We were arguing about art at work in the lab the other day. Not the aesthetic value argument (though that *IS* a good one) but about whether art could be moral in any meaninful sense. After a couple of jokes about the whole topic of what used to be called “stag films” we finally got onto the topic of whether a song, for example, could be immoral. The general tenor of the lab was centered on how art might be *OFFENSIVE* but that wouldn’t make it be *IMMORAL*. I argued in favor of the proposition and my first example was “Heroin” by the Velvet Underground and, sigh, nobody in the lab had ever heard of it. Dude, I told them. This song killed, like, hundreds of people. There are people who never would have tried H if it weren’t for this song!
My argument was that if art can inspire action, then the art is likely to share the moral content (if any) of the associated actions. If, for example, art inspires someone to learn to play music or to teach children to dance or save the world, then the art is moral. If, however, the art inspires people to shoot heroin? Probably immoral. (We failed to reach consensus.)
This is an open thread, by the way.
In any case, from there, I thought about Andy Warhol and Brian Eno, and then Roxy Music, and then (I have no idea how but that got me to) Tom Waits, and that brought me to Soulsavers which had the best album of 2007 It’s Not How Far You Fall It’s the Way You Land
Revival is the song that you probably know already. (If you haven’t heard it, I think you’ll enjoy it as a lovely song.)
I find the video somewhat obnoxious… the whole “Elmer Gantry” thing is played out, if you ask me. When religious folks fail, it seems to me (as an atheist) to be about as surprising as when non-religious folks fail (which isn’t to say that there aren’t Bob Tiltons out there who deserve the full Sinclair treatment… but attacking, for example, Ted Haggard as if he were a Bob Tilton strikes me as misunderstanding the dynamic of human failure).
Where was I? Oh, yes. Soulsavers. The entire album is good. It’s got a cover of Neil Young’s, Through My Sails and a cover of the Stones’ No Expectations (which, by themselves, are reason enough to pick up the album) but my favorite song on the disc is Kingdoms of Rain.
It’s a really good album. My favorite review of it (which I can’t find online! Augh!) said something to the effect of: “This is deeply religious music. Not church music, but drinking whiskey and smoking and reading the Bible and crying religious music.” You should check it out.
(Additionally, Good Old Games has Fallout, the first one, on sale for the low price of *FREE* for the next day and a half. If you haven’t played it, you’re not going to find a better price than that one. This game is one of the highlights of 1997. It’ll blow you away.)
All that to say: I hope you have a Good Friday. (As I said, consider this an open thread.)
Heroin is not an immoral song and it killed no one, it isn’t a call to action (which would make it immoral). Fools tried heroin because the musicians they idolized used it; heck, that’s how Charlie Parker got scads of people hooked — and he never wrote a song about it.
It’s the call to action. But if you want to make the point that involuntary heroes are responsible for what their admirers do, that’s another story.Report
Heroin is a great song. Echo and the Bunnymen do a killer cover of it BTW. But Reed was glorifying its use. Did that kill anybody directly: no. But he was making is sexy, sultry and appealing. I bet plenty of people wanted to have the same wife and life as Lou.Report
I was just glad that someone finally stood up to all the Jim-Jims in this town.Report
I’m surprised nobody tried to turn that lyric into a commercial for Slim Jims.Report
I need a decoder ring for all the insider jargon around here! What the heck is a “Jim-Jim”?Report
+1Report
“jimReport
wtf…another comment got cut off..
jim-jim is a line from the song Heroin.
Report
Thanks. Sometimes I miss a lyric or two when listening to that wild rock and roll music.
But I still don’t know what “Jim-Jim” means. Aw, what the hell, forget it — it’s probably something immoral.Report
The artist creates his own moral universe. I like this movie a lot, even though way too many of its jokes fall flat, because it takes that cliche seriously enough to examine it what it really means.Report
The scene where Cheech first yells out directions from the audience and they’re good? I mean, really good? That’s where the movie turned for me and I realized that it wasn’t funny.Report
I was thinking of the banter among the actors.  It’s jokey, but the jokes aren’t very good.Report
To the extent that art is a behavior, it seems strange to argue that it can’t be immortal. But art is also an object, and the moral status of objects is an interesting topic for discussion.
For example, objects like art can and often do outlive not only their creators, but every single member of their intended audience (the people of a time, and perhaps a place). A piece of art might even outlive their children, their children’s children, their children’s children’s children, and so on, to the point where the conditions that caused the act (if not the object) to be immoral no longer obtain (maybe heroin has been wiped out?). Is it still immoral then?Report
To the extent that morality is culturally dependent (now that’s a can of worms right there) one could easily argue that a work of art could be Moral! in this century and Immoral! in that one (or vice-versa) or, more interestingly, thought to have moral content in that one and known to be merely a matter of taste in this one (or vice-versa).Report
I’m not sure what it means for an object to be immoral without consequences. Acts, I assume, could be immoral regardless of their consequences because they have intentions behind them, but objects? Maybe the intention behind their creation? But this seems inadequate, because one could imagine an object that is created for immoral reasons that ends up achieving a bunch of highly moral ends once it’s entirely separated from its creator. What would its status be then? Is it still an immoral object? What would that mean? The act of creating it might still be immoral, but the object itself?
Like I said, the morality of objects is an interesting topic of discussion. There are all sorts of issues that come up that shed light on moral issues more broadly. Since a work of art is both an act and an object, these seem like relevant considerations. The different time periods thing was simply meant to highlight them.
Report
I don’t think that you need consequences to make an artwork immoral. A work of art is a speech act, and one that can attempt someone to persuade someone to a point of view. A speech act comes with a speaker and an intention. One intended to promote immorality, such as “Triumph of the Will,” is immoral, whether or not it succeeded in convincing anyone. Just as someone running a racist blog is doing something immoral even if it doesn’t succeed in persuading anyone.Report
A very good point.
Performance art would have a different moral character than other art, due to a series of actions involved.Report
<i>My argument was that if art can inspire action, then the art is likely to share the moral content (if any) of the associated actions. </i>
i dunno man, about 1 billion weddings featuring “every breath you take” beg to differ.Report
Hollyweird came down of smoking in TV and movies bc it encourages the behavior so it doesn’t seem much different than songs.Report
How are we defining art? If I give a speech that portrays Jews as the scourge of society and rally people to exterminate them, is that moral?
Does the answer change if I put the speech to song?Report
… and does the answer change if there are no Jews in your society?
(Japan went through an episode of anti-semitism in the 1990’s, according to my Jewish History Teacher. I actually doubt that was really what was going on… but at least one anime is kinda, really, anti-semetic).Report
Was “Birth of a Nation” (or “Triumph of the Will”) an “immoral” movie?
I’ve no problem categorizing it (them) as such.Report
I wasn’t really seeking to answer in either the affirmative or the negative. I suppose my point, if I had one, was that art can be as moral, immoral, or amoral as anything else. If there is a supposition that works of FICTION somehow change the equation, I’m curious to hear that argument.Report
I’d put those under art as propaganda… and the propaganda having a morality of wrong, with the art as “I ‘unno” (I’d have to watch).
HOWEVER, in the category of fictional art — the type that sends people to therapy for years is probably immoral.
The type that gives people heart attacks? Definitely Immoral (particularly if not surrounded by caution tape)
The type that causes Charlie Sheen to bug the FBI about a Japanese art flick? (probably immoral, but much less so than the aforementioned. The FBI’s response: “why are you bothering us? this was filmed in japan…”)Report
I’m sensing a future alliance between Jaybird and Tipper Gore…Report
She would not have included a link to the song.Report