-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Origin of art matters?
- Thread starter cowboy
- Start date
I could, since it wouldn´t make the song less lovely. Would I buy an album from them or something? Probably not.
I enjoy a number of things created by people who have done despicable things or held despicable views. For instance, I like a lot of Pascal's observations despite his disgusting antisemitism. Again, I like a lot of what Thomas Jefferson said and did, despite that he owned slaves.
I can't say I take into consideration the personal lives of artists when deciding whether or not I like their work. That's irrelevant information with respect to my response to it.
Who knows what kind of life all those songwriters and artists have. I probably could enjoy the song/painting/etc for what it is.
Odi Brassicum
Unicorn trainer.
I understand the dilemma. Does acknowledging the beauty of a piece of art imply agreement with the moral stance of the artist? For myself the answer is "No". Sadly it's not that easy. If I pay to view/hear the art of a living artist I might be financially supporting them which is something I don't want to do.
Pastadamus
Member
I think I agree with you. Beauty and truth are very subjective things, and we have a moral imperative to oppose evil. If one knowingly approves of things done by an evil person, then that person also encompasses evil. One example is I stopped liking Lethal Weapon after I found out what kind of person Mel Gibson was although part of this decision was motivated by the fact that I didn't want to give him any more of my money.
Last edited: