• Ethical does not refer to its subject matter, but to how it is made and how it affects the people who view it

    I think anyone can create anything they want with art, as long as it is ethical, which means: They do not use that art to hurt others, they do not try to hurt the environment, (also, this may just be my opinion, but obscene art should not be posted in public places where children might see them). The subject of the art has nothing to do with whether the art is considered ethical or not. As long as that art is just an expression, and is not meant to cause harm to others or the world around them, it would be considered ethical. For example, if an art piece is incredibly graphic, but it is not intended to hurt others feelings and it is posted in a proper, non-public place, that incredibly graphic art piece is still considered ethical.

  • Artists should be more mindful and take more responsibility for whether their music is morally right or wrong.

    Why make music if it's only going to be about partying, physical pleasure, and cool stuff? Why do so many people think its okay to pass the buck on this? Here's probably what goes through some artist's heads.

    "Oh, it's just my self expression about why excessive partying, drugs, and violence are good. So what if some kid gets influenced by my new song? It won't be my fault."

    With the exception of satire there is no reason to encourage self-destructive life styles or to misrepresent real life experiences through sensationalist music. It's simply a poor mindset to be in and bad for society in general.

    I don't want to restrict creativity or censor anything, but music is such an important life experience to everyone that it shouldn't be used to intentionally or unintentionally spread bad morality. And most everyone would agree with me on that.

    There's a reason why there are very few racist songs on the radio. Music is a human construct that has human elements such as morality.

    Basically the no argument is saying, "Music should not be ethical, therfor it doesn't matter if someone makes a racist hate song because it's just their self-expression." Not only is that wrong, but it devalues the whole idea of music in general when it's so much more than self-expression.

  • Art should be ethical

    Although it could be argued that ethics has no place in the art world, history contradicts this. For centuries artists have used their artwork to express opinions and educate human beings on a huge range of ethical issues. For example, thought provoking artwork depicting unpleasant images may sway peoples opinions on important matters, propaganda is an excellent example of this.

  • No, it should be simply an expression.

    Art has nothing to do with ethics, it has to do with expression, and therefore art should only be concerned with the artist's expression at any particular moment. If art were to be ethical, it would need to be controlled, and there is no such thing as "controlled art"; to think so is to not understand the nature of art.

  • Art should not be ethical because it is supposed to be an expression.

    Art is supposed to be an expression of the artist and their emotions not a cleaned up version that is acceptable to everyone. Sure there should be art available to everyone, but that doesn't mean that the artists shouldn't be limited in what they create. They should be free to create.

  • No, it should not have to be ethical if the artist wants it to be something else.

    Art should not have to be one thing or another. If the artists themselves want to create a piece of artwork that is ethical, then they should go for it, but they should not feel like it is pushed upon them. Artists need to gather inspiration from whatever gets their creative wheels going.

  • No, it doesn't have to be.

    I don't think that art should have to follow a code of ethics. Besides, ethics can be subjective. I think that the main purposes of art is to express creativity and get people thinking and talking. It shouldn't be censored and it shouldn't have to fit into one person's definition of ethical.

  • "Can" and "should" are two different words.

    I like the concept of art that can take an ethical stand and challenge those parts of me that think about what it means to be a good person. However, it is unreasonable and needlessly limiting to expect that all art should be that way. Ain't nothing wrong with a little decadence.

  • It should not be ethical

    It should express the artists' feeling, these being ethical or not. The main purpose of the arts is to be a form of catharsis, of expression and liberation. The artist doesn't care and shouldn't care either if what he does is actually ethical or unethical for some people, it is a simple form of expression, a creative process that shouldn't interrupted for the sake of the sensible.

  • No, it should not.

    Art should only be ethical if that is what the artist wants to portray. If they do not want to create art that is ethical then they should not have to because they have a right and the freedom to express themselves in new and interesting ways. Art should be in the eye of the beholder.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.