Christians refusing to listen to certain bands...

[Zephyrus]

So would you consider moral value or aesthetic value to be paramount when assessing art? Or are both required when it comes to accepting it?

 

[challenge_everything]

You are not reading it correctly if that is the conclusion you're coming up with. What it's basically saying is what Cythraul said, namely that it's acceptable to discount a work of art on moral grounds. It's not saying that it's required that you reject a work of art if it goes against your moral principles. The "necessarily" is implied, otherwise he would have said "aesthetic and moral aspects of works of art are mutually inclusive." Just because a work of art has a fault or "blemish" in it does not mean that one cannot enjoy it, whether this is a moral fault or a fault in songwriting, playing, production, etc. All Dickie is claiming here is that moral judgment is one more facet of aesthetics upon which artworks are judged, which is too frequently dismissed. The fact that you were obliged to use the word "despite" indicates that you actually agree with what he said.

Fair enough. I guess I was placing too much emphasis on "defective" in the sense that I assumed he meant that a "defective" work was not an artistically valuable one.

 

[skeptik]

The point is that moral vision is a part of the aesthetic of the work of art. However important it is to an evaluation of the work of art is obviously dependent upon the observer. For my own personal interpretation, I do not value moral divergences from my own views very highly, but at the same time I try not to judge others who take a stronger view too harshly. That said, I do not think it's out of the question to try to persuade somebody that the moral component of the work of art should not be judged as harshly as they judge it.

 

[Death Aflame]

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.

At first when I was reading this I thought the author was going to arrive at some argument that forced one to reject a work of art entirely if it did not coincide with one's own moral outlook. However, that last line makes it pretty clear that to reject the morals of an artwork is not to reject the artwork outright, merely to acknowledge part of its aesthetic weakness.

 

[Ender Rises]

So... I'm not really getting that. Does that mean that if you disagree with a work of art's moral vision, there is something lacking in the aesthetics? I fail to see the connection.

 

[Zephyrus]

So... I'm not really getting that. Does that mean that if you disagree with a work of art's moral vision, there is something lacking in the aesthetics? I fail to see the connection.

I think the main point is that aesthetics should take precedent to morals, in which case Dodens and I are sound in our opinions.

 

[Death Aflame]

So... I'm not really getting that. Does that mean that if you disagree with a work of art's moral vision, there is something lacking in the aesthetics? I fail to see the connection.

I think it is saying that if you find fault with the morality of the artwork (such as fascist ideologies being linked to Italian Futurism, for instance) then it is in fact an aesthetic fault.

In other words, the morality or ethical position of the work of art is an aesthetic quality. And to acknowledge a fault of this type is merely to recognize a blemish in the artwork as a whole--it doesn't mean you have to reject it outright.

 

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

I completely agree with that.

 

[Death Aflame]

I completely agree with that.

I think most of us here would since we probably all like a band or two with an ideology that we disagree with (Arghoslent comes to mind) and this perspective comforts us in that it says it is okay to like artworks that you may not agree with (morally, ethically, politically, etc.).

 

[Cythraul]

When the hell did challenge_everything become a philosopher?

 

[skeptik]

Seriously, isn't he black?

Anyway, I'm glad that was able to spark a bit of discussion, that was just a passage that really struck me and thought it was applicable to the topic at hand. It's from the (essay? article? I forget which) called "All Aesthetic Attitude Theories Fail."

 

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

I think most of us here would since we probably all like a band or two with an ideology that we disagree with (Arghoslent comes to mind) and this perspective comforts us in that it says it is okay to like artworks that you may not agree with (morally, ethically, politically, etc.).

There's an interview out there with Arghoslent where one of the main songwriters says he was voting for Obama--because Obama is smart(er than most inbred white hicks from the south; pretty much his point). Hooray for semi-smart racism!

 

[Death Aflame]

There's an interview out there with Arghoslent where one of the main songwriters says he was voting for Obama--because Obama is smart(er than most inbred white hicks from the south; pretty much his point). Hooray for semi-smart racism!

I think I remember reading that interview.

Anyways, I have never really delved deep into Arghoslent's ideology but often their song titles seem pretty clear in racist intent (flogging the cargo) but that statement about dumb hicks and voting Obama confuses me. And this may be slightly off topic, but what politics, exactly, does the band espouse?

 

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

I've always assumed they sort of write from a historical perspective. Since it's not really annoyingly overt/using modern dialect "LOL KILL my pals ALL THE TIME FUCK THEM IN THE ASS LYNCH THEM" whatever shit, it allows me not to mind as much. Then again, I don't find what I just wrote to be offensive, I just find it in bad taste and stupid/obnoxious.

 

[Death Aflame]

I've always assumed they sort of write from a historical perspective. Since it's not really annoyingly overt/using modern dialect "LOL KILL my pals ALL THE TIME FUCK THEM IN THE ASS LYNCH THEM" whatever shit, it allows me not to mind as much. Then again, I don't find what I just wrote to be offensive, I just find it in bad taste and stupid/obnoxious.

Ah, that makes more sense at least. To be honest, while I generally really like their music (especially Galloping Through the Battle Ruins) I never gave much thought to what the singer was yelling at me.

 

[challenge_everything]

When the hell did challenge_everything become a philosopher?

In the pub...

My masters was in politics so I studied a bit of (political)philosophy, but most of my reading has been out of personal interest.

 

[sevag00]

I asserted that one's religious beliefs shouldn't prevent someone from listening to any kind of music.

I like this statement, and i 100% agree with it. I'm a Christian, and i don't mind listening to bands with Satanic lyrics.

 

[skeptik]

I don't agree that it shouldn't, but it absolutely does not have to.

 

[TheInsane]

I dont find it weird that he, as a christian, doesnt want to listen to stuff that praises that which he sees as the ultimate evil. I mean from his perspective it makes alot of sense.

Now I do question his outlook and philosophy because I personally am strongly against it and I dont live my own life by principles like that. On the contrary I like to embrace alot of different stuff and affirm it.

With this said I can be put off certain music because of the lyrical content. Most often if the lyrics are written bad and/or contain a message I dislike. Not always though. Im neither a communist or a national socialist but I have enjoyed bands with leanings towards both ideologies. Often though bands like this turn me off because of the lyrics.

But in general I hate joke/unserious lyrics and very often party lyrics as well. Some band do it well (I dont mind the Anthrax stuff for example) but most cant pull it off for me.

 

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

Ah, that makes more sense at least. To be honest, while I generally really like their music (especially Galloping Through the Battle Ruins) I never gave much thought to what the singer was yelling at me.

Yeah I can't really find anything too outrageous in their lyrics. I mean, "Rape Of A Slave" is kind of fucked up, but that shit really did happen, and probably in the way they describe it (except for the weird supernatural stuff like "flames orbiting" or whatever). It's not like they say outright that they love raping black women or anything. That would be annoying. Just writing about something, to me, doesn't necessitate that you ENDORSE it. They probably don't endorse raping black women, as they seem intelligent and rather rational (to whatever extent a racist can be).