Do artists have a moral responsibility to act as a voice for individuals/communities to communicate with the wider world, or for groups/campaigns/ideologies to spread a message? Or, alternatively, do artists actually have a moral responsibility to be objective and stay out of politics, religion, and dogma in order that their art is accessible to everyone?
To be able to answer such a question, the circumstance under which the situation occurs is to be examined. The artist’s background, intent, and message are all considered when it comes to creating a piece of art, whatever it may be. Artists don’t necessarily have a moral responsibility to act as a voice for individuals and communities to communicate with the world, rather they choose to do so to portray and convey the issue at a larger scale. This is when the artist has a close affiliation with the issue. Artist also use their platform as a way to speak out and address the issues and connect with the wider world. Once again, it is not their moral responsibility it differs from artist to artist depending on what they want to convey to the wider audience as well as their views and stance on certain issues, and whether those can be broadcasted in the form of art, as most of these pieces are controversial due to the nature.

On the other side, this also means that they don’t have a moral responsibility to be objective and stay out of politics, religion, and dogmo of any kind. Art is a form of personal expression and restrictions shouldn't be placed upon forms of art. It can be argued that every piece of art is controversial and can cause debate due to conflicting opinions and perspectives, therefore a perfect uncontroversial piece will never be created as there will always be differing opinions. If an artist feels like just creating a piece of art for other reasons they should be able to. They’re not necessarily neglecting any of the world issues and choosing to be objective, that is the artist’s choice. Therefore, artists shouldn’t encounter restrictions placed upon their art and shouldn’t feel an obligation to be objective or act as a voice for individuals or communities.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hypnosis as a Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience by definition is “a claim, practice, or belief, that is presented as scientific but does not adhere to a valid scientific method and cannot be reliably tested.” Now hypnosis and hypnotherapy could be considered a pseudoscience. It is a state of consciousness where a person loses the power of voluntary action and is highly responsive to suggestions or directions. However this form of therapy results in a lot of inaccuracies and is prone to dismiss behaviors or down play any evidence that may contradict original belief. The main goal of a hypnotherapist is to achieve a result and not analyze how and why it occurred. When the claim that a hypnotherapist can help with treatments without an actual understanding on how it affects the issue or problem, results in it becoming a pseudoscience. It lacks sufficient evidence where data can be obtained and investigations can take place to be replicated to achieve similar results, as well as the outcome could have no
Read more
Senses: Sight: I saw the scenery on the way to Dubai as I was in the car for 2 hours and therefore spent most of my time looking outside of the window, as the scenery changed. Touch: Touching the puppies at my friends house. It was very relaxing and soothing. They were extremely soft. Hear: Listen to music on the way to Dubai and on the way back. Taste: Tasting the food that my friends mother made at her house. It was very tasty. Smell: At my friends house there were three different candles that were lit, one was vanilla, one was berries, and one was citrus. Knowledge Claim: I could smell each different candle as I approached the position of the candles. Knowledge Question: Did the scenery change as you drove by Abu Dhabi into Dubai.
Read more