112860380

Prof. Irvin
PHIL 3023
19 November 2015
Moral Subjectivity in the Aesthetics of Art
Morality is highly subjective. What is moral and what is immoral constantly changes
from region to region, group to group, and person to person. As such, an artwork judged immoral
a hundred years ago, could be considered morally good today. Different religious groups
consider different things moral and immoral. I might find something morally good when a friend
finds it morally wrong. A European country might find something perfectly moral that a North
American country finds highly immoral. There is no worldwide consensus between continents,
countries, ethnic groups, or religions on what is morally good and what is morally bad.
Therefore, one cannot judge the value of an artwork on morality alone. There are several
situations in which an artwork can present morally wrong values, but still be considered a good
artwork. However, morally wrong values used without thought, without reason, or without good
form can most definitely be considered an aesthetically valueless film.
A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2011 asked 36,000 people across 39
countries if a belief in God or a higher power is necessary in order to live a moral life. Of all the
European countries surveyed, at least 50% of respondents in each country believe that a faith in
God or a higher power is not necessary to live a moral life. African countries surveyed expressed
the opposite view with an overwhelming majority: 75-99% of respondents in these countries
believe that a faith in God or a higher power is necessary to live a moral life. Continents and
countries differed widely in their responses to the survey.

France had the highest percentage of secular moralists at 85%. In contrast, 99% of
Ghanaians deriving their sense of morality from God or a higher power. Religious and spiritual
beliefs often influence art produced and consumed by the individual in that community. If 99%
of Ghanaians believe that morality is dependent on their faith and 85% of French people
believing in moral secularism, they are most likely going to draw different moral judgements
about an artwork. So if an artwork is considered morally suspect, but aesthetically very good in
France and that same artwork is not considered morally good and therefore not aesthetically
good in Ghana, can either opinion be considered to be correct?
The religious, the differently religious, and the nonreligious are going to have different
views of morality and what is appropriate in an artwork. Different religions condemn or accept
varying levels of violence, language, and sexuality. For example, the 2014 film Heaven is for
Real averaged a rating of four out of four stars among 71 Christian-affiliated film critics
according to ChristianityToday.com. When reviewed by non-Christian affiliated critics, the film
received relatively poor reviews, receiving an aggregate score of 46% from 81 critics according
to RottenTomatoes.com. Christian affiliated critics, while not all received the film with the same
warm praise, focused their reviews on the films positive Christian message and emotionally
powerful content. These reviews focused mostly on the story of the film and relatively little on
its artistic form such as the films cinematography or quality of its writing. In a review of the
film from ChristianPost.com, reviewer Alex Murashko says The skeptic inside of us may kneejerk away from going to see "Heaven Is for Real." However, may I suggest fighting that impulse
and instead, taking yourself to see an extremely powerful movie that, in the end, is a movie about
our own questions regarding life and the life-after. To critics like Murashko, the moral content
of the film was enough to judge the work as good.

However, non-Christian affiliated reviewers focused much more on the films artistic
form. Some of these critics found the film finely written, the scenes to be well-shot and
performance of the actors charming. Claudia Puig of USA Today called the film A well-acted,
family-friendly and timely movie for Easter audiences. However, Puig refrains from making a
judgement call on the films moral value. Other reviews criticized the films storyline, but still
refrained from commenting on its moral value. Adam Markovitz of Entertainment Weekly gave
the movie a C rating. He said of the film There's no antagonist, no resolution, and no real
climax, just a series of mildly charming scenes in which Colton shares heavenly knowledge
while his family reacts with awestruck tears. Non-Christian affiliated reviewers were generally
indifferent to the moral content of the film and discussed it little, if at all.
Moral judgements and their importance in an artwork differ from group to group and
especially religion to religion. The religious, the differently religious, and the nonreligious dont
always agree on what is morally good or bad. So, when judging an artwork, personal religious
beliefs, or lack thereof, are no doubt going to affect and inform the individuals judgement of the
work as good or bad. The moral judgements in film, painting, music, and literature may matter to
one critic, but not another and there is never a complete consensus on whether an artwork is good
or not because of these differences in ideologies and opinions. Moral value is far too subjective
and opinions too varied to say that the artworks aesthetic value is definitely dependent on the
morality of the works subject matter.
Opinions on what is and is not moral can also vary from region to region. Profanity is
much more prevalent on British television than American television. You can be fined in America
for swearing on live TV, whereas its commonplace on British television. The Graham Norton
Show is a British talk show on which American celebrities are frequently guests on. The

Americans are always surprised that they can swear without consequence while they cant on
American talk shows. Nudity in movies and television also differ between regions. Nudity is
prohibited on American television and sexualized nudity in American movies will earn the film
an R rating. In contrast, nudity in British television is common, and sexual nudity in films will
not necessarily earn that film the equivalent rating.
The 2014 British film Birdman received a certification of 15 from the British Board of
Film Certification (BBFC), meaning they deemed the content appropriate for an audience aged
15 and up. When released in the United States, the Motion Picture Association of America
(MPAA) gave the film an R rating, meaning the MPAA considered its content appropriate only to
those 17 years of age or older. The reasons for the R rating were language throughout, some
sexual content and brief violence. An equivalent rating was awarded to the film in the countries
of South Korea and Singapore. In every other country in which the film was released, ratings
were much lower. In Austria, the movie received a rating of 10, meaning the content was deemed
appropriate for ages 10 and up. The Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland rated the movie
appropriate for ages 12 and up. In Brazil, Argentina, and New Zealand, the movie was rated
appropriate for ages 16 and up. Birdman received very positive reviews in every country is was
released in and garnered a total of 163 film awards throughout those countries. This included a
total of nine Academy award nominations and four Academy award wins, including Best Motion
Picture of the Year in the United States (imdb.com).

It may not be surprising that film critics coming from different religious and ideological
backgrounds would disagree on the aesthetic value of a film targeted at an audience of one
specific religion or ideology. The 7.3 billion people currently living on Earth right now are most
likely never going to completely agree with each other. Thats okay. However, there are certain
taboos that are considered morally wrong across regional and religious boundaries. Depictions of
rape, extreme violence and gore, images of torture and murder, severe racism and sexism, are
considered highly immoral and objectionable by many countries, religions, and people. However,
these kinds of unsettling and disturbing images appear in mediums from literature and music, to
television and film, to paintings and sculpture and every artistic medium in between.
Utilizing these values while presenting them in the exact right way can lead to
compelling and invaluable works of art. Presenting difficult images and putting those values in a
persons head can instill empathy and understanding, elicit constructive disgust, or raise
important moral questions that might otherwise go unnoticed. However, these values can
absolutely be used incorrectly. Artists cant just start dropping racial epitaphs and depicting rape
for no reason. The effective and constructive use of these difficult topics requires a unique
significant form all of their own. If used correctly, they will never be comfortable for the
audience to see or read. Lack of moral value is sometimes used well in order to make the
audience understand the pain and loss of the victim. If used effectively and successfully by the
artist to illustrate pain or illicit empathy and understanding, the work still might be judged as an
aesthetically valueless artwork. There is a difference between gratuitous, disgusting subject
matter which serves no purpose other than to shock and horrify the audience, and the effective
use of difficult subject matter in order to illustrate a moral lesson, to encourage difficult, but

nevertheless important conversations, and to encourage understanding and greater empathy for
victims of abuse or tragedy.
I consider Alice Walkers The Color Purple to be one of the most important novels of the
20th century. The novel effectively utilizes many of these difficult topics that pushed largely
unknown or ignored issues facing unseen and unheard groups: the black community and women.
Issues including rape, incest, sexism, racism, domestic abuse, and lesbianism, poverty, and lack
of access to education. The book is not an easy read. The first time I read it, I had to set it down
more than a few times to watch videos of kittens. Walker presents extremely difficult social and
historical issues which remain relevant to this day. Walker didnt use these issues to sell books.
She didnt just try to fit as many topical issues into so many pages as she could to offend or
attack different groups. The novel tackles these difficult topics in a heartbreaking way, but did so
for good reason. She illustrated what it meant to be a black woman in the South during the era of
Jim Crow. Walker shows how to use these kinds of issues in an artwork correctly. She preserves
an important historical picture of extreme oppression and abuse of African-Americans and gave a
voice to the voiceless. Celie represents millions of female minorities who still face these issues
today.