Philosophy Now Forum

In an age where an almost complete breakdown of morality has occured, does morality in art now hold a much more legitimate and potentially revolutionary coupling? Art as a vehicle with morality as its passenger navigate a way out or way forward from a moribund present.

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-t ... d-morality

This talk below seems to focus on whether a morally dubious artwork can be seen as good art but I'm more interested in whether an artwork can be moral in the sense of opening up a new space of hope. What would this look like. The artworks would collectively create a conduit of sorts through which you would be able to move through unimpeded. Like a non-contaminated space, where present flotsam and jetsam couldn't enter. How to make an artwork that hasn't got the dust of now in its bones. Can I make something outside the now. Why would I want to.

http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1175435;jses ... B4E1210DDA

Breakdown of morality ?

Only yesterday I read a poème en prose by Ch. Beaudelaire "Le mauvais vitrier".
A man asks a passing by glass-maker to come to him to the sixth floor, then says that he has no colourful glass which would make life colourful and the man goes down again, bumping with his marchendise against narrow walls in the stair-case. When he leaves the building the man drops a flower pot and enjoys the big smash of broken glass.

This was written in the 19 th century.

I do not think that many people today would allow themselves that kind of jouissance. Nobody I know.

Art makes abstract ideas comprehensible and graspable for the human mind. Humans need something they can grasp with their senses in order to understand.
Aaron gave the people the golden calf so that they had something to see and to touch. Aaron loved the people.
Moses was the cold abstract mind.

Hi duszek, thanks for your post. I'm not sure now if morality has broken down or even what it is or looks like these days. Was there ever a morality that at the same time wasn't a prison of sorts. It's confusing for my pea-brain. What is a moral picture in 2012?

One thing is for sure. There has always existed the myth that morality has broken down and it was better in the good old days.
We always trade the normative assumptions by referencing a mythical past, when the normative condition has never actually existed, because people are always in a state of challenging the demands of the moral majority as they prefer to live their lives as they see fit.
One could argue that we are actually in a better moral environment today as the more permissive society has enabled people to follow their life choices without bucking the system. Gay marriage is a greater moral state than living a gay life whilst homosexuality was illegal.
All we now need is for society to mind its own business on a range of other issues that can be defined as victimless crimes so that other people can live their lives free from moral censure, and still enjoy recreational drugs.

Thanks for your post, Chaz.

In order to communicate an idea I have opted for a filmic interpretation of the events as I see them. It is the beginning of a story:

A dark cloud had descended over the earth. Culture reflected back this cloud in many different forms. The beings of earth drank it up and internalised its darkness. One being on earth stood alone, an artist. In an attempt to keep hold of the light, paintings were made. What you see here are a few of them.

Pluto wrote:Thanks for your post, Chaz.

In order to communicate an idea I have opted for a filmic interpretation of the events as I see them. It is the beginning of a story:

A dark cloud had descended over the earth. Culture reflected back this cloud in many different forms. The beings of earth drank it up and internalised its darkness. One being on earth stood alone, an artist. In an attempt to keep hold of the light, paintings were made. What you see here are a few of them.

This is neither televisual nor Filmic. What does "culture reflected back" look like? And how do the earthlings drink it up and internalise it?
Poetic yes, filmic no.

Filmic in the sense that, to me, it sounds like a preview of a new blockbuster. The guy with a deep voice who advertised US movies, early 80s, late 90s: He was a man, alone, under duress, no-one could reach him, alone he was to create a new way, a new time, etc.

Those two questions you've asked are answered in your own head, I'm not going to spoil it my explaining the joke away. Though, they are interesting questions and deserve to be at least touched on further. I'm going to come back to it later. Poetics are a good start.

chaz wyman wrote:

Pluto wrote:Thanks for your post, Chaz.

In order to communicate an idea I have opted for a filmic interpretation of the events as I see them. It is the beginning of a story:

A dark cloud had descended over the earth. Culture reflected back this cloud in many different forms. The beings of earth drank it up and internalised its darkness. One being on earth stood alone, an artist. In an attempt to keep hold of the light, paintings were made. What you see here are a few of them.

This is neither televisual nor Filmic. What does "culture reflected back" look like? And how do the earthlings drink it up and internalise it?
Poetic yes, filmic no.

I'm not sure enough to say in words what it (culture reflected back) looks like. But you must understand the idea. And beings internalise by being, it seems to be the designed way. You can see and become.

Pluto wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Pluto wrote:Thanks for your post, Chaz.

In order to communicate an idea I have opted for a filmic interpretation of the events as I see them. It is the beginning of a story:

A dark cloud had descended over the earth. Culture reflected back this cloud in many different forms. The beings of earth drank it up and internalised its darkness. One being on earth stood alone, an artist. In an attempt to keep hold of the light, paintings were made. What you see here are a few of them.

This is neither televisual nor Filmic. What does "culture reflected back" look like? And how do the earthlings drink it up and internalise it?
Poetic yes, filmic no.

I'm not sure enough to say in words what it (culture reflected back) looks like. But you must understand the idea. And beings internalise by being, it seems to be the designed way. You can see and become.

I was not commenting on your content, but on your description of it being 'filmic'.

The content was too poetic do be coherent enough to allow any analysis. It could mean anything. Have you been reading too much Walter Benjamin?

Pluto wrote:Filmic in the sense that, to me, it sounds like a preview of a new blockbuster. The guy with a deep voice who advertised US movies, early 80s, late 90s: He was a man, alone, under duress, no-one could reach him, alone he was to create a new way, a new time, etc.

Those two questions you've asked are answered in your own head, I'm not going to spoil it my explaining the joke away. Though, they are interesting questions and deserve to be at least touched on further. I'm going to come back to it later. Poetics are a good start.

Are you deliberately missing the point of my comment? Do I have to spell it out?

You cannot represent culture in a cloud visually, unless you wish to be literal and write the word culture on a cloud! "FILMIC" is visual, your description is NOT visual. If you do not know what it looks like - then BY DEFINITION, it cannot be filmic.

I was not commenting on your content, but on your description of it being 'filmic'.

The content was too poetic do be coherent enough to allow any analysis. It could mean anything. Have you been reading too much Walter Benjamin?

Yes, that's it.

chaz wyman wrote:

Pluto wrote:Filmic in the sense that, to me, it sounds like a preview of a new blockbuster. The guy with a deep voice who advertised US movies, early 80s, late 90s: He was a man, alone, under duress, no-one could reach him, alone he was to create a new way, a new time, etc.

Those two questions you've asked are answered in your own head, I'm not going to spoil it my explaining the joke away. Though, they are interesting questions and deserve to be at least touched on further. I'm going to come back to it later. Poetics are a good start.

Are you deliberately missing the point of my comment? Do I have to spell it out?

You cannot represent culture in a cloud visually, unless you wish to be literal and write the word culture on a cloud! "FILMIC" is visual, your description is NOT visual. If you do not know what it looks like - then BY DEFINITION, it cannot be filmic.

You are too tightly wound here I think.

Pluto wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Pluto wrote:Filmic in the sense that, to me, it sounds like a preview of a new blockbuster. The guy with a deep voice who advertised US movies, early 80s, late 90s: He was a man, alone, under duress, no-one could reach him, alone he was to create a new way, a new time, etc.

Those two questions you've asked are answered in your own head, I'm not going to spoil it my explaining the joke away. Though, they are interesting questions and deserve to be at least touched on further. I'm going to come back to it later. Poetics are a good start.

Are you deliberately missing the point of my comment? Do I have to spell it out?

You cannot represent culture in a cloud visually, unless you wish to be literal and write the word culture on a cloud! "FILMIC" is visual, your description is NOT visual. If you do not know what it looks like - then BY DEFINITION, it cannot be filmic.

You are too tightly wound here I think.

Not really.
You just ignored my observation and continued with your obscurantism.

I didn't see the point in discussing why or why not what I wrote was filmic or not. What I wrote reminded me of the movies and so I said 'filmic'. I don't really understand what you're talking about but I saw the words 'you cannot represent culture...' and I switched off.

Art to me is more about 'you can' rather than 'you cannot'. As for obscurantism, it isn't my intention to deceive, like you yourself said, what I wrote is more like poetry and perhaps in these times more apt/able to speak of/communicate on, the now. Clear thinking and logic is good but not so if it's the only thing. An artist does whatever s/he can to summon up that which lies hidden. If I choose to say 'Culture is a dark cloud' then this is okay no problem.