Burzum - Belus (aka "Den Hvite Guden") (2010)

[no country for old wainds]

people who judge art using any kind of moral criteria are gollywogs and i want them to take their 'warrior ways' away from my residential area.

 

[skeptik]

Anybody who argues that morality is not an element in a work of art and thus cannot be judged on that criteria doesn't know much about art.

 

[no country for old wainds]

didn't you read my last post? what are you still doing here?

 

[skeptik]

Morality is a component of a work of art, and you judge works of art based on their components. To suggest that a work of art cannot be judged based on one of its components is simply erroneous.

To cite my favorite Dickie quote:

Aesthetic and moral aspects of works of art are not mutually exclusive. If a work has a false moral vision, then something is lacking within the work itself and is thus an aesthetic fault. Moral coherence is an aesthetic category, part of the work...To judge a moral vision to be morally unacceptable is to judge it defective and this amounts to saying that the work of art has a defective aspect.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Morality is not objective, though. I only partially agree with what you just said. Yes, works of art are judged on components, of which morality is only one component. There are almost infinite components of any one work of art, if you care to study something that much, and, indeed, morality could have many, many multitudes of subcomponents. In this sense, I think it is unfair to say that art of a "morally debased" nature is inherently defective; if anything, it makes the art as 'inherently defective' as it would to say "I don't like it because it's lame."

 

[skeptik]

wat

 

[-CC-]

He was responding to your Dickie quote

To judge a moral vision to be morally unacceptable is to judge it defective and this amounts to saying that the work of art has a defective aspect.

And I agree with V5, and think that the above quote is a load of crock

 

[skeptik]

A good work of art can still be defective. Most, if not all works of art are defective in some way. You're an idiot.

 

[Einherjar86]

Morality is a component of a work of art, and you judge works of art based on their components. To suggest that a work of art cannot be judged based on one of its components is simply erroneous.

This is true, but there is no cohesive and universal moral standard. Therefore, it becomes impossible to judge a work based on that. The same goes for aesthetics; what some view as technically/superficially pleasing, others mind find repugnant.

 

[skeptik]

There is no universal standard for any means of evaluating art, so what's your point for pointing out the obvious?

 

[Einherjar86]

What was your point for bringing it up in the first place?

 

[skeptik]

It was relevant to the discussion? People were arguing that morality has nothing to do with evaluating art, and that's bullshit.

 

[unknown]

so why are we bringing up an issue that has no fixed definition?

Morality is a component of a work of art, and you judge works of art based on their components.

There is no universal standard for any means of evaluating art, so what's your point for pointing out the obvious?

wat

 

[Estellise Sidos Heurassein]

I've never understood this band. So many people like the music, but it must not be for me.

 

[skeptik]

so why are we bringing up an issue that has no fixed definition?





wat

Why bring up evaluations of art at all then? If you mean to claim that we can't evaluate a work of art in terms of its moral content because there is no universal measurement for it, then you have to also claim that we can't evaluate a work of art at all except in technical aspects. Basically any valuable means of evaluating a work of art is NOT fucking universal. Which is why there are different judgements for the same work of art. Pretty weird shit, I know.

 

[unknown]

I'm all for not evaluating art and just letting people like whatever they want for whatever reasons they may have

 

[skeptik]

And so what was wrong with anything that I said? I only said that it's acceptable to look at art with respect to morality, I didn't even suggest that one has to put much, or any, stock in it at all.

 

[unknown]

And so what was wrong with anything that I said? I only said that it's acceptable to look at art with respect to morality, I didn't even suggest that one has to put much, or any, stock in it at all.

this doesn't seem to be the feeling given off with your responses in general towards anything. It's Matt's way or the highway.

and I also didn't say there was anything wrong with what you said. I was confused and wanted clarification. hence the "wat"

 

[no country for old wainds]

aesthetic power is fundamentally amoral as far as i'm concerned and from what i can tell *the test of time* agrees with that. to turn the dickie quote against itself, there are no 'true moral visions' and so any moral element to a work of art is automatically a defective element.

 

[skeptik]

this doesn't seem to be the feeling given off with your responses in general towards anything. It's Matt's way or the highway.

and I also didn't say there was anything wrong with what you said. I was confused and wanted clarification. hence the "wat"

I don't know...maybe try reading the first post that I made over.

aesthetic power is fundamentally amoral as far as i'm concerned and from what i can tell *the test of time* agrees with that.

What the hell does this mean?

to turn the dickie quote against itself, there are no 'true moral visions' and so any moral element to a work of art is automatically a defective element.

This is not an indictment of the quote, but rather an observation about the inherent instability of the process of evaluating art in the first place, and is in no way limited to any moral interpretation. The same applies for just about any other means of looking at a work of art. Somebody will genuinely find some aspect of a work of art defective even in the face of the most ardent disagreement. There are no 'true' anything 'visions' with respect to the topic at hand. There is no 'true atmospheric vision', no 'true emotive vision', no 'true whatever vision' in any genuinely universal sense. It comes down to the individual's own perception of subjective universality (not that all are equal).