According to William H. Gass, the concepts of beauty and morality are two unrelated concepts. Gass conjures the scene of a dinner party to prove his point with a myriad of characters and situations behind each action or object at the party. He claims that if the quail were to be unethically shot by a machine gun from a plane, it would be completely unrelated to if that quail were to be cooked badly. He also draws the example that the presence of a field marshal could not sour the wine. The quality of the meal is unrelated to who prepared the meal, who attended the party, or the circumstances in which the ingredients were obtained (208-209). While Gass is partially correct, the influence of ethics over art is wholly dependent on the artist and
…show more content…
The realm of what can be considered art is such a large expansion that hardly any notions made about one piece can hold up to another. Artists create their works for a vast amount of different reasons, and some are solely for the purpose of an ethical or moral standpoint while others are simply for the sake of beauty or emotion. Artists’ morality will not always bleed into a work of art, but there are a great number of cases where they do. Also, not to mention, all moral claims are entirely subjective to the artist and audience. The stance that morality can not overcome the beauty of artwork is neither true nor false, in fact it is completely dependent on the artist or audience …show more content…
Of course, this argument is true. Historically corrupt figures have created classic works of literature, and if one were unaware of the atrocities of the creator, they would unbiasedly see beauty. But we are not all so blessed to be unbiased. In fact, hardly anyone is. If I were to find out my favorite book had actually been written by Adolph Hitler under a pseudonym, my views of the literature would warp. The idea that the author of a novel could be responsible for the anguish and death of millions of people is enough to convince someone to disregard beauty. If let to happen, ethics can and will consume works of
The realm of what can be considered art is such a large expansion that hardly any notions made about one piece can hold up to another. Artists create their works for a vast amount of different reasons, and some are solely for the purpose of an ethical or moral standpoint while others are simply for the sake of beauty or emotion. Artists’ morality will not always bleed into a work of art, but there are a great number of cases where they do. Also, not to mention, all moral claims are entirely subjective to the artist and audience. The stance that morality can not overcome the beauty of artwork is neither true nor false, in fact it is completely dependent on the artist or audience …show more content…
Of course, this argument is true. Historically corrupt figures have created classic works of literature, and if one were unaware of the atrocities of the creator, they would unbiasedly see beauty. But we are not all so blessed to be unbiased. In fact, hardly anyone is. If I were to find out my favorite book had actually been written by Adolph Hitler under a pseudonym, my views of the literature would warp. The idea that the author of a novel could be responsible for the anguish and death of millions of people is enough to convince someone to disregard beauty. If let to happen, ethics can and will consume works of