Prostituting your art?

[bridgeburner]

Is it ever justified to produce art to support an evil cause?

Why set art apart? The only answer to the question can be "no". Supporting evil in whatever manner isn't justified. If it were, then the effort being supported wouldn't be considered evil.

But enough of pedantry.

Art is speech and I don't believe in censorship. So the artist is an asshole or even an outright monster, does that mitigate the value of the art? Nope. I've enjoyed art, music, films and any number of creative endeavors produced by people I wouldn't cross the street to piss on if they were on fire. It rankles to be impressed by the art of someone you vehemently dislike, but that's life. To expect greatness of being because of greatness of artistic ability is to be roundly disappointed.


If art is used to promote an unpalatable or even heinous cause, does that mitigate the value of the art? No. It might be a nasty thing to say or even a dispicable thing, but in the end it's just speech. If saying something vile devalues art then conversely saying something lovely should elevate it. Anyone want to argue the relative artistic merit of Precious Moments figurines?


-B (who probably should have just said "yeah, I with you guys")

 

[ffreak]

...Maybe it's worth dying to be able to live your life standing up.

Thank you, Svenskaflica, for all of it.

 

[gauchecritic]

none of your examples were appropriate in the sense that they did not have destruction of a people as an underlying philosophy.

Consumerism, for example, is born of greed; I don't know any companies whose mission statement says "...and get the Baptists, the short women, and the guys who wear argyle socks
Ange [/B]

The only thing is, I don't appreciate being thought "naive at best" when the gist of my post was self explanatory and took quite a while to write.

On the subject of gists, the real reason for the post was pedantry and attempting to point up the pointlessness of answering a question by changing the question to fit an answer. Do I really have to be that blatant? Doesn't the punchline give you a clue?

On the quote above I'll say that it doesn't have to be written to be a part of what actually happens.

2 examples. Batt Industries. Hickson and Welch Chemicals.

Cigarettes and Agent Orange.

Gauche

 

[destinie21]

Is it ever justified to produce art to support an evil cause?


As an artist I have to say if I believe something is evil then no I wouldn't be justified in supporting it. The question then becomes what if I don't think it's evil? Plain and simple if I believed in something then found it not to be so I would not change my veiw of the artwork that I or other's had created in our dillusions.

It goes to your system of beliefs really.

 

[Angeline]

The only thing is, I don't appreciate being thought "naive at best" when the gist of my post was self explanatory and took quite a while to write.

We could go on debating whose post took longer to write or who misunderstood whom more, but I think that's unproductive. I'd rather see this thread--which has generated some excellent discussion--retain its intended focus.

We may be more in agreement than either of us thinks, who knows. If you wish to continue what we've been discussing feel free to pm or email. If not, that's fine. Either way, shalom.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There are probably some people who do things they know are evil, but I think that most of the damage in the world comes from people doing what they are certain is right.

I'm a jew and I'm not especially fond of the Nazi's, but I don't believe all Nazi's were evil. People join political parties for all sorts of reasons. I don't know Riefenstahl's politics. I know that when I saw "Triumph" as a kid I was ready to sign up (The Germans always had the coolest uniforms and weapons.) It was a masterful bit of filmmaking.

I'd just like to point out too, that artists have a long and notorious history of making fools of themselves when they stray away from their area of expertise. W.B.Yeats was sure that fairies existed, Norman Mailer ran for mayor of New York on the knife-your-enemy platform, &c. &c.

To bring it back home, I wonder about the people who are today creating art or just speaking out either in support or opposition to the US' current foreign policies, many of which are seen by a lot of people as downright evil. We might see them in a different light, but a lot of people around the world see them as criminal, if not as downright genocidal.

Each of us has to take a position on whether what the US and Britain are doing in Iraq is good or evil. We don't know yet who will tell the final story, and whether the Iraq adventure will be seen as wise or foolish, or good or evil itself. but we might think of how we would be judged too.


---dr.M.

 

[destinie21]

There are probably some people who do things they know are evil, but I think that most of the damage in the world comes from people doing what they are certain is right.

I'm a jew and I'm not especially fond of the Nazi's, but I don't believe all Nazi's were evil. People join political parties for all sorts of reasons. I don't know Riefenstahl's politics. I know that when I saw "Triumph" as a kid I was ready to sign up (The Germans always had the coolest uniforms and weapons.) It was a masterful bit of filmmaking.

I'd just like to point out too, that artists have a long and notorious history of making fools of themselves when they stray away from their area of expertise. W.B.Yeats was sure that fairies existed, Norman Mailer ran for mayor of New York on the knife-your-enemy platform, &c. &c.

To bring it back home, I wonder about the people who are today creating art or just speaking out either in support or opposition to the US' current foreign policies, many of which are seen by a lot of people as downright evil. We might see them in a different light, but a lot of people around the world see them as criminal, if not as downright genocidal.

Each of us has to take a position on whether what the US and Britain are doing in Iraq is good or evil. We don't know yet who will tell the final story, and whether the Iraq adventure will be seen as wise or foolish, or good or evil itself. but we might think of how we would be judged too.


---dr.M.

Well said I totally agree.

PS even when I don't agree with you I do find your posts thought provoking and always eloquently worded.

 

[Angeline]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dr_mabeuse
There are probably some people who do things they know are evil, but I think that most of the damage in the world comes from people doing what they are certain is right.

Your points are well taken, doc, though I think that even if there is awareness that one's actions result in "evil," the motivation itself is rarely to be so. I think that participation in the Nazi party probably was motivated by zealotry and/or fear. Problem is the definition--was evil in this case the cause or its effect? I guess I'd argue for effect because generally I don't see evil as something defined that can motivate actions, though evil acts can result from fear and zealotry.

For me the great evil of that time is not so much what the Nazis did--horrific as it is--but that the world knew (e.g., Roosevelt, the leaders of the Catholic church), yet with a few remarkeable exceptions it was ignored for years. And I couldn't agree more that there are modern counterparts in U.S. foreign (and domestic!) policies. And this goes on all over the world--the U.S. may be more visible, but I don't think we're alone in this.

But art is art wherever it comes from and to water down Ogg's point (he said it powerfully) the most positive thing to do is learn from it.

 

[Guest]

I find it plainly frightening when anyone speaks of evil as if they know, can define what it is, let alone use it in broad statements. Jeezus, we’ve got the world on its brink with men like GWB and Blair using it to mount their fundamentalist campaigns. The nature of evil is a profound matter. I do not mean those outside philosophy, theology, sociology, etc., shouldn’t think about it or tackle it but there seems to be something “off” in the use of it on this thread.

I think what disturbs me is the slant that Evil is an entity, or that a person can be inherently evil, not to mention ‘things’ or ideologies. I wouldn’t even call true psychopaths evil; what they do or produce may be evil in nature but it’s known more plays into a great criminal’s mind and life than its intent or output. I recognize evil deeds and consequences but I cannot call anyone evil, let alone any abstract or recondite concept created or manufactured by a group or consortium.

I appreciate Gauche’s posts, and his leaving off the word except in reference to his points. I appreciate bridgeburner’s perspective. For all others, to speak to the thread’s original thrust using Evil as a concrete term isn’t going to work.

Just an anecdote. I have a brilliant physicist/maths friend who focuses on cosmology. He’s an atheist and said to me once, “I do not believe in God, but I do believe in evil.” It was the only stupid thing I ever heard him say. I know what he meant but it was still dumb.

Now, I’m not inferring anything, it was just a little illustration.

Perdita

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, evil is a noun, but it's an adjective too, and I think that's the way it was being discussed here.

Of course Evil is only a concept, so it has no concrete existence, but then neither do Love or Good or Beauty or Health or just about any of the other things that are important to human beings. The fact that they don;t have a discrete existence and that we can't precisely define them doesn't mean they're meaningless though, nor does it excuse us from pursuing them or trying to figure out what they mean. Not all words have concise definitions, and in fact it seems like the more important the concept, the harder it is to define the word.

Inanaimate object by their nature can't be evil, whether they're things or institutions, but people and the things people do can be.
It's probably true that most people don't think of themselves as being evil, but we don't usually judge people by their own opinions of themselves; we judge them by the opinion of others, by the effect they have on other lives and on the world around them. In this sense I think it's entirely legitimate to talk about evil; at least as legitimate as it is to talk about love or kindness.

I differ from you in that I do think that there are people who are evil not only in the eyes of society but in their own eyes as well. I think that there are people who do things they know will cause unnecessary pain and suffering but do them anyway because they put their own desires above the welfare of others.

Certainly it's difficult most of the time to determine just what is evil or what will have evil consequence, but there are times when you are faced with acts just so heinous and wicked that it's entirely justified to call them evil and to hold the perpetrators responsible. The alternative is to deny that anything is worse or better than anything else, and that way lies nihilism.

Anyhow, getting back to the subject of Leni Riefenstahl, it seems to me that we're basically asking is whether the character of the artist effects the value of the work they do. The answer to that, I think, is just simply no. At least in this case.

BTW, after Germany surrendered in WWII, General Patton was all in favor of rearming them so that together, the US and Germany could go after the Russians, whom he saw as the real enemy. It makes you wonder what kind of history we'd be reading now if he'd had his way.

---dr.M.