I think I disagree with the author here a little bit when they write that art as moral instruction is a “peculiar American illness” and “dangerous”. That idea is much older than America, Plato wrote about it, and I think it was perfected by the German idealists. Art, especially literature, gives us a kind of laboratory for fine tuning our moral ideas and discussing them before we have to apply them to real situations with real scenarios. On a deeper level, I’m with Kant that aesthetic appreciation correlates with a moral life, by lauding and preserving art for its own sake instead of demanding a utilitarian purpose out of it.
That said, I agree to the extent that these moral questions run a lot deeper than what characters say and do. Making people feel uncomfortable is one way an artwork can succeed, and expecting everything to be a morality play where characters act our our own values cheapens the whole enterprise.
2 Comments
Just one more solipsistic attempt to define art.
I think I disagree with the author here a little bit when they write that art as moral instruction is a “peculiar American illness” and “dangerous”. That idea is much older than America, Plato wrote about it, and I think it was perfected by the German idealists. Art, especially literature, gives us a kind of laboratory for fine tuning our moral ideas and discussing them before we have to apply them to real situations with real scenarios. On a deeper level, I’m with Kant that aesthetic appreciation correlates with a moral life, by lauding and preserving art for its own sake instead of demanding a utilitarian purpose out of it.
That said, I agree to the extent that these moral questions run a lot deeper than what characters say and do. Making people feel uncomfortable is one way an artwork can succeed, and expecting everything to be a morality play where characters act our our own values cheapens the whole enterprise.