Aesthetics and Ethics

Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia: "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia: "study
of") is the philosophical study of value. It includes questions about the nature and
classification of values and about what kinds of things have value. It is intimately
connected with various other philosophical fields that crucially depend on the notion
of value, like ethics, or philosophy of religion. The term was first used by Paul Lapie
and Eduard von Hartmann .
Aesthetics (also spelled esthetics) is the branch of philosophy concerned with
the nature of beauty and the nature of taste; and functions as the philosophy of art.
Aesthetics examines the philosophy of aesthetic value, which is determined by
critical judgements of artistic taste; thus, the function of aesthetics is the "critical
reflection on art, culture and nature".
Aesthetics studies natural and artificial sources of experiences and how people
form a judgement about those sources of experience. It considers what happens in
our minds when we engage with objects or environments such as viewing visual art,
listening to music, reading poetry, experiencing a play, watching a fashion show,
movie, sports or exploring various aspects of nature. The philosophy of art
specifically studies how artists imagine, create, and perform works of art, as well as
how people use, enjoy, and criticize art. Aesthetics considers why people like some
works of art and not others, as well as how art can affect our moods and our beliefs.
The term aesthetics was appropriated and coined with new meaning by the
German philosopher Alexander Baumgarten in his dissertation in 1735. Baumgarten
defines aesthetics as the theory of the free arts, the theory of inferior knowledge,
reflection on the beautiful, and the science of sensory knowledge.
The attention aestheticians have recently given to moral aspects of art and art
criticism, and that ethicists have recently paid to aesthetic aspects of moral life and
moral evaluation, give hope of ending this rather artificial isolation, though without
necessarily forcing us to accede in Wittgenstein's gnomic dictum that “ethics and
aesthetics are one.”
The intersection of aesthetics and ethics can be understood to comprise three
spheres of inquiry.
The first is that of problems or presuppositions common to aesthetics and
ethics, the two traditional branches of value theory.
The second is that of ethical issues in aesthetics, or in the practice of art.
And the third sphere is that of aesthetic issues in ethics, theoretical and
applied.
There are two extreme positions traditionally taken with respect to the
relationship between art and morality; one is autonomism, or aestheticism, which is
the view that it is inappropriate to apply moral categories to artworks, and that only
aesthetic categories are relevant, while at the other end of the scale is moralism, the
view that aesthetic objects should be judged wholly or centrally with respect to moral
standards or values. Both autonomism and moralism are widely recognised to be
problematic, as they are based on inadequate conceptions of art and aesthetic value.
Radical Autonomism and Radical Moralism
 Radical Moralism is the view that the aesthetic value of an artwork is
determined by its moral value. The most extreme version of this position reduces all
aesthetic value to moral value. Proponents of radical moralism include Tolstoy, who,
arguing against definitions of art that equated art with beauty, said: “The inaccuracy
of all these definitions arises from the fact that in them all … the object considered
is the pleasure art may give, and not the purpose it may serve in the life of man and
of humanity.” Tolstoy emphasised the moral significance of art in society as essential
to the (aesthetic) value of art. Social reductionism, such as the ‘popular aesthetic’
endorsed by Pierre Bourdieu, Roger Taylor and others, is also a version of radical
moralism.
Radical Autonomism and aestheticism are essentially the same position. The
label ‘autonomism’ captures the fact that this position holds that aesthetic value is
autonomous from other kinds of value, such as moral value. The label ‘aestheticism’
captures the fact that the position emphasises the importance of focussing on the
aesthetic, that is, the pure aesthetic, features of artworks. Pure aesthetic qualities may
include formal features and beauty or, for some autonomists, formal features only. It
is important to note that formalism and autonomism are not identical positions,
although advocates of formalism will tend to be autonomists. Formalism, rejected
earlier, is the view that the proper way to respond to art is to respond to its formal
features or, in other words, that the aesthetic value of an artwork is determined solely
by its formal features. A formalist, such as Clive Bell, would not include beauty as
something we should respond to in art, but those formalists who do include beauty
regard it as something that is determined by the formal features the artwork
possesses.
However, ‘aestheticism’ does not always refer to the extreme position, and the
terms ‘autonomism’ and ‘aestheticism’ can be used interchangeably. Radical
Autonomism is the view that the proper way to respond to art is to respond only to
the pure aesthetic qualities, or what is ‘in the work itself’; while to bring moral
values, or other social values, to bear on art is a mistake. The radical autonomist’s
motto is ‘art for art’s sake’. Oscar Wilde is an example of a radical autonomist. He
wrote in the Preface to The Picture of Dorien Gray: “…to art’s subject matter we
should be more or less indifferent,” and “Life is the solvent that breaks up art, the
enemy that lays waste her house.” Wilde’s statements on the topic of and morality
are those of an autonomist, although the subject matter of his own work dealt
explicitly with moral issues. His position appears to have been not that literary art
can’t deal with moral issues as part of its subject matter, but simply that they are
irrelevant to the aesthetic value of the art, and should not influence the audience’s,
or critic’s, aesthetic response to the work. An autonomist position such as this is
based on a narrow understanding of the aesthetic value of art, which values the way
in which the subject matter of such art is represented (which may include formal
features and beauty), but not the subject matter itself (which may include moral
features).
Moderate Autonomism and Moderate Moralism
Moderate autonomism, defended by J. Anderson and J. Dean, is a more
plausible position than radical autonomism; it recognises that moral merits or defects
can feature in the content of certain art forms and that sometimes moral judgments
of artworks are pertinent. However, moderate autonomism is still an autonomist
position in the sense that it maintains that the aesthetic value and the moral value of
artworks are autonomous. According to moderate autonomism: “an artwork will
never be aesthetically better in virtue of its moral strengths, and will never be worse
because of its moral defects. / On a strict reading of moderate autonomism, one of
its decisive claims is that defective moral understanding never counts against the
aesthetic merit of a work. An artwork may invite an audience to entertain a defective
moral perspective and this will not detract from its aesthetic value.” It is this central
claim that both Carroll and Gaut argue against.
Moderate autonomism stands in opposition to ‘Moderate moralism’:
“[Moderate moralism] contends that some works of art may be evaluated morally
(contra radical autonomism) and that sometimes the moral defects and/or merits of
a work may figure in the aesthetic evaluation of the work.” The crucial difference
between moderate autonomism and moderate moralism, then, is that while both
agree that moral judgments can be legitimately made about certain artworks,
moderate moralists contend that sometimes such judgments are aesthetic
evaluations, while moderate autonomists hold that moral judgments about works of
art are always outside the realm of the aesthetic. On the one hand, Anderson and
Dean say, “some of the knowledge that art brings home to us may be moral
knowledge. All this is granted when we agree that art is properly subject to moral
evaluation. But why is this value aesthetic value?” On the other hand, Carroll says,
“Moderate autonomists overlook the degree to which moral presuppositions play a
structural role in the design of many artworks.”
The relationship between the artist and Society is intertwined and sometimes
at odds as it relates to Art and ethics. Neither has to be sacrificed for the other
however, and neither needs to bend to the other in order to create or convey The
Work’s message. Art is subjective . It will be received or interpreted by different
people in various ways. What may be unethical to one maybe ethical to another.
Because art is subjective. It is vulnerable to ethical judgment. It's most vulnerable
when society does not have a historical context or understanding of Art in order to
appreciate a work’s content or aesthetics. This lack doesn't make ethical judgment
wrong or irrational. It shows that appreciation of art or styles change over time and
that new or different art or styles can come to be appreciated. The general negative
Taste of society usually changes with more exposure. Still taste remains subjective.
Ethics has been a major consideration of the public and those in religious or
political power throughout history. For many artists today the first and the major
consideration is not ethics but the platform for which to create and deliver the
message through formal qualities and the medium. Consideration of Ethics may be
established by the artist, but without hindrance of free expression. It's expected that
in the work of art an artist’s own believes values and ideology may contrast with
societal values. It's the art that speaks and at quality value to what is communicated.
This is what makes the power of free artistic expressions so important. The art is
Judge not by who created the work or the artist’s character but based on the merits
of work itself.
 However through this visual dialogue existing between artists and society
there must be some mutual understanding. Society needs to understand that freedom
of expression in the Arts encourage greatness while artist need to be mindful of and
open society’s disposition.
When the public values art as being a positive spiritual and physical addition
to society and the artist creates with ethical intentions there is a connection between
viewer and creator. An artist’s depicition of a subject doesn't mean that the Creator
approves or disapproves of the subject being presented. The artist's purpose is to
express regardless of how to the subject matter may be interpreted. Nevertheless this
freedom in interpretation does not mean that neither the artist nor Society holds
responsibility for their actions. Art and ethics in this respects demand that artists use
their intellectual facilities to create a true expressive representation or convey
psychological meaning. While artists are creating, capturing visual images and
interpreting their viewers, they are also giving them an unerring measure of the
artists’ own moral or ethical sensibilities.

1.USE OF MATERIALS
Renowned artist Damien Hirst, known for his provocative and controversial
artworks, has often challenged conventional norms and stirred public discourse. One
of his most iconic themes revolves around the symbolism of butterflies, explored in
various exhibitions, notably "In and Out of Love."
Hirst, emerging as a prominent figure among the Young British Artists in the
late 20th century, has consistently explored spirituality and transformation in his art.
His fascination with the butterfly, symbolizing metamorphosis and the cycle of life,
became a recurring motif throughout his career. Notably, the "In and Out of Love"
exhibition in 1991 marked a pivotal moment in his exploration of the butterfly's
transformative journey.
Hirst's use of real butterflies in his artworks, especially in the Kingdom of
Father has sparked controversy and ethical debates. The exhibition involved the
display of living butterflies in an immersive setting, where their life cycle played out
over weeks. Critics and animal rights activists raised concerns about the estimated
9,000 butterflies that died during the 23-week event, questioning the ethical
implications of using living creatures in art.
Hirst's choice of butterflies as artistic elements is laden with symbolism,
drawing on ancient associations with resurrection, innocence, and freedom.
However, the ethical dilemma arises when the beauty and luminosity of the
butterflies' wings, crucial to the visual impact of the art, are derived from the
sacrifice of living creatures. This prompts viewers to engage in aesthetic judgment,
weighing the artistic experience against the ethical concerns surrounding the use of
life in art.
The intersection of art and ethics becomes particularly pronounced when
societal values and sensitivities come into play. Hirst's work challenges conventional
boundaries and has the power to shock and provoke. The ethical considerations
surrounding the treatment of animals in the creation of art further complicate the
relationship between the artist, the artwork, and its reception by the audience. For
example a spokesperson for the real Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals
stated there would be National outcry if exhibition involved in other animals such
as the dog just because it's butterflies. That doesn't mean they don't deserve to
betrayed it with kindness the truth modern issue this statement that butterflies were
so from River table you okay butterfly houses. They also defend them they are used
as integral to his art stating.
Damien Hirst's exploration of butterflies as a symbolic element raises
profound questions about the ethical implications of using living creatures in art.
The tension between aesthetic appreciation and ethical considerations underscores
the complex nature of artistic judgment. As society continues to evolve, the
intersection of art, ethics, and societal responses will remain a dynamic and thought-
provoking aspect of contemporary art discourse.

AS AN OBSERVER
Photojournalism plays a crucial role in documenting historical events, but the
ethical considerations surrounding the capturing of distressing scenes pose
challenges for photographers.
In 1993, Kevin Carter captured a haunting image of a starving young girl
being watched by a vulture during a famine in Sudan. The photograph, published in
the New York Times, stirred global concern about the fate of the child and ignited a
discourse on the ethics of capturing such distressing moments. Carter's actions,
however, came under scrutiny, as critics questioned whether the photograph crossed
ethical boundaries.
Carter's ethical dilemma lay in the balance between the photographer's role as
an observer and the responsibility to intervene. While adhering to the New York
Times code of ethics, which discourages photographers from altering or influencing
events, Carter struggled with the moral imperative to act in the face of the child's
desperate condition. The internal conflict between being a passive observer and an
active humanitarian haunted Carter, contributing to the emotional toll he
experienced.
 The relentless exposure to human suffering can have profound effects on a
photojournalist's mental health. Carter's struggle with depression, culminating in his
tragic suicide, underscores the psychological toll of documenting atrocities. The
ethical quandary of whether to prioritize capturing the truth or intervening to
alleviate suffering weighs heavily on the conscience of photographers, impacting
their well-being.
The Kevin Carter incident sheds light on the broader ethical considerations
within the field of photojournalism. The industry faces ongoing challenges in
navigating the fine line between documenting truth and respecting the dignity and
well-being of subjects. As technology advances, the instantaneous dissemination of
distressing images through various media platforms raises questions about the
responsibility of both photographers and media outlets in handling sensitive content.
The ethical dilemma faced by photojournalists, exemplified by Kevin Carter's
story, underscores the complex intersection of journalistic integrity, moral
responsibility, and the impact on mental health. As the industry grapples with
evolving standards, a nuanced approach is required to address the inherent tensions
between capturing the truth and protecting the subjects of these powerful, yet
distressing, visual narratives.

Public opinion-The Holy Virgin Mary Controversy:

Chris Ophili's "The Holy Virgin Mary" stirred significant outrage during its
inclusion in the 1997 "Sensation" exhibition across London, Berlin, and New York.
The painting, featuring women's buttocks, glitter-mixed paint, and applied balls of
elephant dung many considered the painting blasphemous. Ofili state that was not
his intention, he wanted to acknowledge both as the secret and secular even sensual,
beauty of the Virgin Mary and that the dung, in his parents native country of Nigeria
symbolized fertility and the power of the elephant. nevertheless and probably
unaware of the artist’s meaning people were outraged.
Traditionally Aesthetics in art has been associated with beauty, enjoyment and
viewer’s visual, intellectual and emotional captivations. Scandalous art may not be
beautiful, but it very well could be enjoyable and hold one captive. The viewer is
taken in and is attracted to smth that is neither routine nor ordinary. All are
considered to be meaningful experiences that are distinctive to Fine Arts. Aesthetic
judgment goes hand in hand with ethics. It's part of decision making process people
use when they view it work of art and decide if it's good or bad. the process of
aesthetic judgment is a conceptual model that describes how people decide on the
quality of artworks created, and for them individually or societally makes an ethical
decision about certain work of art as we can see art.

The intersection of art, ethics, and controversy is a dynamic landscape where

aesthetic judgment plays a pivotal role. As artists continue to push boundaries,
societal reactions reflect the ongoing dialogue on morality, censorship, and the
transformative power of art in shaping cultural narratives. The controversies
surrounding artworks serve as a lens through which we explore the complex
relationship between artistic expression and ethical considerations in the
contemporary world.

Commerce, Art and Ethics

 Andy Warhol's significance in the art world lies in his revolutionary approach
that embraced the fusion of art and commerce.
Warhol's famous quote, "Business art is the step that comes after Art,"
encapsulates his unapologetic embrace of commercialism. Unlike the traditional
notion that art should resist commercial influence, Warhol blurred the lines between
commercial and high art, introducing trademark-registered images like Coca-Cola
bottles, Campbell's soup cans, and Marilyn Monroe screen prints to the art world.
What's great about this country is that America started the tradition where the
richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be
watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you can know that the President drinks Coke.
Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too.
Ethical Considerations in Warhol's 'Death and Disaster' Series:

Warhol's 'Death and Disaster' series, featuring repetitive images of airplane

crashes, car crash scenes, and suicides, raises questions about the ethical
implications of incorporating commonplace catastrophes into art. While some argue
that Warhol's work reveals underlying human compassion, others view it as a
reflection of moral concerns reentering the artistic landscape.

Andy Warhol's art challenges traditional notions of the separation between art
and commerce, opening a dialogue on the ethical considerations within the art world.
The ongoing struggle between the avant-garde's opposition to the status quo and its
inadvertent service to the needs of the establishment highlights the complex
interplay between ethics, commerce, and artistic expression. Warhol's legacy serves
as a case study, prompting reflection on the transformative power of commerce in
the realm of art and its enduring ethical implications.

Ugly figures as challenge to war

The early 1900s witnessed a surge of paintings addressing moral and political
issues. Picasso's 'Guernica' (1937) stands out as a powerful anti-war statement,
depicting the horrors of the bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War.
Other artists like Gauguin, Ernst, Dix, and Grosz contributed to the moral discourse
through their works, capturing the brutality of war, societal struggles, and political
satire.
 Otto Dix, a prominent German artist of the 20th century, challenged
conventional notions of beauty by delving into the grotesque, the macabre, and the
disfigured in his works. This article explores the intersection of aesthetics and ethics
in Dix's art, examining how the portrayal of "ugly" figures served as a powerful
commentary on the ethical dilemmas and social upheavals of his time.
Otto Dix emerged during the aftermath of World War I, a period marked by
societal disillusionment and trauma. Dix, a veteran of the war, channelled his
experiences into a unique artistic rebellion. Rejecting the traditional pursuit of
idealized beauty, he confronted the harsh realities of war, poverty, and human
suffering.

Dix's "Cardplaying War-Heroes" (1920) stands as a powerful example of his

departure from conventional aesthetics. This macabre depiction of war's impact on
individuals, featuring disfigured soldiers engaged in a card game, serves as a
grotesque mirror reflecting the brutality and futility of armed conflict. In Dix's
ethical exploration, the "ugliness" of war is laid bare.
Dix's choice to portray "ugly" figures challenges the viewer's aesthetic
sensibilities and prompts ethical reflection. His art forces audiences to confront the
uncomfortable realities of a society scarred by war, economic strife, and political
turmoil. The moral ambiguity within his works transcends mere shock value,
inviting viewers to question societal norms and moral certainties.
The ethical inquiries embedded in Dix's art continue to resonate in
contemporary discussions about the responsibility of artists to engage with societal
issues. As we grapple with the ethical implications of aesthetics, Dix's legacy serves
as a testament to the enduring power of "ugly" figures in challenging our perceptions
and prompting critical reflection.
Otto Dix's exploration of "ugly" figures in aesthetics represents a profound
ethical inquiry into the human condition. By rejecting idealized beauty and
embracing the grotesque, Dix confronted the moral complexities of his era. His art
serves as a timeless reminder that true aesthetic depth often lies in the uncomfortable
and the disconcerting, urging us to confront the ethical challenges embedded in the
ugliness of the world.
 MORAL VALUE AND AESTHETIC VALUE:

First, in evaluating a work of art, we can ask what relationship the moral value
of the work itself has to our judgment of the aesthetic quality of that work. To address
that question, we first need to look at what we mean by "the moral value of a work
of art." This might include a morally valuable story or lesson that is communicated
in a work. In our discussion, let's explore what this might mean and think of
examples of works which you consider to have moral value and also works which
lack moral value. The next step of this analysis is to ask whether having moral value
means that a work has aesthetic value or, to state this more mildly, whether moral
value in a work contributes in some way to its aesthetic value. We can mark out
several possibilities for this analysis:
Moral value and aesthetic value are completely independent - i.e., a work
might be high in moral value and low in aesthetic value, or vice versa, and these are
two separate and independent judgments.
Moral value and aesthetic value are necessarily related - i.e., moral value is an
important part, if not the most important part, of our judgment that a work has
aesthetic value.
Moral value and aesthetic value are contingently related - i.e., these values are
related but not necessarily related; e.g., a work with high moral value is more likely
to have aesthetic value but other factors might lead us to a final conclusion that the
work lacks aesthetic value
Second, we can ask whether our knowledge of the morality of the artist is
relevant to our judgment of the aesthetic value of a work itself. If we learn that a
work was painted by Hitler, does Hitler's immorality lead us to lower our judgment
of the aesthetic value of the painting? If we learn that Wagner was anti-Semitic, does
that lead us to lower our aesthetic evaluations of his music? If you think Mother
Theresa was highly moral, does that mean her paintings (if she had created some)
would be better aesthetically because of her moral character? If this moral
knowledge is relevant, precisely how is it relevant in our judgments of a work of art
and why?
 Third, we can ask whether the aesthetic value of a work of art should be
judged, at least in part, by the impact it has on the morality of observers/perceivers
of the work. If a work inspires us to be better people, does that mean the work has
higher aesthetic value? If a work inspires us to be less moral, does that mean the
work has less aesthetic value? Why or why not? If the work by Hitler's filmmaker,
Leni Reifenstahl, inspired Germans to turn to Nazism, does that lower the aesthetic
value of her work as a filmmaker? What judgments are appropriate for us to make
of such work?