When is art immoral?

[Aggie]

..

 

[SteveGangi]

I stayed off this for a few days, to see what everyone else had to say. Personally, I don't care if he personally dug up graves or "only" bribed some coroners. I don't care about any "artistic reasons" or "statements". I do know one thing, if anyone ever did that to the bodies of my parents or relatives, I would be furious.

 

[Sparky]

I saw a pretty incredible piece here in San Francisco a few years back. I forgot the artists' name - but it was a woman. Anyway - it was decidedly verboten in terms of what 'we' seem to like here on apug. But it was the mouth and penis of a deceased mexican boy mounted (in some fashion - no idea HOW) on a platonic white wall - in their native elevations. Pretty shocking. But kind of genius really. To head off any remarks from Jorge or the gang - the body parts were purchased from the family of the deceased boy. At any rate, talk about rocky territory. But perhaps one of the strongest pieces I'd seen in god knows how long. The really amazing thing about it was how it functioned on so many planes at the same time. You all know my position in general. I feel that the 'moral' and 'artistic' imperatives are simply axes which exist in three dimensions - and they can relate to eachother in any way that you want. In this case the biological could be very critical of the 'artistic'.

 

[Jorge]

I saw a pretty incredible piece here in San Francisco a few years back. I forgot the artists' name - but it was a woman. Anyway - it was decidedly verboten in terms of what 'we' seem to like here on apug. But it was the mouth and penis of a deceased mexican boy mounted (in some fashion - no idea HOW) on a platonic white wall - in their native elevations. Pretty shocking. But kind of genius really. To head off any remarks from Jorge or the gang - the body parts were purchased from the family of the deceased boy. At any rate, talk about rocky territory. But perhaps one of the strongest pieces I'd seen in god knows how long. The really amazing thing about it was how it functioned on so many planes at the same time. You all know my position in general. I feel that the 'moral' and 'artistic' imperatives are simply axes which exist in three dimensions - and they can relate to eachother in any way that you want. In this case the biological could be very critical of the 'artistic'.

Sorry, but I doubt very much your account about "buying" the body parts is true, I dont know in the US but here it is illegal to sell body parts, not out of any religious reasons but for disease control Of course you can buy them Illegally, but then that brings us back to the same argument, you want to do something illegal you come to Mexico to do it uh? As to the resto fo your three dimension stuff, I have never been a fan of art speak.....

 

[Sparky]

Well - that was the word on the street. I cannot confirm nor deny. What I did like about it was that it was an example of 'the real' thumbing it's nose (well, TONGUE) at the WASPY artworld... that wasn't artspeak - just a convenient way of conceptualizing something.

 

[JohnArs]

I could never understand how anybody could buy a Witkin. I think he ( Witkin ) must be a very sick person who got with the shock therapy famous!
All wich buy one must be also very sick.
Because I think the picturers of a photog mirrors the soul of it or at least a little bit! The same works also to a person who buys that s*****!
Just my personal viewpoint!

 

[WarEaglemtn]

Art is not immoral. Nor is it indecent, guilty or innocent.

Art is art and whatever else you want to credit to it is within you and your use.

 

[haris]

As definition what is moral or inmoral is different for any human being there is no real question. For example Maplethorpe work will be see differently not only from each human being individualy, but also USA, Asia, Europe, Africa, West, East... and individual societies in those continents or parts of the world will have different opinion about morality. So, who is THE JUDGE who will say something is moral or inmoral? Not even God, because people belive in different Gods (or same God but have different rules how to worhip it). So, there is no real dillema. If you can not buy David Hamilton books in USA or Europe anymore, you can go to Japan and buy it(just example from one of discussions from this forum). And is that means society in USA or Europa is more moral than in Japan? Very dangerous question. I think not. And how society can raise question about itself if artists or philosophers don't question moral boundaries of that society, with their work? Are polititians or religious leaders qualified to tell to each of us what is moral or not? Are artists? And who is that ultimate judge?

As long as it is legal (well even that can be questioned)...