The most infamous conflict between art and morality in Korea would be "Happy Sara", a book written by Ma Kwang Su, a university professor.
"Happy Sara," published in 1991, described in great detail about the college student Sara who follows her sexual desires and explores various unconventional sexual relationships. The book was banned in 1992 for "depraving and corrupting" the younger generation.
Recently, the conflict between morality and Art is often seen in K-hiphop, mostly because of the misogynic and inhumane lyrics. For example, Changmo's (a famous hiphop artist in Korea) lyrics became heavily controversial. Let's take a look at some of his lyrics.
' Your rap lyrics are like the Daegu subway fire, a disaster ' (The Daegu subway fire took away 192 lives and injured 151 people). This is the equivalent of saying " Your rap lyrics are like Katrina, only damages left behind."
He also objectified high school girls going to Deokso highschool, saying 'Spread your legs, I make enough money now girl.'
I don't think that art has to be moral, but I do think that it should be gated in some way. Things such as porn are illegal in many (most?) Countries, however art that closely resembles this is allowed.
I heard about my parents experience going to an art gallery in Italy which contained lots of beastiality (they went on accident), as this was a big thing at that time. How is this sort of thing allowed, when things like porn aren't?
I am not saying that it should be legal, but personally I have trouble seeing the difference sometimes. Another thing is that art has no age requirements compared to other media. Some 'art' is incredibly violent or obscene, but even a three year old can see it. I think art doesn't have to be moral, but it should definitely have rules and age barriers.
The question of 'Does art have to be moral' is a very sensitive and hard question answer. What we have to focus on are the various standards.
Having standards on an artwork could be unrealistic, but having a standard on art that society can agree with is important.The creators can't really say right or wrong about their own artworks.
There is definitely a need for moral standards an art. But the line between being offensive and artistic is hard to distinguish, and there is a need to figure out the line and be ethical. In conclusion, I can't choose sides for this question.
I don't necessarily think Art should be moral. Art moralism states that the purpose of Art should give life lessons and show ideal lives. Plato and Tolstoy were the ones who believed in art moralism.
What I don't understand is, did art have a purpose in the first place? If it's not asked to be made by a customer like the old days, I think it's okay for art to have no purpose like these days. In this liberal era, both moral and immoral art can be considered art. I don't think it should be in control of Ethics.
Arts need to be virtuous, for there is nothing that can be above ethics , no matter how artists have their liberty of expression.However their liberty does not mean their liberty allows them to break all the rules. We all have to remind ourselves repeatedly of the point that none of us has the right to harm others.
Liberty of expression is only obtainable under the name of ethics. How is it possible to justify snuff films under the name of liberty of expression?
I insist that misogyny, homophobia, and any other kinds of discrimination or violence should be wiped out in arts. By and large, liberty of expression is needed to authorize and protect artist who uses satire or humour to declaim the governments.
But nowadays, some jackholes are often abusing it in order to justify their unjustifiable works. I believe that people and communities that are regarding with creative jobs need to be more judicious.
Please stop the misunderstanding and abusing of liberty of expression in order to justify shoddy works that might violate the most precious value - Ethics.
It really depends on what kind of ethics. I used to write this book about Lilith ( Adam's first wife in the Jewish bible and Satan's lover) when I was in middle school, and at that age I thought, 'Jeez, if i ever manage to publish this I'm gonna piss off some Christians..'
One of my favorite books, 'The thief's Journal' by Jean Genet isn't exactly moral, but it's still a great book. I've learned the book 'The Flowers of Evil' in french class and it's about being an alcoholic and everything yet it's beautifully written. It really depends I guess. If it hurts people or animals badly it's probably not good art work.
If someone made an artwork mocking the people that died of disasters.. I don't respect it. That's just cruel, and I'm probably sure I wouldn't be able to find much artistic value in that.
Expressing Art depends on the artist's personal virtues and individuality. But moral standards are also needed. Say, if Baek Nam Jun (a performance and video artist in Korea) did a performance of destroying a piano, and the loud noise of it made someone deaf, was the performance ethical?
In reality nobody got hurt and it was written as a historic moment that expanded Art. Strict standards are mortal to creative arts. But there should be a line, and in that line art should be liberal to do whatever. There are a few works that crossed the line.
THere are two types of artworks that have a harmful influence on people. 'A Clockwork Orange' could be a good example of an artwork that gave a bad influence to people.
If the artwork is too evil that it raises teenage crime rates and suicide rates like this movie, there is a need for age restrictions. In the other hand, if the artwork harms human rights in the name of art, I think it's okay if the people related or the ones who watch the artwork agree to it. After beforehand warnings, it's their decision to watch it or not.
The word 'Ethics' is pretty blurry. The standards for artistic morality is hard to tell, but I believe art needs it's standards too. It's wrong to justify pedophilia or triggering people by excessive violence in the name of Art. If we take a movie as an example, there could be a violent movie scene that's necessary for the storyline.
What's important is how the scene was shot. If it's over the top I believe that it's the director's fault. To think about it, I only focused on the movies, writing this. My thoughts apply to all sorts of Art. Art needs it's moral standards.
I believe that Art should be moral in all cases. Especially Pop art. Pop art heavily influences people from a young age and it's immorality could heavily influence teenagers. Especially if it's music, it can have heavy influences in a person's virtue, so artists have to beware beforehand.
Art doesn't have to be moral in my opinon. There are both moral and immoral sides in the real world. People have the right to express it, and we shouldn't stop them from it.
For example, the book 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' was controversial for being too obscene, but even obscenity is part of our everyday lives.
With decentralization, anyone can do anything.
As for art...anyone is free to do as they wishes, I have seen a lot that i think only crazy people do.
Some art maybe unacceptable now, but may be acceptable in the future.
Some things die down when people stop appreciating it..usually.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit