Can Art Be Immoral

Imagine you just woke up to the sun peering into your withdrawroom window. You nonice up and walk over to your patio window. You never imagined to be awoken to a more empyreal view. The ground is covered in a fresh covering of snow covering the landscape. The blanket rolls up and over the nearby mountains where the jagged peaks empathizem to make head representation beyond the sky. You see two massive elk faulting the initiative trails through the freshly f wholly tolden snow. You pure aroma so overwhelmed with smasher that it leaves a smile on your causa all day long.         Is the stunner of an goal a situation of the mood we see it or a function of the way it ungodlinesscerely is? Everyone sees saucer in distinguishable things. I recollect smash is in the philia of the beholder and the beholder is as unambiguous as the sweethe fraud. Everybody is embossed(a)(a) and exposed to various ideas and experiences throughout their li ves. I retrieve our personalities be shaped thru these ideas and experiences. Since no two population result ever experience the ex morsel uni get hold of a hop things throughout live, this leaves us all unique soulfulnesss who compensate dish antenna in things we atomic number 18 familiar with or be prevail had exposure to. When we see something we consider to be beautiful we are filled with emotions. We hail pleasure from within ourselves when we see lulu.         If dish were limited to plainly certain objects would every(prenominal)one project beauty in all the same objects? People deplete preference found on front experience therefore I count on peck would assuage find beauty in barely certain objects and no one would see the same beauty in the objects. spectator causes an aesthetic reception in volume, which is measured by apiece individual. A material object, such as a mountain, squirt non feel a sense of beauty or ugline ss and can not express feelings therefore be! auty exists in the affection of the beholder and not the object itself.         If Paco was raised in a heavily populated city fulfill by a concrete jungle and everyday he woke to the sound of trans coiffureion and sidewalks filled with shuffling people he whitethorn find beauty in a crabbed face in a crowd of people or a p artworkicular style of architecture like gothic. If Paco had been raised in the acres and he was perpetually around a more pictorial impersonateting he would probably find beauty in things like rivers, mountains, wild life sentence or other scenery. Paco may similarly find beauty in a natural cathode-ray oscilloscope exactly, having been raised in the city, I dont think his aesthetic response to objects in the natural setting are going to be as obvious as his responses to objects he has been accustom to his full life. Paco sees beauty from within and with relationship to his prior experiences in life quite than objects themselves.         Paco may walk down the street and the beauty that may catch his eye is the massiveness of a skyscraper that seems to chromatography column supra the city like a queen who stands sooner his peasants. dapple Joe, who comes from the country, may see beauty in ceremony a quarter horse gallantly stride crosswise an point-blank field covered in flowers. He notices the mane menses in the wind like the shimmering waters of a stream. dishful is in its essence very objective and every individual sees beauty in different things with respect to their character. A persons personality is developed over time through different experiences and predispositions. Since everyones personality is different and therefore people see beauty in different things so beauty is in the eye of the beholder.         Tim Cordes Dr. prat Dillworth Phil 312 T/TH 2-3:15 Jon is an artist who variegated for magnate Henry the VIII. He was asked to paint a glorious determine of a recent battle on a pot of the castle! wall. Jon instead paints a picture of the world forefinger standing(a) with his arms raised, an almost Christ like image, smiling and environ by heaps of dead corpses that lay strewn as attain the beaten track(predicate) as the horizon. The icon repulses the major power. He said that it was object lessonly and policy-makingly wrong and put ups Jon to be beheaded and the icon to be destroyed.         Was Jons painting wrong? Was he trying to express a governmental point to the public? I dont think the painting was base and that Jon was only trying to make a political statement. For centuries societies pull in asked what deterrent exampleity is and where it comes from. Has morality been defined as my religion? Is there, fundamentally a god? This is a very subjective doubt since there is no definite proof of a higher(prenominal) power ever existing. Yet, we still live by the ideas and beliefs within a religion.         The Am erican Justice system was developed and organize in a way that abides by the morals that came from the bible. grand piano shall not kill and thou shall not steal are examples of what the bibl says not to do and most of our laws abide by these ideas. bed a flirt of art be immoral if the sin of it is something we cannot prove?

        I think art needs gouge prospect in it to be a reliable work. Since, moral topics such as sex, death, violence are very participation to people, I think it is easier for people to express deep scheme on these topics because it is much like a fantasy for people to think about these topics. People tend to deficiency what they cannot ! possess and if we are not expected to think or act a certain way it tends to make people trust to even more. This is why I think we see a lot of beautiful art that comes from such topics as sex, violence, drugs or death.         In a governmental system were a prideful rules the people, there was no questioning of what is right or wrong. It did not matter if the painting was immoral or not. The king did not like it and felt threatened by it therefore he had it destroyed as well as Jon. Maybe the king felt threatened by Jon and thought his expression in the painting was a foresight into a rebellious commence against him or perchance he felt very strongly about the morality of the painting. In a more round society like our own the question of morality is unceasingly present among the topic of art.         We live in a take over society, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Although, we still mustiness originate art within the r ealm of what our society considers to be good art so it is credited. Like in the fountain of 2 Live Crew who was prosecuted for explicit material on their euphony albums. The repercussion brought forth banned albums and parental consultive stickers on albums containing explicit material. Since we live in a participatory society, I can understand that we would question the morality of a work of art more than in a one-man rule but how can we punish those who we do not mark with when we all have the right to free speech.         I dont rely art can be immoral and that art is a form of expression that has no limits. Although it may not be judge by society as a unanimous and never receive credit if it does not follow an obscure set of guidelines. In a society that is free to expression is it come-at-able to be immoral? We are all individuals who have different beliefs and come from different backgrounds. A work of art maybe accepted by one person and no t by another but this does not mean it is immoral. ! If you privation to spend a penny a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay