joseph berg wrote: >> ...I believe that everything humans do falls under the scope of moral >> evaluation and judgment. Art is one of those things... > > I believe art is at its best when it serves as an expression of values.
1. Doing my best Cheerskep impersonation: What do you have in mind when you write "as an expression"? 2. This strike me as a tautology. Isn't everything one does "an expression of values"? When is art (or anything else) NOT an expression of values? > But I disagree when you go on to say, "Nature, of course, in unconcerned > about human "moral" rules about artistic matters. Thus, it "de-moralizes" > art." > > Morality cannot go against the laws of nature: Nature doesn't care. It just goes on. And morality doesn't go anywhere or anything... but you can. If you walk off a cliff, Nature will let you fall at an accelerating rate until your come to a very rapid and fatal stop. > Couldn't morality be defined as not transgressing limits set by society? You're talking in circles. What are those limits set by society but various consensuses (consensa? consensi? <g>) about what individuals *should* (ought to) do or not do? Some are codified as laws with greater enforcement, others are social conventions supported by public plaudits or shame, and yet others are social or class markers. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
