I wondered if I could truly commit to that code.
After considering what my art is mostly about, my answer was a big fat NO, I can NOT be certain.
At this point, I realised that I'm getting into something deep. The big word appeared: morality...
It turns out it wasn't just me! This question has been around for a good few thousands years.
The autonomists deny connection between art and morality. And the moralists believe an immoral work
is not to be valued as art.
Moral Value is irrelevant to artistic value. So there is no relationship between art and morality in Autonomism.
Moral value is SOMETIMES relevant to artistic value. The problem is that there is no definite way to determine when and to what extend art and morality connect. It all seems very subjective.
This is on the other end of the Autonomism. If art is morally flawed, it is then artistically flawed (it is not considered art at all).
This is the middle ground. When immoral aspects help to nurture an understanding or to enhance a culture, then they are not to be viewed as artistic defects. They will in fact add to artistic values.
Art communicates with us on so many different levels and it can affect our senses, emotions, reasons, behaviours and imaginations more than other areas of knowledge. It can open us up to new ideas and beliefs. And it also can influence us in a negative way. This makes us wonder if there should be some limits when creating art and what these limits are?
To many artists, art experts and art lovers, morality defines these limits. I have discussed above the relationship between art and morality and what some of the big names in philosophy and art think. Morality is a subjective matter and this makes it almost imposible to define. What is immoral in one culture or religion, might very likely be seen differently in another culture or religion.
That's why the question still stands after a few thousands years,