- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 3,750
- Reaction score
- 1,477
- Gender
- Male
- Country
-
But isn't art in general social?
I mean, naturally you could seperate the techniques something introduces from the product itself (in fact, there are great techniques which were first used in very bad movies). But on the other hand, the only thing other than technique to be judged in art is the subjective emotional judgement we unleash upon it as a social anymal that cannot get out of its own emotion and values.
Naturally one can choose to overlook something because his values allow him to see it as a product of its time.
Personally for example, i don't judge someone to be a child of his time and thus have racist or sexist thoughts which would disgust me today.
I would however not watch or read a work of someone who lived in the lifetime of mohammed and idealizes to have underage sexslaves and writes a love story about one of them. Even if that lovestory is written will with all the techniques being there. Even if it is a love story that, stripped out of context, would be a pleasure to read.
The same goes for a movie like Jud Süß. It is antijewish propaganda, but wellproduced antijewish propaganda with compelling actors.
It would still be too much for me.
I do not think moralizing art can be helped. The only question is whether the art itself and its general themes prevails as 'true' enough or not.
In my opinion, an honest verse stays honest no matter what.
If someone writes with complete honesty then even flaws in his thinking become rather charming than offensive (charming as outdated).
However, oftentimes the things people get upset about today were things written in bad spirit, as propaganda or as simple plotdevices.
Those things lose badly once you can look through that.
Also, as i said, all art is social, exspecially today where we have a popculture component.
No human can judge art in an objective lense, so why would we not be honest about it to be judged based on our morals?
