Home   Forum   Wiki   Notes   Register   FAQ   Sitemap   About Us   Contact Us  

Is Art amoral? Do Artists have to be role models?

Topic started by Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on Tue Jul 21 19:15:58 EDT 1998.
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

This topic came out of a good debate that began in the "Is Vairamuthu better than Kannadhaasan?" thread. By the time this debate got going most people had abandoned the thread and it was limited to just two people. I would love to hear how others feel about artists and morality.

---

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: mannAru (@ ns.arraycomm.com) on: Wed Jul 22 00:08:18 EDT 1998
  
  Hello Junta:
  
  I liked the discussion. Here are my 2 cents worth:
  
  In my opinion we give value for the art rather than the morality and personal beliefs. Unfortunately their private life comes to limelight since they are popular. Every human being is mixture of good and bad. No body is perfectly good and nobody is notoriously bad. Also it depends on each individual how he preceives a particular person and how much weightage he gives for every qualities or bad manners. Every person has his own private life where he lives which he thinks that makes him happy. By the way comparing an artist and scientist is not correct. They have one thing in common, creativity.. that is all.
  
  As an artist, he is able to ascribe/express his feelings and make others to feel. I appreciate that. I have great respect to Kannadasan, though he cannot be a role model. As we mature, definitely we can distinguish what is good and bad and adapt what u like.
  
  We want the art to be immortal. Do we care if the artist is immoral? Do we know what kind of person Kambar or Thiruvalluvar was? Even in their whole life they were bad, world will not remember that, it will remember their product.(product sounds little funny here)
  
  Any comments on my view point?
  
  
• From: badri raghavan (@ 206.103.12.125) on: Wed Jul 22 00:11:34 EDT 1998
  
  an interesting subject for a change!
  
  it will be interesting to define what is moral and therefore amoral. are we sticking to traditional definitions of morality being reflected by non-smoking, tee-totalling, pure marital sex et al?
  
  imo, morality is being true to oneself and being sincere to the profession that is being practised. a smoker or a drunkard is no less an amoral person than another who badmouths everybody constantly or lives by a different set of standards than the one he is preaching.
  
  Coming back to the context, i would describe an artist as being amoral if
  1. he/she decries lack of originality in others when he himself is a plagiarist of the first order
  2. he/she does not consider others' contribution as significant.
  
  that said, one cannot rule out the impact of cinema and commercial art on the psyche of each one of us. to that extent, artists must demonstrate a concern for the society's values and culture. i know many who took upto smoking after seeing rajini's tricks but i cannot imagine many who would have left drinking after seeing MGR's movies.
  
  Moral or amoral is an individual's perspective and so long as an artist does not allow his personal "amoral activities" to dominate his professional life, he is right in having his share of enjoyment.
  
  i am sure that most of you would think that i am taking a middle route by arguing for and against the theme and i look forward to hearing your views.
  
  
• From: Sandeep (@ 1cust10.tnt2.chi1.da.uu.net) on: Wed Jul 22 00:23:53 EDT 1998
  
  If you take a look at geniuses, they usually struggle to take a break. IR's break with 'Annakili' is well known. I think, when the recording of the songs started, a power failure occured, thereby encouraging superstitions of people that is not a 'nala nerum'. Panchu Arunachalam was firm enough to ensure that the songs should and would be recorded by IR.
  
  Interesting story/anecdote this. I am not sure to veracity of this incident. More often, we place too many burdens, lifting them and placing on a pedestal and then finding feet of clay. Also with an increase in spending power and feeling of importance, exploitation by hangers-on for their own personal benefit and perception by other people may tend to give wrong impressions.
  
  I agree with Udhaya that certain moral codes should never be broken.
  
  I hope this makes some sense.
  
  All the above are my opinions. I do not mean to hurt anyone with my statements.
  
  
• From: badri raghavan (@ 206.103.12.125) on: Wed Jul 22 00:26:25 EDT 1998
  
  some more thoughts!
  
  why do companies do celebrity advertising? it is because they feel that the sports or cultural personalities can impact and influence the minds of the audience. there is substantial evidence to show that endorsement of a product or a concept by an artist or sports personality has actually accelerated sales. if that is the case, then if they demonstrate an affinity for issues like drugs, alcohol (either by endorsing or by usage) then there is a strong likelihood that their fans or admirers might take it up. since they have a bigger than life image, it would certainly help that they show a clean image
  
  
• From: Kanchana (@ spider-tc063.proxy.aol.com) on: Wed Jul 22 01:44:25 EDT 1998
  
  As always, I have to ask some fundamental first-principles questions in logical sequence first. Let me start with "Is Art Amoral? Why?":
  
  1. Is there an Objective Morality beyond the collective social norms which we adhere to?
  
  2. Is suppression of certain facets of human nature for the "collective societal good" called Morality?
  
  3. If such a suppression is called Morality in Life, but overcoming this suppression is accepted as Creativity/ Creative Irreverence in Art, is there a major hypocricy here?
  
  4. Is Art (and commercial Art like movies) nothing but "licensed" Mass Escapism from a Moral Life then?
  
  5. What is the REAL or OBJECTIVE Moral Standard and/or Effectiveness of a society which needs such a Mass Escapism from its own prescribed Mass Morality?
  
  I am a product of the same social norms and conditioning as everyone else, obviously. But trying hard to rise above my own conditioning and looking at some fundamental questions, it seems to me that we're all conditioned to not only accept but celebrate certain things in Art which we will downright reject as immoral in real Life (again) due to brainwashing/ social conditioning.
  
  I'm not a Humanities & Arts Major to write extended essays on Moral Relativism and the such here, but just a poor Engineering/Business Major.
  IMHO, such a wide discrepancy between a Moral Life and an (A/Im)moral Art is a sad commentary on the society which creates, nurtures, regulates, validates and celebrates such double standards.
  But, being a pragmatist, I understand that humankind and its society will not change unless there is a major evolutionary step when Life itself is seen and appreciated as Art; until then Art will be revered for being different from Life.
  
  
• From: raja m (@ spider-wa022.proxy.aol.com) on: Wed Jul 22 10:42:33 EDT 1998
  
  Check out Romantic Manifesto - by Ayn Rand.
  
  
• From: Bharat (@ isdbsd1-inet.ci.mil.wi.us) on: Wed Jul 22 10:58:32 EDT 1998
  
  Extremely interesting! I remember arguing my two bits for accepting Kamalahaasan as an ACTOR, and not as an adulterer. In fact, I was rather interested in knowing how his performance in meeNdum kOkilA would have been had he starred in it during his post-Vani phase. My logic was that my only connection to Kamal is his film output, and therefore I should be concerned only with that. What he does in his personal life is his business and no one has the right to judge him.
  
  We all live in glass houses of our own making, yet our society revels in throwing stones. Everyone starts waving a moral banner to protest against the wayward lives of artists. Even if, like Srinath says, art is to be seen as a profession, why should we expect immaculate personal lives? Politics is a profession, and IMO, America today has displayed utmost maturity in choosing to separate Clinton's personal life from his professional accomplishments. Human nature is basically flawed, and I do not think artists have to surmount their personal flaws and present a gleaming, spotless outer life just because what they do is more high-profile than, say, computer programming.
  
  I do agree that art is not a wanton license for doing whatever it is that the artist pleases. But I think the topic here is that art could be inherently amoral, as it fundamentally violates an unstated eleventh commandment: "Thou shalt not seek personal glory." Isn't it true that we are all taught to do things for "the greater glory" and not for our own purposes? Yet, artists, by what they do, seek to be recognized above and beyond their fellow men. Becoming famous and then leading an immoral life is one thing, but having (what may be construed as) "immorality" in oneself and expressing those inner demons in one's art is quite something else!
  
  Extending this, let me attempt to answer some of Kanchana's questions (needless to say, everything stated is IMHO):
  
  1. Is there an Objective Morality beyond the collective social norms which we adhere to?
  
  Yes, and that is being true to oneself, which may be radically different from what the social norms are. There are certain outright no-no's (e.g. murder) and all of these come under willful harm to others. For example, I do not think Kamal, as an artist should be held responsible if, say, he (indirectly, not wilfully)) encourages a couple of people to commit adultery. That has more to do with the weakness of the people who were influenced and just used him as an excuse.
  
  3. If such a suppression is called Morality in Life, but overcoming this suppression is accepted as Creativity/ Creative Irreverence in Art, is there a major hypocrisy here?
  
  You betcha! A lot of morality has to do with personal interpretation, and it's absolutely hypocritical to subscribe to the "artists are free spirits" logic, when there are several free spirits (maybe even you and I) who are not that famous, and therefore are not judged so easily.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• From: Srinath (@ socks15d.raleigh.ibm.com) on: Wed Jul 22 11:34:38 EDT 1998
  
  Bharat:
  I agree with almost everything you say. Maybe I haven't expressed myself explicitly. None of us has the right to judge another, and again, not because the 'other' oftens happens to be in a high-profile profession. By the same yard-stick that 'other' does not have the right to claim tat it his art which gives him the freedom to behave thus. They are as much human as you and me and any loss in morality is an express statement on the degenerate that the artist is - inspite of his art - and definitely not because of it ! To every amoral artist I have this to say - "I respect your art sir, and am thankful. But would I rather drink a cup of coffee with you ? No thank you, it would lower my dignity to do so". You see the artist's work will still have a place in my house (and heart). But not the artist himself. Of course, all this assuming that such an artist considers himself above and beyond morality of any kind ! These so called shackles are what separate us from the animals. The code of life is not only to survive but also to live - by extracting a promise of reciprocatory behaviour - a promise that the other person will abide by a common moral code. I suspect the animal kingdom too extracts such a promise from members of its own looser society. But the more stringent the moral code, the higher flies the intelligence - the better is life on the whole. Do you know who else refuses to abide by society's moral codes ? Thieves, murderers and to a certain extent (IMHO ;-)) politicians !
  
  
• From: Ravi (@ envy.cs.umass.edu) on: Wed Jul 22 13:26:44 EDT 1998
  
  hmmm.. the topic and the ensuing discussion are very interesting. But isn't it on the borderline of acceptable TFM topics. Esp. since some of the egs. are non TFM. I for one would like to see this discussion go on. I propose the setting up of a non-TFM DF. Any takers? I had proposed this earlier but no one was enthusiastic. If we have a DF not restricted in scope, then we can take up any topic for discussion. I'll do the necessary groundwork. I just need some assurance that my labours will not be in vain. :) Please send me mail so as to avoid furtherr digression. In the meanwhile lets continue with the discussion here, stressing on art that is part of TFM.
  
  

---

List all pages of this thread

Post comments