Art "Inducing Immorality," and Racism in Art

I'm going to be blogging like crazy this week. I can already see that.

I'm going to tackle the topics in my title in reverse order. First, "racism" in art. It was brought up today that, a while back, there was a cartoon which depicted Obama as a monkey. I would like to begin by pointing out the hundreds, if not thousands, of depictions of our previous president, George W. Bush, as a monkey. The man looks like one, and he's about as civilized as one. The point here is that political cartoons, to make a point, characterize politicians as animals. This is not new, and therefore I do not consider the cartoon in question to be anything other than politics, or political cartoons, as usual.

Does this make the political cartoons somehow reprehensible? Perhaps. But I would contest that despite this, the artist has a right to produce it, just as the viewers have the right to be offended by it. Anything beyond that goes in to dangerous territory.

So, tying in to the idea of art "inducing immorality..." Professor Yake brought up a hypothetical porn movie, but I would like to take a real-world example: the film "The Triumph of the Will." "The Triumph of the Will" is arguably one of the most famous, and successful, propaganda films in history. It portrays the rise of the Nazi party as a revitalization of Germany, and casts Hitler into an almost-Messianic role for the German people. It served to solidify Hitler's popularity in Germany, and secure his position as Fuhrer of the so-called 'Third Reich.'

It is no secret that Hitler commissioned the mass slaughter of millions of innocents. The propaganda film "The Triumph of the Will" was certainly a powerful tool in building popular support for a government and ideology that is near-universally accepted today as pure evil. There is no way a rational human being can honestly legitimize the murder of millions of innocents (numbers which, incidentally, included a large number of my own relatives on my paternal side). However, despite the fact that "The Triumph of the Will" glorified this government and the man who would ultimately unleash one of the most destructive wars of the twentieth century, can we really call the film itself "immoral?" I do not think this is the case.

Why? The intentions of the film maker may have been immoral -- the glorification of Hitler. Hitler's intentions were almost certainly immoral -- "Endlösung," or the Final Solution, a policy that lead to the murder of millions of Jews. This does not, however, impose this immorality on the film. An object is inherently amoral. Morality refers to actions, to conduct, and perhaps to a lesser extent to ideas, but cannot, and should not, be afixed to objects, art objects included.

To end with a couple of questions: 1) Does a common tactic in political cartoons become racist when the politician being lampooned happens to be of an "ethnic minority?" 2) Is there any way to legitimately apply moral judgments to human creations?

Ethics and Art: The Question of Pornography

The question of forgeries is undoubtedly a question of morals over merit. It does a disservice to the work to claim that a work is any less accomplished just because of its origins, or of the intent of the artist. But the question of morals is not unique to forgeries.

Many of the arguments pertaining to pornography do not even begin to consider any of the merits of the work. Pornography is written off as art not for any intrinsic value it has, but because of a moral judgment that pornography results in evil, i.e. lust, objectification of the person (particularly of women), or instigating sexual crimes. The arguments ignore any value that these works may have.

To show how ridiculous this is, allow me to take a couple of examples. James Joyce's novel, "Ulysses," was banned for a while in the United States because it was labeled pornography. It was banned despite its clear literary merit, and today it is considered a fine example of literature.

Another example of this is "The Story of O" (which was, incidentally, written by an upper class French woman). This, too, was banned for a time because of its fairly explicit descriptions of sadomasochism. It is now considered to have literary, and thus artistic, value, despite the heavy eroticism in the book.

The label itself of "pornography" becomes suspect, as it makes a judgment based on shifting moral values in society. One generations smut is the next generation's literature. It is therefore rather obvious that making such moral judgments about a work disregards any value the work may have. This is not to say that all such pieces are unjustly belittled, but that there are some for which the hasty denouncement causes we, the art-viewing public, to miss out on quality pieces of art.

For a closing question, I pose this: should any art be censored? Are there any qualities of a piece of art for which the piece can legitimately be censored?