I think I agree but I worry a bit about the phrase "as a whole" which implies that a moral intent must be applied in a totalizing ideal sense, as if we can know what is good for society as a whole. I suppose it can mean what is good even if it's not good in all specific circumstances. And those circumstances must be defined in some parameters of time and space. For instance, let's say it's good for society as a whole that world pollution be reduced but in some circumstances that might entail great (short or long term) suffering in simple economies dependent on polluting resources. We could find similar examples for artworks or aesthetic intentions. I offer Michelangelo's Last Judgment -- depicting a moral intent that is clearly not good for society as a whole because it excludes those who "denied" goodness through their "sins", as depicted.
Complicated. Moral intent aimed at good for society as a whole leaves many evil gaps. And we all know how often those evil gaps are camoulflaged as the great good. But I'm not ready to discard the idea that art must have moral intent and that does mean, as you say, a good for society as a whole. I just don't know how to define moral intent in a way that is good on the whole even if it is evil in some particulars. WC --- On Mon, 1/5/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 11:46 AM > Moral intent can't be ignored. I think we recognize the > gift and look > if it is applied for the good of human society as a whole. > As you say, to make > a final judgment could be tough in some cases. > Boris Shoshensky > > >-- William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: > Which brings us back to Miller's topic re Nazi art. Do > we only judge the > artists' gifts and talents in assessing their art or > do we also include > morality in the mix? A tough question, made tougher by any > look at historical > context for so much art, but can the moral intent issue be > ignored? > WC > > > --- On Sun, 1/4/09, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > From: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Date: Sunday, January 4, 2009, 8:35 AM > > They have. The morality part comes the way we apply > those > > gifts. > > Boris Shoshensky > > > > -- William Conger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Some terrorists psychopathic murderers have these > gifts. > > So, is there a moral > > gift, too? > > WC > > > > > > --- On Fri, 1/2/09, [email protected] > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > From: [email protected] > > <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Date: Friday, January 2, 2009, 1:10 PM > > > I see it similar way. > > > Boris Shoshensky > > > > > > -- [email protected] wrote: > > > "I'll submit two candidates. They are > both > > gifts > > > that, it seems to me, one is > > > either born with or not, and there's no > > > "acquiring" them. (Though one may not > > > be aware of having them until the > need/opportunity to > > > exploit them arises.) > > > > > > The first is mental stamina -- the ability to > hang in > > there > > > alertly on a > > > "project" far long longer than most. > > > > > > The second has already been touched on, perhaps: > The > > > capacity to be > > > "interested". I'd call it > > > "curiosity", but it's more than > that. > > And it > > > does > > > not > > > automatically come with smarts, talent, or > stamina. > > > It's its own gift". > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Learn about VA loan programs and benefits. Click now. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/PnY6rx9LkMiYbOw9IBAE0z2iCkOrm5 > Wv4OZNVkMQi69iRA67h63uE/
