the film "Joker" was encouraging people to be like the main character. Rick and Morty isn't suggesting you be like Rick. And Iron Man isn't suggesting you be like Tony Stark. Just because they're the main character doesn't mean you should try to be like them. Protagonist =/= Goodguy.

Sadly, I feel like the crux of this "issue" of art having to be moral or not ultimately comes down to the same thing that every other issue ultimately comes down to: There's a lot of stupid people out there. It's easy for intelligent, mature adults to sit back and say, "I can handle watching immoral things on-screen and knowing they're bad." ... but the reason people always hide behind kids when they have a moral panic is because kids are the go-to, universally-accepted example of humans that might be too stupid to understand dramatic irony. Kids aren't the only ones, though... it'd just sound bad to hide behind "dumb adults" as well. So the problem isn't really one of "should art be moral". It's more "Should we trust that the audience for morally-complex subject matter will be mature enough to understand it. or should we be tip-toeing around the idiots out there who are prone to taking the wrong message?" I guess it ultimately comes down to your faith in humanity. We can have all the best art ever that expertly explores morally-complex subject matter... but if you're handing it to a world full of idiots, then chances are, it's not gonna be worth what you want it to be, and could likely cause some bad trends. The Matrix can be an expertly-crafted allegory for the trans experience... but if you hand it to an audience full of bigoted right-wingers, they're gonna interpret it as their libertarian fantasy and use "Red Pill" as a slogan to spread far-right ideas. Does that mean that you shouldn't make a movie like the Matrix, if you don't want it misinterpreted? It's probably inspired a lot more crazy right-wingers than it has trans people, to be honest. To that end, the movie has almost done the exact opposite of what it was intended to do, on a moral level. Everybody tends to agree it's a great movie, no matter how they interpret the meaning of it, so does the exact moral takeaway from it actually matter? Is making a movie that's seen as well-made the only thing that matters, or should we care about what messages we're either intentionally or inadvertently sending? Should we care about people taking the supposed "correct" meaning from it, or should we just allow people to interpret it however they will, right or wrong, and whatever consequences there are, be damned? The example of Birth of a Nation is definitely apt on this point, and that one was actually INTENTIONALLY racist. Yet American History X is obviously intended to be anti-racist to anybody with a brain, but some people DO watch that movie and ENJOY the curb-stomping scene instead of seeing it as a dramatically ironic depiction of evil. Now what if that person then goes out and curb-stomps a black man? Does the difference of intention matter on the artist's part, when the result is the same? Should the artist be expected to tip-toe around the idiots out there and spoonfeed their audience a flashing sign during the whole story that says "Dramatic Irony Alert! This is not meant to be seen as okay!" It's a tough question, and it's one I definitely struggle with as a writer. I do often find myself worrying about my stories being misinterpreted, and I'm not sure if my attempts to mitigate those fears have resulted in better or worse storytelling. I usually have the instinct to just go for it and be brutally realistic in my depictions, but there is always that feeling of "You're gonna have to pull this back and handle it carefully." as well, anytime I think about my work actually being SEEN by people. Because I know people, and people ruin everything. I end up spending a lot of time worrying about trying to make a script "people proof" and try to account for any and all misinterpretations I can think of. Again, not sure if this makes the story better or worse, but I do tend to feel better if I can anticipate some kind of "Is this meant to mean x?" question and I can just point to a line of dialogue, twist in the story or something that addresses such a notion. Ideally, the hope is that people will just be engrossed by the story and not be worrying about what it means so much that it potentially ruins it for them. But ideals seldom turn out ideally. I think of the movie Whiplash, where I saw somebody review the movie by essentially saying, "I don't know if I agree with the message of that movie... but I definitely enjoyed watching it." And the message of that movie could be entirely different for different people... but if a movie can make you enjoy a story that you don't even feel you agree with... that is indeed a pretty powerful thing. And maybe a dangerous thing. The guy was likely interpreting the movie as endorsing the notion that bullying a student into being better will actually make them better and is maybe worth it. Is the movie actually saying that? Probably not. Can I see that being the takeaway from it? Easily. So is it a good movie or a bad movie? A successful movie or a failure? Somehow both? Do people admire the movie for its storytelling and what message you take away from it, or do they just care about the acting and intensity of the editing with the drumming, etc, and don't even care about what the movie is saying? Because that's a concern as an artist as well, which is that you can put all your effort into crafting a really perfectly moral message that you're proud of and wholeheartedly endorse... and then it just falls on deaf ears, because you made your movie too cool to just look at. And even then, how much is the message, whether interpreted accurately or not, still seeping in sub-consciously? Is it worth it to worry about it so much? I honestly don't know.

Moral? Then you'd be limiting the way people express themselves through art.

The issue is you have to ask "Who decides what art is "immoral"?". People every generation always think this or that will lead to immoral behavior while data usually shows the opposite. Take the Joker EVERYONE thought it would lead to death and violents while nothing happened however you know what movie did technically lead to violence? Star Wars A New Hope. The Oklahoma city bomber was inspired by the rebels and felt he was doing as them or look at the guy who shot John Lennon he was inspired by the book Catcher in the Rye. If pieces of art like these can cause death and murder then in a scenario where we censor "immoral art" who decides and how? My opinion is art is expressive subjective and censoring it would be like putting blinders on narrowing our view.

No, the very nature of art challenges culture even in the tension of the most controlled societies.

"a monk convinced mobs to burn anything he found heretical" ...yeah that definitely sounds like twitter ngl

Art, especially when commissioned, is always telling a certain point of view.

Agency/intent is what needs to be evaluated. Is it art, depicting immoral injustices or is it PROPAGANDA meant to spread immorality with its message?

It's quite a simple answer: No. There are two specific categories of media/culture that are demonstrate why this should be the case: art and comedy. Comedy essentially ceases to exist if it is held to the scrutiny of ethics (aside from obscure forms such as agent-neutral absurdist humor). Art, similarly, will struggle to push any boundaries if subjected to ethical conventions. This should not be controversial.

Daniel Sloss has a really good bit about Art and it’s meaning in his “Jigsaw” comedy special on Netflix. I encourage you to watch it, but the gist of his point is: “Just because you can find meaning in Art, doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what the artist intended, and vice versa”.

I feel like American Psycho does a great job of threading through that needle of morality in art. The book is a scathing satire of yuppie culture told from the insane perspective of Patrick Bateman while you can find video essays holding up the film as both a feminist movie by changes made in the directing/screenwriting when it was adapted and a role model for men who see Bateman as this archetypal man lashing out against modern society.

I think observing immoral behavior from a distance (like watching taxi driver for example) is ethical and even educational. Storytelling comes from tragedy, witch litterally is watching someone's wrong behavior to better understand and avoid that behavior.

I believe if art had to be moral nothing of value would ever get made.

I think the function of art is very layered. Some purely aestetic, some shows mirror of our society. Both is equally important and has its own purpose in our culture. We both need beauty and morals.

Art is supposed to ask a question to its audience. The artist throws to the world a question he often doesn't have the answer himself, and lets his audience make their own mind. Products that tell you what to think are not art. It is propaganda.

“The Walking Dead” would likely be seen by “Moralists” as both barbaric and dangerous, yet imagine if the creators of that world never explored its darkest aspects. What makes it great is how REAL the moral dilemmas become in a post-zombie apocalypse and how community/civility plays a vital role in survival. This is true even in our zombie-free world! Same with sad stories of child abuse. For an Artist to never touch that topic would be a disservice to victims who might never have known it’s morally and ethically WRONG without seeing it portrayed in a movie or tv show.

This is the discussion I had the other day after watching a documentary about Fawlty Towers. Given the shows age there are now parts that on the surface seem objectionable. However there is a context and ethical truth that gets ignored now.

The hottest take here is considering these outrage culture farmers to be the judges of defining morality.

Moderate autonomism seems the way to go. Sure some works can be judged morally and perhaps even progress society as a whole like Rent, the Get Out, Parasite, etc. However overindulging and obsessing with this moral lens when looking at art makes one prone to self righteousness and bias. Because one’s morals may not be the same as others stuff like echo chambers become inevitable. Liberals will only look at identity representation and conservatives will only look at “classic” traditional media for example. And some works shouldn’t be taken seriously, sometimes media is consumed for the sake of the art itself, and or for leisure. Escapism is one of the many functions of art, where morals and politics cannot shackle an individual with their depressive and nihilistic reality. A realm where one can dream and imagine a better world and relax in that dream even for just a moment. Or release negative and harmful thoughts and emotions in a harmless medium like games. To relieve stress and or be inspired to make something better, is a function of art without regard for moral or political leanings. Sometimes the sublime landscape painting or catchy tune is enough, rather than a video essay on how to save the world.

I have a degree in Art l, specifically Illustration, and gave a 30 minute presentation on Clive Bell while in college. You have hit on the crux of the conundrum some, but not many, artists find themselves in, which is making artwork that has a positive affect on the world by revealing a truth in a language that is both universal but ephemeral. And because of this the interpretation of the work itself is often not the intention of the artist, but at best some approximation of it, and at worst a total misinterpretation. Whether or not art is morally dangerous has more to do with whether the artist intends for it to be dangerous and just as importantly, whether there is a good chance the misinterpretation of that art also can potentially deliver a dangerous message. Personally I lie on the side that if the art gets across a nuanced message that rings true for the viewer, then it is a success. And the art that conveys a message that is true for the majority of people, while still being specific enough that the message is a nuanced take on the truth, then it is brilliant. There aren’t many examples of this because to prove these qualities in a piece of artwork, one must verbalize it. And to explain a piece of art in a way that actually gets at what the artist intended, generally means the art failed to convey that message through its particular medium. This is why anyone who explains what art is or what a particular piece of art means is missing the points. If it was a good piece of art, it would convey its message without words involved. Of course I’m speaking specifically of the visual arts.

Excellent video. You guys and gals at Wisecrack do a great job of exploring the information around a subject and presenting a balanced view. Good job. 🙂

This topic came up in a college class. The painting of the man eating a baby. I argued because it's disgusting it shouldn't be considered good art. My professor explained if I had these feelings the art is good because they were trying to evoke disgust. I eventually agreed after I thought about it.

Art is, at the end of the day, a window. A window into the artist, into the views that that artist has on society. All art should be viewed critically, evaluated under a lot of categories, including the ethics it conveys/promotes/criticizes. But, because ethics and values are culturally defined, it becomes a matter of individual interpretation. A great example is Chick Tracts. Depending on where you land, they are the ramblings of an unhinged, fundamentalist lunatic; the biblical truth and one man brave enough to stand against a decadent society; or some of the greatest satire written in the last 30 years, jabbing at the exact kind of babbling loons that share the values therein. It's tough to tell. Religious fundamentalists are difficult to satire because they are constantly hitting new lows.

Best example I can think of is Breaking Bad, a tale of bad decisions leading to disarray and tragedy under a broken a system that won't help these people.

I can’t believe I’ve never seen this channel. Really great well rounded videos

I think (and this I admit is highly subjective) that unless we fundamentally look at where our morality comes from and how we define art we can’t really have a good answer to this question. Although I did love the video, ultimately I feel that morality is the way things ought to be and art the way things are and thus I don’t see art as needing morality but it could done properly benefit from it.

Dang, you should've expanded on this with the Hays code, considering you bring up cinema a lot; its probably the most modern example of morality being forced upon on art and look how well that turned out lol

My favorite of your presentations thus far. I would love for you to do one about what you mentioned in passing, our moral obligations with regard to great art created by bad people. Some of my favorite masterpieces were created by severely flawed people.

I can't help but agree with what Heather Ringbell said about Joaquin turning to the camera and saying "now you do joker stuff", the film did come across that way to me, even though I cant put my finger on why.

IS this truly a separate question from, "Can you separate the art from the artist"? It seems to be quite a common sentiment these days that if the artist is "immoral", then the art is as well.

Hands down one of the best wisecrack vids !! Such a well done explanation

I think there's a difference between presenting a character doing an amoral thing in a good light and a bad light. In Joker, he's shown to be unhinged and delusional. He's sympathetic but killing people who make fun of you is still shown as wrong. Even people struggling with violent thoughts aren't going to find it more socially acceptable to give in to those urges or feel justified killing a rich/popular person because they watched Joker (they would find a different means to justify it or might be struggling with delusions to believe everyone agrees with them). However, in some media, relationships between students and teachers or a parent and their adoptive child are shown to be the desirable choice. The adult is usually portrayed to be young, upper 20s, and the child is portrayed as a mature teenager. The power balance is portrayed as equal and both of them are happy to be together. This can be used for an adult who is attracted to a teenager to justify to themselves that they aren't doing anything wrong in having a relationship with them. Real life is a lot more complicated and if a mentor starts making moves on someone they might not push back because they still want to learn from them or view them as family and humans blind themselves to not notice how uncomfortable someone might be about advances. TL;DR: Sympathetic amorality is fine, but amorality shown as something desirable can have greater ramifications

I align with Tolstoy's interpretation somewhat in the sense that art, by design, is meant to communicate and elicit emotions and ideas and that it can be an effective tool in doing so. This is not to say that art _should_ be moral but creators should be mindful of what it could be communicating and the extent to which it aligns with their original intent.

This is a tough one. Art is communication. Its subjective, by definition outside the artists control. Cant moralize that but then art can inspire people to be better or much worse than they would be otherwise. Ethically speaking. Its like saying unbiased journalism a lofty ideal but non functional as a concept. Since context is so important to measuring the facts, or even filtering out irrelevant information from relevant

Think of all the art that has been destroyed, locked away or straight up never made all because of that time period’s moral code

Very interesting video. I think about this in the context of hip-hop all the time. Thank you wisecrack team for creating this.

"Should Art Be Moral?" No.

no

Great video! Been on a huge aesthetic philosophy kick lately so this was a pleasant surprise

Loved this episode, a question, are you guys going to examine th TV show severance?

Should art be moral? Wrong question, should artists be moral? Art is a medium, it has little to no impact in and of itself. It's impact is found in the conversation around it which is influenced by the culture and the creator, the artist(s.)

I do believe depictions of immoral art can be moral. Honest reflections can have exaggerations and don’t need to be 1:1 like Animal Farm, but the principles ought to be honest perceptions of the author. The burden of honest interpretation lying with the audience. I’m all for, “junk food,” art to me there’s a meta there about the authors values at that time and place. They devoted a bit of their limited lives to make this base sensual art. It feels like a hint of the need for humanity to have some audacity in life to make us malleable instead of rigidly moral. Carbon to Iron makes steel. Still I do see art with meaning as a form of exercising the one trait humanity has above most animals. The ability to reason. Thinking about stuff is good, and practice makes us better. An ape may see Donato Giancolas empathetic robots and see just a frame. With practice we can show them a little more of the intricacies of life and they can communicate in return via paintings of their own or sign language, but to get better clarity they must know loss, anger, and all the little vices that make up life.

I came up with my own ideas about art as truth, but could not find any philosophers with similar positions. Now, I know about Murdoch and have a whole bunch of new reading I can do. Thanks for helping point me in the right direction!

I like how you showed clips from Taxi driver during the vid, since some people could see the movie as endorsing being a violent vigilante like Travis. But in reality, it’s a cautionary tale and how isolation from other people is pretty bad for your mental health.

I recommend watching The House that Jack buil by lars von trier,that film could be considered "immoral" but is really good.

I really enjoy the content on this channel but some of the sponsorships are… questionable, to say the least, and undermine credibility

I'm glad you guys kept BetterHelp as a sponsor. The people you recommended Full Sail to with your other sponsorship are going to need it when they are drowning in debt.

Honestly love your video. Sad to see social media continually eating itself thanks to certain political communities such as what many would refer to as "anti's". If an art medium doesn't hurt anyone in real life, we shouldn't be ones to judge them over fictional art.

I think a big issue with social media's moral judgement is that a lot of those vocally outraged by a film haven't seen what they're so outraged about. Cuties is the best example of this I've seen. It caused a massive controversy because of its alleged sexual undertones surrounding children as if the film were in favour of those themes. However, anyone who's seen the film knows that simply isn't the case.

We all know the answers no but the videos are always fun to watch

Could LOTR be immoral since it's not grounded in reality? Or 1984 as a counter example? I know there is no philosophical value to answer a question by a question, but the point of art is about resonance IMO. As much as I loved Joker, it shows a counter example of what we should fight against even if not underlined in the movie itself. Art can/should/will be beautiful/grotesque/woke/concervative. This is how we can communicate our human experience at best and thrive for something better. Good day and cheers!

An artist cannot control how their work is interpreted, any more than an author can control the language that their reader understands. A word may mean something to one person, and have a very different meaning to another. Since there is already such a blurry line between what is "art" and what isn't, what one person might consider moral or insightful may not hold such meanings to another.

OK HERE WE GO I'm super excited to hear Wisecrack's take on this. Thanks for uploading!

One central problem with what this video calls art is that it is a comercial product in form of entertainment or similar. A movie is made for people to watch, not (or at least not only) for the self expression of the writer. So if encouraging someone to do something with words require a responsibility of the caller, than the same should be true for encouraging a behaviour with emotion. It should also be the likelihood of the consequences that are evalued and not what the artist intended. Justification for e.g. genicide should be received only by people wise enough not to act fooly by it.

It depends on what you see as moral. The Joker movie in my opinion did a good job of showing the Joker as both a villian and a victim. The main question surrounding that film is whether or not society deserves the consequences of the monsters it creates and how failing to care for those that need help can result in damage to our society as a whole. I think in many ways we're seeing that play out in the America of today. I think a better film to use for this question would be something like Hostel or Human Centipede. Films that have no higher message but are simply pieces of art that serves as they've been defined "torture porn". A movie like The Joker isn't really "immoral" it's more of a mirror for the rest of us to look at ourselves through.

The word SHOULD should never be applied to art. The word 'should' is itself a moral imposition and art needs to be free to question and challenge imposed beliefs. Or not. I recall in primary school we watched A Clockwork Orange and had to write a critique of it. I hated the film but could see the 'ultraviolence' in it carried 'antiviolent' content. That was what I focused upon in my review. Yet I also do not think art has a duty to carry morals or ethics. I think the duty of art is to be. To just be. To be so it can be viewed, heard, tasted, touched, experienced. In order for we humans to be. To be human. So in that line of reasoning, The Triumph of the Will is as valid a piece of art as is, say, Van Gogh's "Wheatfield with Crows". Both are experiencable and relate to some elements of being human. And before anyone complains, all the ugliest, bitterest, most vile elements of humanity are AS human as are all the most beautiful, prettiest and most inspiring. Each one of us contains an angel. And each one of us contains a shirker, a collaborator, a proverbial Nazi-enabler as well. Art is both mirror and archive, a discipline of human memory. It contains both dreams and nightmares in equal legitimacy. It must be ALLOWED to contain both dreams AND nightmares in equal legitimacy.

No, it should be whatever it needs to be if it were to be consumed purely as art. But when art is used by businesses or politics, it becomes impure thus turning into marketing or propaganda. Such things can be toxic and deadly if not reeled in and guided by a moral compass. Art is extremely powerful and needs to be aware of its power and reach. This is why when I do art, I do it for its own sake and never for profit. No commissions, no corruption. Try to make it for free to free.

I think to most people the morality of art is irrelevant right until they disagree with the morals of the art. This is why we have protected speech (free speech) and hate speech (not free speech) and why there is a difference between the two. You know, why the fountainhead is just cringe and triumph of the will is more than that. I personally think that that is where we draw the line. All texts (and a text is any work, no matter how abstract) are political and any political texts have a thing they are and a thing they do. If the thing they do does harm to people (and I don't mean hurt feelings) by calling for the genocide of a minority or the return to chattel slavery or something like that, than you cannot ignore that harm.

What an interesting question. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about the issue. One side of me says "Yes, Art should be moral". The other side of me says "Who's morals do we use for Art ?". This is really interesting, I'm going to have to think on this...Thanks for bringing this up.

Just as with life, art can depict a full spectrum of moral perspectives. By making art safer and cleaner, we are hiding the ugly yet still very real parts of life, by hiding that, art would just be idealized, unrealistic and I'd even argue it would be boring. It's like being overprotective of a child until they face the ugly parts of society and adult life.

Hey wisecrack, can you do a video on the jhonny deep case.? Not necessarily the case itself but how people put up clips and then add subtitles at the bottom ( making it seem like inner monolog) I just find them curious and why we do this Thanks!

Short answer: „No.“ Long answer: „Fuck no.“ Sensible answer: „For fuck‘s sake! Go away.“

No. It should represent the delema its trying to present

13:43 *hat tip to JSM quote* Pretty much summarizes the worthiness of any opinion. I already had an opinion on the question posed in the video's title, but I was still somewhat ignorant of the arguments for the other side. While my fundamental opinion hasn't changed, I do agree with some points posited in the video and achieved a newer, evolved synthesis as an answer to the question.

Eye of the beholder... You can look at this question as: does art need to be censored, and if yes, who is objective enough to decide?

Should you stop telling people how to express themselves through creativity? Yes. Science and art should not be stifled

I think that pure moralism is obviously wrong, we see evidence for this all the time. Like how video games do not make people violent. However as long as the artist is human, their work says something about their morality. The autonomists are wrong to say that the aesthetic or quality of the art is the only thing that matters. There is no divorcing art from the trappings of humanity. Even abstract or modern art with its meaning left mostly to interpretation, is an avenue for morality. Though in such cases I think they mirror the morality of the viewer and not the artist. Art can be moral, but it has far less influence on the viewer/consumer than the classic moralist would believe.

I think all of these frameworks are correct in their own way. The moralist view of art is true to an extent: uncritical audiences will, over time, absorb the moral messages present within mainstream culture without thought if surrounded by it for long enough. I do not believe this is the correct way to engage with art, but I understand that this is the most common way that it's engaged with. I think the true purpose of art after entertainment is to communicate ideas. The main thing that people forget is that just because someone is making an argument doesn't mean that you have to accept any part of the argument to be true. We can judge an artwork's aesthetics separately from the effectiveness of the moral argumentation. Sometimes we desperately need our own views to be challenged in order for them to be critically re-evaluated at all, which can either embolden our conviction or shake loose misheld beliefs. The artist's intent also matters. Some art is made only to entertain, others purely to moralise (propaganda) and everything else in between. For example, I think "Joker" was a very aesthetically pleasing film but it was very clearly set out to be moral as it's main objective. I see it as bad art as its intentions were not met. Its message is unclear, vapid and poorly argued. Now all that is very well and good but this kind of criticism is a much less effective with something schlocky like "Die Hard", "The Naked Gun" or "Sharknado". Those films would be critiqued primarily by their entertainment value. This is also why something like "The Birth of A Nation" can be viewed as a masterpiece for its time whilst still being grossly immoral by current moral standards, it met its own goals exceptionally well.

Great discussion! I can appreciate art that depicts immoral acts so long as I don’t perceive that the author is advocating for those immoral activities, which is why I enjoyer Joker and Taxi Driver.

moral value can definitely effect aesthetics since for many people moral disgust creates actual disgust. also moral people succeeding is pleasing to see. though aesthetic value is completly subjective so it also depends on each viewer.

No, that’s the point of art, as long as it doesn’t hurt someone, the environment, or one selves, then it’s valid. Problem is that people often project their own beliefs onto art, not understanding how 100% subjective it is.

Saying yes wouldn't really limit anything except for the most extremes of glorifying or condemning thing 99% of ppl are ok with or against

Oh my god I’ve seriously never needed a new Wisecrack video. I suppose as long as your hits keep coming, while the hits keep coming, I’ll be okay. 😅

First and foremost: Art should be free. Because regulating art is in itself immoral, the Question shouldn't be "should art be moral" but instead: "What role should my own moral standpoints play in my personal artistic creation?"

Imo, I don't think it's shouldn't be reinforced but encouraged through positive reinforcement. And even then only if it is cohesive and makes sense.

Wonderful take. I think intentionality plays a role. Art can inspire a person to draw ethical conclusions, or inspire dialogue about ethics, but art that *intends* to be ethical or instructive falls flat. The former respects the autonomy of the artist and the intelligence of their viewers. The latter not so much.

I remember when this came out, and legacy media was so desperate for it to be an “incel movie” that would incite violence, they tried to report it into existence and were disappointed when nothing happened.

The answer to "should X be moral" is always yes. Of course something should be moral, insofar as that thing is possible to have a moral valuation. Some art is morally neutral as it has no truth or other moral virtues behind it, just pragmatic utility or fun (simple wall art, Ikea table, etc.). But is it ok for art to depict immoralities or even center around them? Yes. I agree with Murdoch as far as the artist intends to speak the truth in good faith and have no other ill-intent. "Joker" is moral for discussing mental health earnestly. "Get Out" is moral for discussing woke brand of White supremacy. Fifty Shades of Grey? Trash. Even the Tolstoy must admit that bible itself has depictions of R-rated immoralities, intending to stave off its readers away from said depictions of immoralities. In that sense , Murdoch's thought about art can have some common ground with moralists.

In fan art circles, depictions and glorification of pedophilia are unfortunately rampant. We've seen this in the My Little Pony and pokémon fandoms. In the pokemon fandom, glorification of female characters being sexualized as underage characters is pretty common for example. This is inarguably bad. It's an unfortunate truth that mere exposure to content like this in an increasingly connected world is going to lead to desensitization to thinking this is immoral. By all means, we should attempt to separate aesthetics and morality, but the fact is; Propaganda is art and propaganda is bad and sexualization of children is bad.

My only issue is this same argument can be used to defend Cuties, a case where displaying the immoral topic was an immoral action.

I like the quote about the end about the consequences of having "safer" art. I think Three Billboards suffered from this problem. It may be viewed as morally problematic now but the authors clearly thought it was morally right. But by never considering other sides, they created something "safe" that in reality was very problematic. Don't look up is another good example of this

Moralism is what drives people to go against the grain and make real art

Pog im early

To me, the issue is less "Is this art righteous?" and more like "Is this art trying to communicate something, whether that's good or bad? Or is the author just pornifying the suffering of other people because shock sells?" 😬

I feel like bad art or immoral art is fine so long as no real life harm comes from it. It should be allowed to exist. But we should also be able to point out when something immortal and decide not to promote it. Besides there’s more than one way to evaluate art.

I think you present a false binary, that we have to look at it one way OR another. Why not a mix of both when you can note that a work of art is immoral but not go crazy over it? And some art is just trolling and that's not a bad thing. Remember "Draw Mohamad Day"? The whole point of it was to show nothing is sacred and blasphemy was not a crime. I remember conservative Christians being outraged when their sacred cows got included as if it was just OK to offend people of other faiths but not their own.

Tell that to the generation Z who deems everything as "problematic". I belong to that generation too but I think this is over the top. If art gets limits, we're doomed as human beings.

How was Lolita not mentioned even once in this entire video essay?.. It's the best example of a thought provoking novel that tests the boundaries between the morality of the characters in it, of the author, and of the readers.

I think I agree most with the idea of moderate autonomists. Art can be good or bad depending on how effectively it full fills its purpose, however we can judge that purpose from a moral perspective