PDA

View Full Version : The place for morality


John Keates
05-01-2005, 08:53 PM
I am wondering how many people here sit around thinking about moral issues and whether that effects their art.

It seems that there isn't much art around that really deals with moral issues in a big way. There are some people in the 'fine' art world who have an axe to grind, usually some kind of femanism, but not all that many people making moral art to do with other people.

I think that the reason is probably money. People don't want moral messages on their wall and it is hard to make a moral computer game without an overly black and white view of good and evil.

It strikes me that a lot of the art shown on this forum is tacky (to my tastes) even if very well done. Maybe if there was more discussion about the subtler, trickyer aspects of morality then people might make more interesting art?

Don't get me wrong, this is not meant as a blanket statement about this commnity (I have huge respect for a lot of people here), it is just that the range of subject matter seems rather slim and a lot of potential seems to get missed.

There is a huge amount of talent in the commercial art world and it seems to me that there is a lot of un-tapped power here.

DanGrover
05-01-2005, 09:02 PM
I guess it's due to people making art for different reasons. Not all artists are self important, beret wearing pot heads who wake up, look out the window at a tree, sigh, and go back to sleep. Ok, so this is a very stereotypical view of a student-like "artist" but i detest people like that. They seem so self-important.

I make art because i think it looks cool. I don't see a flower, get a flash of inspiration then draw a goat getting raped by a bit of splintered balser wood and emblazen "CAPITALISM" all over it with my own blood. Ok, so i am being stereotypical again. What i mean to say is, i personally am certainly not a "morality artist", and, unless it has some sort of well-portrayed story behind it, i tend to see art at it's face value.

jmBoekestein
05-01-2005, 09:17 PM
Is everywhere and always. The shear fact that it doesn't appear in art means it isn't really there, just slumbering. Morality is very important and without it a society falls into decay. Not to mention the horrors people can inflict and suffer before very long without it. You've inspired me and I'm going to make moral statements for sure.:thumbsup:

Ryan-B
05-01-2005, 09:55 PM
It strikes me that a lot of the art shown on this forum is tacky (to my tastes) even if very well done. Maybe if there was more discussion about the subtler, trickyer aspects of morality then people might make more interesting art?


Post some of your work so we can see what you are talking about.

jmBoekestein
05-01-2005, 10:12 PM
Damn skippy.:scream:

Tryn
05-01-2005, 10:29 PM
huh..well it depends what you mean by 'moral issues', and your morals are likely different from mine - which is the problem. 'Moral' artwork polarizes people in the same way that political or reliigious artwork does. Orcs and pin up girls are less threatening to most.

No, we don't need more discussion on the "subtler, trickyer aspects of morality". Wars have been started over this sort of stuff, and we certainly don't need the flaming kind of war on cgtalk.

John Keates
05-01-2005, 10:56 PM
Hi Ryan,

"Post some of your work so we can see what you are talking about."

Well I don't claim to be the best proponent of the type of thing that I am describing but here is one of my paintings...

http://john-keates-art.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/MastersAndSlaves.jpg

It isn't meant as a big moral message. I don't claim to have all the answers. I don't even expect people to get what it is supposted to be about. Hopefully there is some interest here and there. Enough for someone to want to put it on their wall and maynbe ponder a bit.

I won't say what it means to me. I would be interested to see what others think.

I often find that I can get into a painting if there is a feeling of some kind of moral crux to it. I focus a lot more.

Hi Tryn,

"'Moral' artwork polarizes people in the same way that political or reliigious artwork does."

I don't think that this has to be the case at all. I would regard dogmatic views about what is absolutely good and what is absolutely bad as imoral in themselves so they are not what I think of when I think of morality. So, for me at least, moral art doesn't have to be troublesome at all, just open, empathetic and questioning.

GOTgraphic
05-01-2005, 11:01 PM
Morals are generally codes of behavioral conduct. Without morals there will be chaos and extreme civil unrest (which historically leads to societies being annihilated through civil war). There MUST be morals to maintain civility. You want to live a life without morals? Then you better be prepared for the results... unhappiness and death.

What morals do we use? How about some where people aren't getting killed, and have liberty and justice for all? And that leads us to religion, which typically has been the base for moral codes. In the USA the morals and laws are based on Judeo-Christian values. I'm betting that if the masses want to get rid of that base then the USA will turn on its self and will perhaps result in one of the greatest blood-baths known to mankind. I'm also betting that if the people and power-that-be accept the historical-morals, then the people will thrive and prosper. Capitalism so far has done well for the people in allowing them to thrive and exist in the current morals codes. However when capitalism matures, it wrecks havoc on the people. The governing system is supposed to keep it in check... but every now and then, things go whacky, and not only does capitalism mature, but also it takes over the governing system. That leads to totalitarianism and a week kingdom based upon monetary gain, which then turns the masses into instant slaves... which is never fun.

On topic...
Typically works of art that become classical deal with the issues of greatest interests to the people... those being of a moral nature... good-vs-bad, righteousness-vs-wickedness. The extremes generate a lot of excitement... and the concepts of how to behave-for-happiness are usually very interesting to all people (those who don't find interest in happiness and or well-being either have become desensitized to such idea though a complete neglect or abuse of livelihood in one way/form or another...). Even the mystery of such concepts is exciting.

I think that there are many other realms of purpose and motives behind great works of art, but moral issues are some of the most exciting and interesting. But one has to know the moral issues and have some serious personal experience to be able to bring it out in their work. Otherwise its merely repeating and or copy.

...my 2¢

John Keates
05-01-2005, 11:23 PM
one has to know the moral issues and have some serious personal experience to be able to bring it out in their work. Otherwise its merely repeating and or copy.



Definitely. In the past, a lot of paintings got their morality from old mythology (they had to or the artist got hurt). These days we are free to make whatever art we like but still the subject matter seems rather narrow. Attractive ladies with swords sitting on top of dragons and that kind of thing is nice, don't get me wrong. But it seems that we are neglecting a whole load of stuff.

I have seen artists who are good at what they do and are even sincere, but they are a one trick monkey and can only do the one thing. So they start to make insincere art to get out of the rut. I think it is much better to stay sincere and change yourself rather than keep yourself the same and try to change the art.

I guess part of the problem is that things are just so complex these days and it is hard to know what to believe. Whenever I try to get into world affairs my head gets in a spin. But maybe art is a good way to deal with stuff without being too explicit. Like the way that some films will get people talking about something but withuot putting across a particular view.

jmBoekestein
05-01-2005, 11:25 PM
OK, that's a beautiful painting to start of, nice of you to indulge us!:thumbsup: I fully agree with Got btw.
Our values are like an agreement on how to deal with certain issues, like a handshake. I believe it came into existence because people used to kill eachother very often in the dark ages. Eventually when you wanted to talk to someone you'd show your hands so they knew you weren't hiding a weapon, and now it's a sign of trust and a way to break the ice amongst others. These things are what shape our societies.

OK the painting. I think it has several layers which I can see. I see that it's about how our beastly nature inhibits us from becoming moore in oursleves and how this keeps going on and on. I also see an escapist in the boy/girl on the bed, who's dreaming a new world where everything makes sense and at the same time less things make sense to him/her. Maybe that's a parallel to the reallife of him/her, the more he flees into his personal world the less gets to him from outside. I like it, it gives me something to think and I love the colours. Great job I think.

edit: hey you preposted me!

GOTgraphic
05-01-2005, 11:43 PM
I think it is much better to stay sincere and change yourself rather than keep yourself the same and try to change the art. Interesting. In other words perhaps, one must be honest with himself to be able to create "FINE" works of art... otherwise they are simply executing a set of protocols and or formulas that will for the most part appear pleasing but will lack a certain content, a content imbued into the piece by the inner workings of the artist. The spirit of the work?

I like to think that current state of the artist has a lot to do with the work one is involved with. Whether that state be anger, love, sorrow etc. I also like to think that the intentions and motives behind the work somehow get included, even if the viewer (or creator for that matter) can't readily detect it.

Nathellion
05-01-2005, 11:44 PM
In the USA the morals and laws are based on Judeo-Christian values. I'm betting that if the masses want to get rid of that base then the USA will turn on its self and will perhaps result in one of the greatest blood-baths known to mankind.

Wrong. Morality spawns a lot more from deterrence and general culture. Religions like to claim that they are the source of morality in the modern world, but in absence of deterrence, religions have justified everything from immolating untold numbers of 'Witches' in Europe, of which one could be accused under hearsay without any evidence (and what the hell is a Witch anyways? They're supposed to be the offspring of Succubi, an even more outrageous religious fabrication) to mass killings in the holy crusades, to burning the young and old who claimed that they had seen holy visions because the established churches felt threatened. Religious morality in the modern sense has just become an excuse to ostracise people for having deviant private lives.

As for the topic at hand...I'd say that art to certain extents should stay outside the boundaries of cultural morals. Better for people to explore their thoughts on paper then to have those thoughts manifest into actions.

John Keates
05-01-2005, 11:46 PM
Hey, jmBoekestein,

Thanks for the compliment. You give an interesting interpretation of it. I would like to hear what other pepole say also. I think it suffers from low resolution-itis a bit as there are some details that arn't so clear but never mind.

I get what you are saying about morality. Yeah, I think that a lot of morality is kind of universal and that is why some art has a long-lasting appeal. But human nature is a little twisted. For instance, I have known people who have "look after your own" as a guiding force. This means that if they see someone looking at their freinds girlfriend funny then they go and beat the **** out of them as a way of showing love to their friend. This seems a pretty universal instinct judging by the amout of similar behaviour going on in the world.

This is where our intelect has to step in and say that what feels right isn't necesseraly right at all. Like how we know that fatty food is bad for us so we deny ourselves the pleasure of it.

Unfortunately a lot of art seems to be of the fatty food variety and that limits it.

GOTgraphic
05-01-2005, 11:46 PM
Wrong.Right :D :D :D

John Keates
05-01-2005, 11:53 PM
Better for people to explore their thoughts on paper then to have those thoughts manifest into actions.

How is making a picture an action? Isn't it best for people to talk things through and work out what they look like rather than hide them away?

JMcWilliams
05-02-2005, 12:04 AM
Isn't it best for people to talk things through and work out what they look like rather than hide them away?

I think thats what he meant? :)

Nathellion
05-02-2005, 12:18 AM
Right :D :D :D

How can I argue against such concise logic? :p


I think thats what he meant? :)

Indeed :thumbsup:

GOTgraphic
05-02-2005, 12:24 AM
How can I argue against such concise logic? :p
:D

My point exactly. When people start in on the "I'm right and you're wrong" "argument" (an argument is a fight without physical violence) they go nowhere fast. I was attempting to share some information and reason. The more that practice becomes second nature the longer we'll all last and the happier we will be.

jmBoekestein
05-02-2005, 12:49 AM
Amen!

All we need is less corruption from people who are in power and some sense of morality in our leaders and we could actually turn out fine in the end.

But I guess for now we'll have to look to ourselves for guidance. What a world, sometimes it gets real messy from mi POV.

vrf
05-02-2005, 01:09 AM
Wrong. Morality spawns a lot more from deterrence and general culture. Religions like to claim that they are the source of morality in the modern world, but in absence of deterrence, religions have justified everything from immolating untold numbers of 'Witches' in Europe, of which one could be accused under hearsay without any evidence (and what the hell is a Witch anyways? They're supposed to be the offspring of Succubi, an even more outrageous religious fabrication) to mass killings in the holy crusades, to burning the young and old who claimed that they had seen holy visions because the established churches felt threatened. Religious morality in the modern sense has just become an excuse to ostracise people for having deviant private lives.

As for the topic at hand...I'd say that art to certain extents should stay outside the boundaries of cultural morals. Better for people to explore their thoughts on paper then to have those thoughts manifest into actions.

Have some brains before you post trash like this. You need to make a distinction between the principles of a religion, and those who masquerade under its banner while not following its principles.

If a bunch of guys puts on a bunch of T-shirts that say "CGTalk" on them, and them walk into a video game convention and murder a few dozen people, you would not say that CGtalk is to blame for the incident, would you?

Anyway, this is the kind of stuff that's not allowed CGtalk. No religion bashing, and no politics, etc, etc. You should know better.

Nathellion
05-02-2005, 01:40 AM
Have some brains before you post trash like this. You need to make a distinction between the principles of a religion, and those who masquerade under its banner while not following its principles.

If a bunch of guys puts on a bunch of T-shirts that say "CGTalk" on them, and them walk into a video game convention and murder a few dozen people, you would not say that CGtalk is to blame for the incident, would you?

Anyway, this is the kind of stuff that's not allowed CGtalk. No religion bashing, and no politics, etc, etc. You should know better.

Hmm, much of what I mentioned was actually supported by the core proponents of religious doctrines, at least in those days. That's not to say religion hasn't in some respects become more civilized (at least in some sects). My point was that I don't think morality hangs by the fabric of religious doctrine. I had to offer support for my argument. and so I cited historical and cultural occurances. Pope Innocent VIII promoted and supported the inquisitors and their witch hunts:

"The Pope appointed Kramer and Sprenger to write a comprehensive analysis...Malleus Maleficarium...What Malleus comes down to, pretty much, is that if you're accused of witchcraft, you're a witch. Torture is an unfailing means to demonstrate the validity of the accusation. There are no rights of the defendant. There is no opportunity to confront the accusers..."

Taken from The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan.

If the Pope doesn't represent religion then who does?

The guys wearing CGT shirts would have no affiliation with CGT other than their shirts. But the Pope is to Catholocism what the forum leaders and the administrators are to CGTalk. So I don't really see your point.

Regardless, I'm gonna try and stay out of these threads from now on. Tact escapes me when it comes to religion, and you're right, since I can't come across any less blunt, I should keep my opinions on such away from public forums.

vrf
05-02-2005, 03:09 AM
[QUOTE=Nathellion]

If the Pope doesn't represent religion then who does?

QUOTE]

The Pope does not represent Christianity. Jesus does. In his words and teachings, you will find no justification for the sins and crimes that the Catholic Church has committed in the past. Nor will you find justification for the crimes of current Catholic ministers who have abused children and such. These people--despite their titles and leadership roles--are not true Christians if they do not follow the principles of the founder of Christianity. Jesus said very plainly that his followers would obey his teachings, and would not be considered his followers if they did not. Jesus commanded his followers to love their enemies, not slaughter them with a sword.

It's simple math, really. If you obey Jesus, you are a Christian. If you do not, then you are not, regardless of what earthly title you may hold.

ozhaver
05-02-2005, 03:18 AM
It's simply very tricky to include the morals dilemma into your artwork without encountering opposition. Then again you will meet opposition with anything you do as an artist, no matter how simple or complex, or your original intention. We are subjective beings, no one can change this.

As for myself I try to speak about more personal intimate things that are more known to me. I don’t think it’s easy to make art that has a strong moral undertone and to bring it out neutrally. Simply put you have to take a side, and this will cut your audience by half if you aren’t careful. It can also end up easily into a ‘newspaper caricature’ atmosphere, and not many manage to get out from this rut. Unless someone wishes to illustrate an essay/article with paintings or drawings I wouldn’t advice bringing up moral issues that aren’t *personal.

I think works about an artist’s personal life & issues get across more and are better understood than a person trying to moralize about more ‘worldly’ issues…It will always fall into opinion- since truth is subjective. While people can’t criticize the truth you see in your* life, it’s far easier to do so about your opinions of third-person truths- which basically resumes the downfall of bringing morals into art. There will be people who agree or who disagree in all types of work- but when the main intention is to moralize it can bring up flames.

So the question is, are you trying to talk through art, or are you trying to do art about talking?

Enayla
05-02-2005, 03:22 AM
I'm going to have to say that I don't much care to put morality into my work. Moral messages are all over the place. They stare at us from the pages of a newspaper, scream at us from our television sets and holler loud and clear from the windows in our web browsers. I'm not saying there's too much of it - just that I don't feel a need to contribute in any greater way.

When there is something I want to say with a painting, I'll say it discreetly, and for the most part - in a way that people won't even notice. There are so many people shouting their lungs out to make their message heard already. People more eloquent than I who speak the words I wish I could: I'll support them, instead, and let my paintings whisper with a different kind of voice.

I don't find art without a moral message to be shallow or glossy - it's different. It reaches a different part of you, that's all. All messages do not have to be upsetting and do not have to rile you up to be meaningful. If I see a painting that gives me a moment's piece in this messed up world of ours, I might remember and cherish it by far more than one that simply makes me feel sick with it all, one that points at something I've seen and know about already. Not saying that no one should paint with morality in mind, just saying these are the reasons to why I don't. I don't much care for political and religious paintings.

Oh, and yes, let's keep religion out of the discussion. I can see how this is difficult considering the topic of choice, but things tend to get a bit too much heated, don't you think?

ozhaver
05-02-2005, 03:36 AM
I don't find art without a moral message to be shallow or glossy - it's different. It reaches a different part of you, that's all. All messages do not have to be upsetting and do not have to rile you up to be meaningful. If I see a painting that gives me a moment's piece in this messed up world of ours, I might remember and cherish it by far more than one that simply makes me feel sick with it all, one that points at something I've seen and know about already.


I can relate to this a lot. One of my main motives to do art is to give the outer world something from me, something different, and something nicer; perhaps some people can dream along with me. Even if it's monstrous- but when it tells my stories, that fiction/fantasy is meant to give something so people can imagine more than these odious concrete walls and paper money…then again I'm sometimes a hopeless romantic...so nevermind. :P

Nathellion
05-02-2005, 03:37 AM
The Pope does not represent Christianity. Jesus does. In his words and teachings, you will find no justification for the sins and crimes that the Catholic Church has committed in the past. Nor will you find justification for the crimes of current Catholic ministers who have abused children and such. These people--despite their titles and leadership roles--are not true Christians if they do not follow the principles of the founder of Christianity. Jesus said very plainly that his followers would obey his teachings, and would not be considered his followers if they did not. Jesus commanded his followers to love their enemies, not slaughter them with a sword.

It's simple math, really. If you obey Jesus, you are a Christian. If you do not, then you are not, regardless of what earthly title you may hold.

A valid point. I was speaking in terms of organized religion, and much less the fundemental belief systems of Christianity...I think that's where my point may have been misconstrued. I should have been more articulate with my words...:)

Laters :wavey:

ozhaver
05-02-2005, 03:40 AM
Why do people speak of 'Jesus' as if he is alive and walking...:rolleyes:

Am I the only one who finds this weird?

UnknownArtist
05-02-2005, 08:02 AM
Why do people speak of 'Jesus' as if he is alive and walking...:rolleyes:

Am I the only one who finds this weird?

I agree it guess hokey sometimes to me when people speak in these terms.. But thats me.

....

I appologize to continue the religion aspect but I guess I must put in my two cents. As long as all see this relevant. I will try to stick to point.

First of all, morality is in the eye of the beholder. In a sense.
One does not have to have a religion or belief system to be moral. Commandments are hand in hand with Laws. There in lies that you dont have to be Christian or Catholic to have morals. Sorry Im in the Bible belt and most find you immoral simply because your not one of the two. Im Agnostic so I catch hell from this subject here often. Personnally I find modern day organized-religion farse and a scap goat for personal agendas. I am not saying that Christians for instance all use their belief for personal gain. I know many that arent diluted and stick to their beliefs without imposing on others and they are great people. But its the ones that are always out to "convert." These are the ones that scare me. As well as thoughs that, for instance, accuse other side of the aisle politicians of faithless ways in order to make them out as godless demons. These also scare me. But the larger view, the beast of religions, the higher organizations. They are nothing more than political hierarchies in theirselves.
There is no such thing as TRUE Christians, Muslims, Catholics, Athiests, Satanists, Pagans, etc... Because each are just derived from another. Each religion is the same. Just carried out differently. A Pick and Chose type of order. If these ways work for you then take this religion sort of decision. Thats how I see things.
As for moral art. It is a good thing to work with, however it can be just as sketchy as political works and religious works, just as was stated earlier. (Well in a way) Each individual has their own morals, subjective I guess I could say. So just because one person puts down art that they feel is Moral, another will come across later and say, "Are you joking me?" Its only the higher ladder moralities that will be agreed upon in art or anywhere else. Murder, Rape, etc... <<<That is what I mean. So to place a moral issue in art is pretty much just as subjective as Politics. Again I say there are the big ones like Murder and Rape and such that most all will agree with as being moral to be against. But you must think of those that are debated. (Homosexuality, abortion, etc...) which will be debated till the end of time.

I dont know how clear I am being at this point. Hell I may have went twenty miles off course from what I originally strived to make a point out of. But its 3am and at this point I am confused on whether I can make my mind clear as to what keys I am typing :shrug: So maybe I made a point or not, I will prolly come back at a later when I am more clear headed and clearify my words better. :D

John Keates
05-02-2005, 09:28 AM
Looking at my original post, I guess I could have made myself more clear. Maybe I came across a little 'holier than thou' and this might have contributed to the sparking off of the religiouse bit (please stop that by the way:)).

Enayla, I kind of agree with you there. That is what I meant when I said that people should keep their art honest and change themselves rather than keep themselves the same and change their art.

For example, someone might decide that they want to illustrate the plight in Africa so they might just start painting africans starving or fighting each other but without really going to any lengths to change themselves. This might lead to them misrepresenting the situation and producing a shallow and unconvincing portrail. The better (and harder) approach would to initiate life experiences which will change oneself, for example, actually becoming an aid worker. That is obviously much easier said than done so maybe there are other things like helping the homeless which are closer to home. Or, if real life is really too much (which it usually is for me) then you can get a lot of info by reading a lot of books. Once a person has made the effort to effect themselves and they start drawing then things might start coming out. This needn't be deliberate but more like a sub-consciouse effect.

This example may be a little contrived and extreem but the point I am trying to get across I guess is that art can have powerful subconsciouse effects and artist have a duty to be informed so that, on mass, they produce more of the right kinds of effects. This is partly do do with what they do depict but also what they don't depict.

One of the things that I object to most in art is the polarisation of good and evil. You can see this in a lot of the cartoons that kids are shown these days and it is frighteningly close to war time propaganda.

Ps. Enalya, you are one of my favorite artists here and part of the reason for this (apart from your technical ability) is that there is a lot of empathy in your characters, you don't objectify them as plain good or eavil. I should think that this is in-part due to your character. I find I usually prefer the work of women for the reason that they tend to empathise more.

PPS. Sorry if that looks like arse licking or patronising BS.

ozhaver
05-02-2005, 11:26 AM
As for morality dealing games, play Xenogears &/or Xenosaga Episodes 1 & 2 (and all the rest which are on their way). They are just great stories that deal with many issues- and very interesting and entertaining to go through. The music has always been great, and is even greater now in PS2- the visuals also improved.

jmBoekestein
05-02-2005, 12:19 PM
I'm going to have to say that I don't much care to put morality into my work.

I don't find art without a moral message to be shallow or glossy - it's different. It reaches a different part of you, that's all.

Oh, and yes, let's keep religion out of the discussion. I can see how this is difficult considering the topic of choice, but things tend to get a bit too much heated, don't you think?


I think you're misguiding yourself. Maybe if moral messages were defined more clearly in this context it would be easier to understand. I find a lot of moralistic issues sticking out of your paintings, not all of-course. What you put in can be read from it, maybe not everyone will see it. You're dealing with human interactions than you're dealing with moral issues, the bias of you is always apparent in your own work, because otherwise there would simply be no reason to paint it. Whether you know it or not, you 're involved with what goes on around you. I think you just don't like to preach. And that, Enayla, is a trick that a ot of politicians use. How's that for irony?

That different part in you is still imo human, emotions after all the talking and argueing are the reason for moralities. I'm not trying to undermine your views here mind you. You know what you paint and I can only witness from the outside. I think this could easily be anothre misunderstanding, but every choice your characters make in front of the viewer has some motivation, they believe in something. I see struggles of being abused in the poems sometimes accompanying your paintings. That's a moral issue. This is getting weird but do you get my point on this?:surprised

Oranges, Smoranges...
05-02-2005, 12:36 PM
Why do people speak of 'Jesus' as if he is alive and walking...:rolleyes:

Am I the only one who finds this weird?



Just to answer your question, the New Testament teaches that God raised Jesus from the dead 3 days after he was murdered. He then stuck around for 40 more days, I think, and many hundreds of people saw him. He then went up into heaven, but promised to always be near the believer through his Spirit. He also promised eternal life, and salvation from God's wrath against sin, for all who believe in him. This is why Christians talk about Jesus from a personal point of view...

jmBoekestein
05-02-2005, 01:47 PM
I think works about an artist’s personal life & issues get across more and are better understood than a person trying to moralize about more ‘worldly’ issues…

So the question is, are you trying to talk through art, or are you trying to do art about talking?

This does strike the core a bit I think. When you make something for an audience you want some acceptance, you are after all making it for them with all good intentios(usually:rolleyes:).

It's my opinion that if you have moral issues to convey that are of a personal, and by that I mean they speak to people and not groups of people with a predefined motif for world domination(I'm not kidding), it will have an effect on them in their lifes personnally. A lot of movies spring to mind that are completely moralising and are readily accepted. I'd say What Dreams May come with Robin Williams. Nobody would want to disagree with that story I think, unless there's some bitternes or otherwise inhibitng issue.

And I think on top of all this that you have the obligation to take responsibility for your actions. Whoever watches your work will be affected by it and to a reasonable extent you can understand and predict this effect. To now say that you want to back away from any meaningful work, seems like an insult to the viewer. Needless to say that I don't think that everybody should be making completely moralistic stuff. But what goes around comes around, always...
So if I could enlighten some issues that are usually overlooked I wouldn't really mind, I'd thoroughly enjoy it.

Enayla
05-02-2005, 02:00 PM
Jan-Mark -- Yeah, I suppose it's that I don't like to preach. When I said that I don't care to stuff my paintings full of morality and I like to show different things, I am still quite aware of my work showing a bit of my opinions of the world. I think that's inevitable for any artist who puts a lot of themselves into what they do.

I have several paintings focusing on the plight of nature, for instance. I've been a vegetarian for 17 years now, since I was a little girl, and the fact that I'm often cheering the animals on from the sidelines tends to shine through. It's just a part of who I am. I think about nature a lot. I've not actually drawn an animal rights painting since I was sixteen years old, though, and quite rebellious. I drew a clog that had crushed the skull of a fox. The clog had the Swedish flag on it. It was very obvious and very stupid. The paintings I do now on the same theme... many people never see anything but an ordinary fantasy painting in them, and I'm fine with that.

When I say that paintings with a lot of morals tend to bore me, the bloody fox with the crushed skull is the kind of paintings that I'm talking about. I did say in my post that when there's a message in my paintings, I'll be whispering it, not shouting, so I'm quite aware of there being things showing through if someone is looking hard enough :]

John -- yeah, I agree. Art does, indeed, have a subconscious effect on people. 'tis part of the reason why I've been playing with gender roles in my paintings for so long... it drives some people nuts and they don't even know why (consequently, hate mail and such in my mail box).

Having said that, I don't think that every artist has to have a message to be interesting, they just have to have a personality that they're not afraid to show. I love getting to know people through their paintings, don't you? :]

And thank you. I don't believe in good and evil as most people depict them, and I suspect that this, much like some other aspects of my person, shows through a little when I paint :]

Conveying messages with paintings is... well, a risky thing, however. Everyone who looks at what you do will interpret it in a different way, often wildly deviating from what you had intended. My M&S entry of Nature's and Humanity's cycle of pain was, for instance, interpreted as two lesbians rubbing boobs together. That's part of what makes art fun, though, having different minds seeing different things in what you do.

Lastly, I'd like to repeat again that even the paintings where I don't see a touch of the artist's personality through, can be quite wonderful. Even if it's not conveying anything but a landscape that takes you out of this world for a few minutes, it might be meaningful.


Eh. I type too much and hardly any of it makes any sense. I'm sorry.

mamurphy
05-02-2005, 02:00 PM
I think this is a facinating topic and I'm glad it was raised.

The conversation is very insightful and I like the religious under/overtones because everyone seems to be staying "polite" as far as I can tell.

My take on moraity and art is this: Take a look at the masters.
Monet painted flowers and landscapes. daVinci painted beautiful religious paintings and also painted the great thinkers like Aristotle and Plato.
VanGogh painted landscapes and still lifes. You could say Picasso stayed out of morality issues until he painted Guernica.

I guess my point is that artist paint/draw/createt what interests them or inspires them. My opinion is that for a lot of artist on CGTalk the fantasy images and the car renders and the cartoon characters are all great releases of their talents into the medium and style that they enjoy the most.

Somewhere in the past somebody drew a dragon and a thousand people said "that's cool" I want to draw one too. Tolkein wrote great fantasies complete with character development, huge landscapes spanning whole countries and tremendous beasts of fantastical description.

To wrap this all up I would also say that morality and stating issues of belief in art are not as popular as more mundane subjects because the mundane stuff is "safe" . There is no real critical analysis or judgement if you post a half naked lady on a dragon. Only critique of style and technique.

If I posted a painting or rendering of Jesus/George Bush/The Pope/Saddam Hussein hanging upside down from a bunch of rusted chains while crows picked his flesh I would be "crucified" by half the members and praised by the other half and then the 2 halves would start a war.

Now, nobody wants that do they?

:)

jmBoekestein
05-02-2005, 02:39 PM
Linda, thanks. And I'm sorry, I didn't mean that you are unaware of your doings. I was undecided on whether you wanted people to know or not, which in the end doesn't matter as much as I thought. Keeping an eye open is a necessity indeed, I do so terribly think I'm the screamer type at occasions:blush:. But I think the right dramatisation does a lot for me, I am a terrible sob sometimes but it opens my eyes. For instance, seeing Schindlers List when I was a kid changed my take on life, it was really shocking. *sob* Somehow the medium film allows for such aggrevation, maybe because it allready has the support of multiple media inherent in it. A bit off-topic, but I believe I made a point.:)

Ilikesoup
05-02-2005, 03:13 PM
John Keates -- Are you saying that much of the art you see on this site is shallow and superficial? I can accept that, but it may have more to do with the nature of this site rather than the spiritual depth of the artists. I've only seen a few artists here who create their art to sell as a finished piece. Most others are honing their skills with the hopes of being hired by somebody else (a studio, freelance) so that they can illustrate that person's vision.

I'm on a Norman Rockwell kick right now, and I think it's significant to note that in the earlier part of his career his work was concerned with inoffensive observational humor. I mean, the fact that his subject matter was inoffensive is a kind of morality, but it was also safe. The Saturday Evening Post was his employer and they had an image they wanted to maintain. It wasn't until his latter days when he had made his reputation that he started tackling heavier moral, and divisive issues like racism. I would assume that he had also attained a financial independence that allowed him to tackle personal projects.

ashakarc
05-02-2005, 04:48 PM
Just 50 years ago, Sex on the Beach was immoral, now it is made on every Martini bar.


The point here, Morality or morality needs a context. It is not an absolute notion. It has borders and often high walls of the kind that is fatal. Within a personal sphere, morality becomes a regulator of the ordinary. Within culture, it is the unspoken law of the herd*, and within art, it is merely a message that signifies a stand-point, a world view that is governed by the centrifugal influence of society. The definition of morality is a historic reference to an era of absoluteness and divinity. In art, it was embeded in the symbol. Today's morality has less to do with good and evil, but on the power struggle of the individual vs. the world. Let's call it 3D morality, it needs a specific view point to draw the perspective. The picture plane is where your projection of the 'dear' world view you hold is manifested. If you decide to speak it, it is a choice niether good nor evil. It's the age of Relativism!

------------------------------------------
Dancing is a vertical expression of a horizontal desire...George Bernard Shaw

Oranges, Smoranges...
05-02-2005, 05:25 PM
It's the age of Relativism!

Inherent morality isn't relative. Murder, Lying, Adultery, Stealing, etc, are wrong, always... It doesn't matter what the masses think...

jmBoekestein
05-02-2005, 05:33 PM
damn skippy!!!

These days are confusing to a lot of people. I think there you find their weakness. There simply are some things that constitute sins. Whether people do themm or not is beside the point, they're still bad.

Nathellion
05-02-2005, 06:05 PM
I agree with ashakarc

Inherent morality isn't relative. Murder, Lying, Adultery, Stealing, etc, are wrong, always... It doesn't matter what the masses think...

Sure, when it's an evolutionary stable strategy not to commit them. In a society it's necessary to adapt morals because otherwise you can expect retribution from the law or otherwise. Let's put it this way...what I've learned mostly from study and a bit from experience is that humans are inherently selfish. In a society, acting selfish is not an ESS, so people adapt reciprocal altruism, which although promotes (seemingly) mutual benefit for all parties involved, the individual motives are selfish. Even people who give to charity are not conducting a completely selfless act, although it may seem so...they get from the deal a reputation of selflessness and good heart, and they get to feel good about themselves, as they should, but what I'm saying is that people would not give to charity if it didn't make them feel good or didn't give them a good public image. What they get out is worth perhaps just as much to them as what they put in.

People don't need to act selfish when there is plenty to eat and plenty to drink, but there tends to be a lot more violence in countries where food is scarce...

Whether people do themm or not is beside the point, they're still bad.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that people have an inherent moral code built into them. And so I pose the question, if a child was left in a forest from age 3 and somehow survived, do you think he would know anything about morality? Morality doesn't serve in such an environment. So he would have to be completely ruthless, otherwise he would not survive.

ashakarc
05-02-2005, 06:07 PM
Inherent morality isn't relative. Murder, Lying, Adultery, Stealing, etc, are wrong, always... It doesn't matter what the masses think...

I can't disagree more. What you see as a murderous act, someone else will see it differently. The clash of ideals seems never ending. Just following what's happening around the world of today, you would see murder is synonymous to many things, like collateral damage (wars), justice (death sentence), deprivation (imbargo), Abortion, and so on. Similarly, stealing is synonymous to business opportunities in war torn societies, economical policies that crushes the poor, opinion hijacking by mass media corporations, the right to life for all species, etc..Lying is about not telling the truth, but what truth? the one you know it! Politicians do that all the time, it is simply a survival method for the weak. Adultry..this is again a historical reference to a religious notion of breach of godly contract. In civil law it is a breach of contract that voids the relationship.

The bloody history of human kind is a witness to the bigotry of such species.

So, in my opinion, your projection plane is not an absolute one, rather relative to your viewpoint.

mamurphy
05-02-2005, 06:16 PM
Bah! this thread has lost its artistic foundation and has now crumbled into a philosophical debate. Yawn. I'm done with this.

Let's go paint some naked ladies on dragons and enjoy life!

ashakarc
05-02-2005, 06:36 PM
Bah! this thread has lost its artistic foundation and has now crumbled into a philisophical debate. Yawn. I'm done with this.

Let's go paint some naked ladies on dragons and enjoy life!

huh, I enjoy life by going out with the dragon not painting it. That's what I call life ;)

John Keates
05-02-2005, 06:37 PM
Ilikesoup -- I accept what you say about Norman Rockwell. In my first post I mentioned that one of the main reasons why people might steer away from making moraly aware art is money, I also accept that most people who post here are doing so for the sake of their carrear.

However, I think that us artists have more power than we sometimes think. There are market forces which dictate which games/movies etc will sell but at the end of the day, a lot of the imagery comes from art. Maybe we can steer things this way or that, just subtly. Maybe.

Also a painting doesn't have to be vacuouse to demonstrate skill; as I say, I often concentrate better on an image that I beleive in.

Nathellion -- I have read books on the evolution of morality and I have to say that you are taking a slightly different tack to the 'authadox' one. It is perfectly possible for genuine feelings of moral goodness to evolve. Sometimes it is just too hard to fake kindness so people just have kind thoughts and be done with it. An evolutionary stable strategy is not one strategy but a description of a balencing act. So for example, helping an old lady across the road may be 20% advantagouse but this doesn't tell us about the behaviour of any one person. It could mean that everyone helps old ladies 20% of the time or it could mean that only 20% of people help old ladies and they do so all the time... or any mix of those two (more probably).

ashakarc -- I think you are taking an extreem view. Certainly morality is relative to an extent but there are also universals, it is just that they have fuzzy edges, thats life.

Anyway, I am glad that I got this thread out of my system. Maybe it will have some effect.

ashakarc
05-02-2005, 06:41 PM
ashakarc -- I think you are taking an extreem view. Certainly morality is relative to an extent but there are also universals, it is just that they have fuzzy edges, thats life.

View point too close to the picture plane leads to extreme angles in the perspective and more visible depths :]

ThePhotographer
05-02-2005, 09:55 PM
Ilikesoup :

I agree with you. Most people around here seem to do CG to get into a career of illustration, cartoon etc. Very, very few here actually want to make art that you would like to hang on your walls. I have a few favourites here - I would like to hang their things on my walls. But they are very, very few. That's also why I think the frontpage saying "the most respected ....etc." is not true - it is even slightly pretentious. It is perhaps respected for certain things, but certainly not for "hang it on the wall things".

John Keates :

I like your painting - it's the kind you could hang on your wall and ask yourself a lot of things about it every time you look at it. Anyway, I don't think it's so much about MORALITY in art - it's more about wanting to EXPRESS something or create an atmosphere. That indeed seems to be a little lost amongst bigbreasted cybergirls, dragons, fanart, robots etc. Too much conformism. And yes, conformism is also horrible monsters with blood pourring from their mouths ! There's nothing special about that. And that conformism is being nourrished by modern CG "heros" as well as certain artists from far ago. It is obvious from some other threads that whole periods of art history is just not interesting to the majority of posters around here.

There is some very interesting art here, but I must say that there's a bunch of work that I'm not at all interested in personally and that I don't consider being art even though it's very well executed. Cars and interiors - that is not art. I bought Cinema 4D not so long time ago, but I almost never look in the 3D gallery here anymore - there is simply no artwork able to catch my attention - although I admit it is well done - it is not art, but very good craftmanship. The same thing can be said about most things posted in the 2D gallery - although there is more creativity in that section, I admit.

Anyway, I think that this site has to have more creative posts with personal styles if it wants to be the most respected CG site on the net. Even the most loved artists here are very, very close to conformism.

Ashakarc :

I agree with you about murder, stealing etc. in modern society. Anyway, in year 2005 I think we should all be "big" enough to know that all those things are wrong without needing a religion to teach us.

Tryn
05-02-2005, 10:21 PM
"Inherent morality isn't relative. Murder, Lying, Adultery, Stealing, etc, are wrong, always... It doesn't matter what the masses think..."
"There simply are some things that constitute sins. Whether people do themm or not is beside the point, they're still bad."

I completely disagree with both of you. Religion and dogma are slanting this topic away from what it was about initially, as it nearly always does. You imply that your moral codes are the 'right' way, and people who don't believe as you do are simply wrong. One man's murder is another's justified killing. One man's terrorism is another's crusade for freedom.

"Hi Tryn,

"'Moral' artwork polarizes people in the same way that political or reliigious artwork does."

I don't think that this has to be the case at all. I would regard dogmatic views about what is absolutely good and what is absolutely bad as imoral in themselves so they are not what I think of when I think of morality. So, for me at least, moral art doesn't have to be troublesome at all, just open, empathetic and questioning."

Hey John, a belated wave across the ditch. I agree with you on the black and white thing. Morals and beliefs are very close to people's hearts, however, and regardless of intent, some things just rub others the wrong way. The fact that someone like Enayla, of all people gets hate mail (?? what's to hate?) for her work is testament to that.
So, in closing, I don't see anything wrong with morally themed artwork, its just not my thing, and I don't know if we need anything controversial or 'preachy' (however lighthearted) on this site.

jebas
05-03-2005, 12:39 AM
Personally I believe that the reason that you don't see more morality is because of the skill that is needed to produce a good one. A morality painting would be have to be story of consequences, and stories are extremely difficult to do in a single panel.

I was originally going to argue that you were not looking hard enough, but as I began to think through my examples, I realized that all of these people were considered masters. I then tried to find other examples on CGTalk, and I saw more of what you were talking about. Only a small number of artists seem to be able to produce a story inside their paintings. Therefore there are only a small number of people that can produce a morality painting.

Gord-MacDonald
05-03-2005, 01:39 AM
Oh, and yes, let's keep religion out of the discussion. I can see how this is difficult considering the topic of choice, but things tend to get a bit too much heated, don't you think?


Hmm..
Given that for so many people, religion is the basis for their morality, I think it might be hard, if not impossible to keep religion out of a discussion on issues of morality.



I think the question of morality in art is a pretty big mouthful.

a) Morality is driven by belief systems, which are widely diverse.
b) Morality can be manifest in many many ways - from overt messages ex: morality plays, to subtle morality which almost creeps into the work, without the authors consent (whether the author is of a book, film, painting - whatever)
c) Viewers will be more than happy to project their own morality onto a work - either as a pretext to condem the artwork, or to advance their own beliefs, through the artwork.

Gord

GOTgraphic
05-03-2005, 01:44 AM
Hmm..
Given that for so many people, religion is the basis for their morality, I think it might be hard, if not impossible to keep religion out of a discussion on issues of morality.

GordWell one could always base their moral codes on pain, pleasure and simple survival :D That would be the lowest common denominator.

Gord-MacDonald
05-03-2005, 01:52 AM
Well one could always base their moral codes on pain, pleasure and simple survival :D That would be the lowest common denominator.

Some people do - yikes!

**edit**
the yikes applies to the 'pain' - I hope we will all find some pleasure, and survive without too much struggle

Gord

jbo
05-03-2005, 02:10 AM
Well one could always base their moral codes on pain, pleasure and simple survival :D That would be the lowest common denominator.

one could argue that EVERYONE bases their morality on such things. it's just a question of what people get pleasure from.

GOTgraphic
05-03-2005, 02:21 AM
one could argue that EVERYONE bases their morality on such things. it's just a question of what people get pleasure from.Yes. The alternative being those who believe religiously base their moral codes (in may cases) on the rewards that they will receive in the after earth-life.

jmBoekestein
05-03-2005, 08:53 AM
View point too close to the picture plane leads to extreme angles in the perspective and more visible depths :]

In that case I'd stress you to use different lenses and aperture. It might help in getting a more suitable perspective.:rolleyes:

jmBoekestein
05-03-2005, 11:34 AM
I agree, but that doesn't mean that people have an inherent moral code built into them. And so I pose the question, if a child was left in a forest from age 3 and somehow survived, do you think he would know anything about morality? Morality doesn't serve in such an environment. So he would have to be completely ruthless, otherwise he would not survive.

Well in some occasions children have been stranded without parents. But these kids just grew up with a different way, but it seems they still have a good grip on morality only not it's finer points. They don't kill, pester, and they try to get along only in their weird unnatural way. Which is just natural to them.
Also children that have been heavily abused by their parents don't usually go on a revengful quest but rather break inwards and try to protect themselves. I think there is a truth to the this universla moral awareness.

John Keates
05-03-2005, 11:47 AM
Jebas,

It is true that a narrative can help a lot with getting a moral messaga across. I guess that a good example of this would be Hogarth, particularly his rakes progress. (http://www.haleysteele.com/hogarth/plates/rake.html)

However, I think that the morality of a person can show through quite easily in quite a simple image. But I agree that it takes some skill to do this.

The point is that few people attempt it at all. It is like people have forgotten that it is one of the functions of art. I guess there is a lot of escapism. People make art to get away from the difficult parts of morality.

I don't know, I just think that the balence needs adjusting a little.

Oh yeah, I agree that religion has to come into the story for some people but, personaly I don't see the connection as a true one. It seems possible to justify or criticise religions on the basis of a morality outside of themselves **I don't want to get into this discussoin however** It is obviously a big taboo for some people so it is best to tread carefully. I like to think that people will come around to a more unified view some day so we can talk about moral issues without the waters being muddied. Maybe art can be part of the process?

Slowly slowly catchy monkey.

John Keates
05-03-2005, 11:59 AM
Oh yeah, about the universality of morals... There is definitely that. For instance, Sex is a universaly private thing for humans (unless you give them enough money) and we are the only primate species like this (maybe THE only species). There are many other examples.

Facial expresson and body language are largely universal around the globe and they link into both morality and art in a BIG way.

Actually, I think that the moral dimension is far more presant than people realise. One thing that this thread shows is that sometimes people see morality as some flighty thing that doesn't have to concern them, wheras it is much more personal and everyday than that. There is a little morality in everything in a way.

For instance, some people like the look of a big car with a huge bull bars on the front. When asked, they might just say "I just like the look of it" but they are sublimating the truth which is that they like the feeling of power over people and the idea that they could just barge through things. So there is a moral dimension to thier aesthetics whether they like it or not.

As artists, I think we should think about the morality of our aesthetics as it has more power and is further reaching than many of us think.

I'm not saying we shold be preachy (although I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of that) but mostly I am saying that we should just think about what we are doing more.

[edit: I do go on don't I?]

Oranges, Smoranges...
05-03-2005, 12:26 PM
You imply that your moral codes are the 'right' way, and people who don't believe as you do are simply wrong. One man's murder is another's justified killing. One man's terrorism is another's crusade for freedom.

If someone's moral code comes from a religious belief, then the believer didn't come up with the moral code. They are just subjecting themselves to teachings from someone else, which in most cases, they believe is from the mouth of God...

Inherent morality means that everyone is born with a conscience that says murder, stealing, etc, are wrong. If you steal, a good conscience would produce guilt that indicates you have done something wrong. Some people warp their consciences, or just igonore them cause they don't like what it's saying.

According to at least 2 major religions - since the dawn of time, mankind has and will continue to go down hill into moral chaos, and God must act justly against such immorality. Hence the need for a substitutional sacrifice, atonement, and forgiveness from above...

John Keates
05-03-2005, 02:20 PM
Just as a kind of game, could people try to tie art into their conversation - even if just as a little after-thought.

jmBoekestein
05-03-2005, 02:39 PM
Hahahah!!!:scream:

I was going to post exactly this:

What does this have to do with art again?:D

But here's a take, morality and moral sound a lot alike. Twist that a bit and you get to the same point we were at earlier. An artwork that makes you forget the sorrow. If you are putting a smile on someone's face are you inevitably moralising. By that I mean, you believe in something because it makes you happy, like a romantic couple in a certain light, you know, the blossoming tree or a nice terras with happy people communing in the sun. It makes you happy, it feels good and I think, though am not sure, that it brings you to a godd mporal issue. In this case a good relationship with your girlfriend or a healthy social attitude, maybe even a step to utopian ideals. Who knows. Just for sport, lol.

ashakarc
05-03-2005, 02:40 PM
In that case I'd stress you to use different lenses and aperture. It might help in getting a more suitable perspective.:rolleyes:
Haha..comment ignored,unrelated and shallow!

jmBoekestein
05-03-2005, 02:47 PM
:p


...


don't make me start the eyesplit thang.:wise:

lovisx
05-03-2005, 03:10 PM
if you look at it, who defines morality and what gives them the right? There is no physical proof that there is such a thing as universal morality. Some, like me, believe that morality is defined, others feel it cannot be defined.

As some have said, one man's terrorism is another mans fight for freedom. One mans terrorism is another mans politics. One man feels its necesary in his heart, and others are terrified by it.

What seems to be universal are the common themes that are threaded throughout all beliefs systems.

1. Elements more powerful then society.
2. Accountability for ones actions.

I'd say these two themes are present in all societies, and are necesary for people to live together.

In my opinion their are other themes that help better society. Has artists we help propagate those ideas and spread them, making them popular or unpopular. Themes of anti-racism, politics, and compassion in art are so powerful and necessary.

There are two types of art
1 visually pleasing art that plays with artistic elements to produce an aesthetic that is sensual.

2 art that has an underlying message expressed more profoundly through artistic elements and who's purpose is using the senses to better communicate a state or morality.

to me number 2 is more powerful and more relevent.

John Keates
05-03-2005, 03:36 PM
Lovisz,

I think that is a good summation but I would question the division that you make between aesthetic and message art.

I would suggest that the boundary is at least very blured if not non-existant. For instance, a very 'purely aesthetic' painting might be a blue canvas. Looking at the canvas might make you feel relaxed. This surely is a moral thing. The artist is making people feel relaxed and this is nice. There are also then statements implicit in the art like the idea that artists should please people, that the artist is better at making a square blue than someone else, and it is worth paying money for such a thing.

I guess you could extend that argument to anything at all but still, I think it is important that there are moral aspects to all art whether the artist intends them or not.

ashakarc
05-03-2005, 04:40 PM
:p


...


don't make me start the eyesplit thang.:wise:

No need, let me be more constructive here. ;)

Expressing morals in an artwork whether it is a painting, poetry, literature, sculpture or any other medium is not always an easy option. If you live in a tolerant society with acceptance of differences, it is much easier. Here is a personal story I would like to share:

I lived and grew up in Iraq during the rule of Saddam. As a young person, experienced first hand discrimination, imprisonment, and intimidation I had to reflect that in my artwork. The dilemma is how to express something that those in power will not see it as an opposing view and punish my soul. Yes, hundreds of artists, poets have been tortured, imprisoned, fleed the country because of that. I didn't have but one choice. I chose abstract expression with a flare of symbols that are not easy to decipher. The painting was very critical of the brutality of the regime and the intolerance in politics and religious views. I exhibited the painting at the national gallery and the director of the gallery selected my work along with others for a permanent holding of that gallery. If they just knew what it was about, I wouldn't be here writing this.

The artwork is a product of its time. If you choose to express morality and afford to do so, good for you.

Everything is relative to the subject. If everyone chooses to see morals as subjective projections, the world will not go into chaos and disorder, it'll just be different.

Cheers,

lovisx
05-03-2005, 05:01 PM
I think I get what you mean

but I still argue that art in itself is pleasing to the senses, and therefore can be sensual without teaching a moral.

Wether the artist or the observer labels it with a moral does not effect its ability to appeal to the senses, in and of itself.

So yes a blue square can cause happiness or sadness purely by looking at it, but that is an emotive and sensual response and not a moral response.

obviously if you put the blue square in different contexts it may eventually have a moral. But I argue that in most contexts the blue will make you remember a sad rainy day or a sunny day with a blue sky. Or it will feel deep and emersive as a color, all of which responses would not be moral responses but sensual responses.


the beauty of abstract art is that you can call on those different sensual feelings to convey a message. Have dark colors outlined thickly with heavy lines. This on a subconscouse level would be saying that unhappy feelings are being controlled by controlling and overpowering order. But of course this is relative to the situation of the people. Perhaps in other places dark grey means purity, or freedom. (some people feel they are freed at night for instance)

Trojan123
05-03-2005, 05:02 PM
I am wondering how many people here sit around thinking about moral issues and whether that effects their art.

It seems that there isn't much art around that really deals with moral issues in a big way. There are some people in the 'fine' art world who have an axe to grind, usually some kind of femanism, but not all that many people making moral art to do with other people.

I think that the reason is probably money. People don't want moral messages on their wall and it is hard to make a moral computer game without an overly black and white view of good and evil.

It strikes me that a lot of the art shown on this forum is tacky (to my tastes) even if very well done. Maybe if there was more discussion about the subtler, trickyer aspects of morality then people might make more interesting art?

Don't get me wrong, this is not meant as a blanket statement about this commnity (I have huge respect for a lot of people here), it is just that the range of subject matter seems rather slim and a lot of potential seems to get missed.

There is a huge amount of talent in the commercial art world and it seems to me that there is a lot of un-tapped power here.

1) There is way too much intolerance for morality these days; a piction depicting would be bitched about instead of considering it a challenge.

2) How would one depict an image of morality?

SB

John Keates
05-03-2005, 05:03 PM
Interesting stuff ashakarc, I had no idea.

Your story reminds me of some of the things that have happened in the Chinese art world.

In China they have quite poor human rights laws and no animal rights laws. Artists have started to make statements about this with very brutal art which would be illegal or qeustionable in many countries but not in China.

For example. One guy made a huge curtain many metres tall and wide out of live animals stitched together with wire. There were snakes, frogs etc all wrything away and the thing moved around as a result.

Another guy chopped off his hand and made a hand print of it!!

These are very extreem measures but powerfull.

It would be a pity if people in countries where they can freely express themselves held back from doing so whilst other people die for that right.

Ilikesoup
05-03-2005, 05:15 PM
Pushing the "what is Morality?" question aside for a moment, there's also an issue of how somebody should introduce moral value in his/her art. How involved is the viewer in the decision of what is moral? In Enayla's post she mentioned the heavy handed, iconic imagery of a fox being crushed by the clog. The artist makes the decision -- the fox is a living thing, the clog represents destruction and Sweden simultaneously. There's little room for the viewer's opinion unless he rejects the artist's premise entirely. (No offense meant to Enayla, BTW. I assume this is why she dislikes the piece).

I prefer work where the artist has left a question for the viewer. There's a piece that Goro did last year as a Daily Sketch Topic and I hope he doesn't mind my providing a link: http://www.area-56.de/pics/cgtalk/sketchgroup/evil_twin.jpg
It presents a scene and invites the viewer to come to his own conclusion. Sure, the piece is called "Evil Twin". Sure, the victor is devil colored. The artist has quietly indicated whom he thinks is the guilty party through via the red color, but there's so much left unsaid. Was Red always evil or is this the effect of a computer virus? Does he need the battery or was his aim to eliminate Blue? At the very least, the viewer is shown a scene and is left to open speculation. What's more, the robot is just a robot. It doesn't represent Sweden or racism.

BTW, as far as CGTalk is concerned, I think the CGChoice galleries are a great place to see technically brilliant pieces. Some of them have a strong narrative, but it's not a requirement. If you're looking for strong narrative and moral content, check out the CGChallenges. As John Keates mentioned, it's easier to spend a lot of time (2-3 months for Challenges) on a piece if you feel strongly about the subject matter. Also, the posts from other people play a part in shaping the content of each artist's piece, helping them to refine a rough or vacuous concept IMO.

lovisx
05-03-2005, 05:28 PM
But even in that art the artist is teaching a moral. That we need to have our own morals and discern things for ourselves, and not leave it to others decided for us.

jmBoekestein
05-03-2005, 06:31 PM
Ashakarc, I'm thoroughly impressed by your somewhat punk-like attitude to the systems imposed. And it's a privilige for me to be able to learn here from you. Hats off.:)

I do not mean to be crude, now but your views and expressions always seemed a bit cynical or desolate at times to me personally. I see you have been denied your freedom in the past and I would've been far more bitter at that probably. I do so now wish you would make a "twin painting" to accompany the first piece and send it to the gallery if it still stands, or the gallery currently holding your work. It would conclude the event maybe. I personnally would be very curious after reading such information as you have just so strikingly portrayed. Wouldn't you find it a marvel too. Do you have a link or a digital version that you could share with us. I'm insanely curious.:D


As some have said, one man's terrorism is another mans fight for freedom. One mans terrorism is another mans politics. One man feels its necesary in his heart, and others are terrified by it.

I agree mostly with your post but this bit struck me to some point. I think that the ones doing terrorism are clearly aware of the suffering they inflict but they seem to believe that it's necessary, usually I hear that these acts are accompanied in most cultures with ritual. Something that leads me to believe that they're letting themselves be bent if you understand what I'm saying. I do believe there's a basic understanding of values, a sort of empathy in all of us. Even they believe there's a sanity to their madness.

edit: and I DO mean to some point, not all the way. just thought I'd stress it. Never know how fast people read. No offense.

Trojan123
05-03-2005, 07:14 PM
But even in that art the artist is teaching a moral. That we need to have our own morals and discern things for ourselves, and not leave it to others decided for us.

I agree.

A while back, someone posted a painting with a depiction of, what I perceived at least, a common man... with his hands and mouth tied off with an American flag.

Now, just because I thought that it was inaccurate to what the social message was meant to be didn't stop that person from making it and posting it.

Lesson learned: express yourself freely; who cares what the other person feels. The minute we sensor ourselves for the sake of others (even though there is still new content continually being created that may offend you) we no longer live in a society of free expression.

SB

ashakarc
05-03-2005, 07:30 PM
Ashakarc, I'm thoroughly impressed by your somewhat punk-like attitude to the systems imposed. And it's a privilige for me to be able to learn here from you. Hats off.:)

I do not mean to be crude, now but your views and expressions always seemed a bit cynical or desolate at times to me personally. I see you have been denied your freedom in the past and I would've been far more bitter at that probably. I do so now wish you would make a "twin painting" to accompany the first piece and send it to the gallery if it still stands, or the gallery currently holding your work. It would conclude the event maybe. I personnally would be very curious after reading such information as you have just so strikingly portrayed. Wouldn't you find it a marvel too. Do you have a link or a digital version that you could share with us. I'm insanely curious.:D

Yeh, thanks jmBoekestein, I'm humbled.

I am not a cynic nor bitter, but no realist either. In my views, I don't try convince as much as to let others see and think about it. Desolate will be closer to my views as something that I inherited from the past to survive the 'cosine curve' ride I've been through.

I can share this one (http://alishakarchi.com/painting/oilJunk_small.jpg)that is closer to the painting that I referred to earlier, but I have no means to know if it is still there, epecially after the post-invasion mass looting in Baghdad. A twin one will be good to followup, but I doubt it will be concluding,

best

jmBoekestein
05-03-2005, 07:41 PM
Wonderful! You are a very good artist! I love the "grey aura" in it, the canvas seems to make it live. Yes, desolate is the word for what I was thinking, but you still have the creation to you, and that makes you non desolate imho. Maybe desperate is what I wanted to say, intricacies elude the simple mind e=when watching the whole.

Thanks for sharing:D, it's great! I really love it, I usually don't understand abstract art, but here's more things/aspects that I think I can understand, if you undertsand what I mean. Hopefully things will quiet down over there in a year or a few and you'll be able to if you want. Hats off once again.:)

ozhaver
05-03-2005, 08:04 PM
Meh...

When morality is concerned- comes the question: what is good and what is bad?

I think good and evil are too black and white. The world is more a great range of grays...What is good for one is bad for the other.

Bringing morality into artwork is a risqué thing- though if well done, I applaud it. I myself have done many pieces which I won't put up online cuz I really wanna spare myself the hate mail... ;)

I don't think we can define good and evil. It would be doctrinarian and dogmatic.

Morals are very tied to religion in most of the individuals. To accept such morals is to accept those beliefs as true. Again- it's risky...

Talking about morals touches ethical questions such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, animal rights, etc. In my 'moral code' I don't have problems with euthanasia or animal rights or homosexuality, and I even accept abortion in certain cases (rape,etc.) But- not everyone out there thinks like me. While making piece concerning right or wrong is a great way of expressing myself, that would make it fall more into defining right or wrong, and socio-political issues- which I am not interested in being a "speaker" of.

If I am to do something, I would hint at it, put it hidden in my pieces. But I definitely won't do a "revolution banner"- cuz I am not political like that. And the other thing is I don't need the rest of the world to accept or approve MY truth, my moral code. I think your moral code is a rather personal thing. Of course there are certain lines that are generally accepted...like murder, etc. But again is there a possibility of murder being a good thing in certain cases? You see, it comes down again to personalisms and subjectivity.

It is tricky. This is why when I touch the themes concerning right or wrong i do it on a very personal intimate level- I don't go and judge people, I judge MYSELF. I really don't believe I have truth grabbed by the guts unlike some people out there...and I am fine living in the gray area. ^_^

Tryn
05-03-2005, 09:32 PM
hah...yeah, maybe we should keep the whole terrorism thing out of this discussion...there's enough hot points of contention. Apologies for bringing it up.

If someone's moral code comes from a religious belief, then the believer didn't come up with the moral code. They are just subjecting themselves to teachings from someone else, which in most cases, they believe is from the mouth of God...

Inherent morality means that everyone is born with a conscience that says murder, stealing, etc, are wrong. If you steal, a good conscience would produce guilt that indicates you have done something wrong. Some people warp their consciences, or just igonore them cause they don't like what it's saying.

According to at least 2 major religions - since the dawn of time, mankind has and will continue to go down hill into moral chaos, and God must act justly against such immorality. Hence the need for a substitutional sacrifice, atonement, and forgiveness from above...
And that's your belief. Cool. I don't believe in inherent morality. Its something that's learned, both consiously and unconsiously by being a human being around other humans. One's conscience is a way of judging your own actions against whatever code of ethics you believe to be right. Its easy to judge someone's actions with your own set of morals, and decide they're immoral/evil/sick and twisted. I do it, I'll admit it...its part of human nature to be judgemental. But its unlikely they'll see themselves the same way you do. Hell, they might even think you're the one with the warped conscience.

jmBoekestein
05-03-2005, 11:44 PM
Meh...

When morality is concerned- comes the question: what is good and what is bad?

I think good and evil are too black and white. The world is more a great range of grays...What is good for one is bad for the other.

Well actually my morality doesn't really have that parallel. Yes one lives and one dies. But that's not necessarily evil or good. You're just talking selfishness as a basic value in this equatiion. Well it's not actually true.

The question is just more difficult to answer and has therefore been left unanswered more often than not. But good and evil is not something inherent to morality. There are a ton of words to describe morality. Let's say the word use parttakes into morality, which it constantly does. That isn't inherently bad, but requires more of the persona to recognise for sure. But anyway, this one's probably too heaavy to discuss, Just my 2 cents.

jebas
05-04-2005, 01:09 AM
I think the reason that thread has shifted to a discussion of morality is because no one has defined what makes a morality painting. Since morality is about how you interact with yourself and the rest of the world, I assumed that a morality painting would have to be a narrative. I personally eliminated the symbolic paintings because a key is required.

I admit that I have always had a problem with pure symbolic paintings because the context viewer has is never the same as the artist. Using Enayla's description of her heavy handed example of a Swedish clog crushing a fox skull, you can completely change the meaning by moving its display location. If it is displayed on a fence near a construction project that is clearing forest, you immediately think of the anger that people have for destroying God's green Earth. However, you place the same image inside a stadium, and you wonder who the Swed football (soccer) team is playing next month. We've gone from the Enayla the environmental activist to Enayla the sports fanatic, and it's the same painting.

Excluding my personal bias, would a morality painting be a narrative, a symbolic, or some other type of painting?

Nathellion
05-04-2005, 01:32 AM
Nathellion -- I have read books on the evolution of morality and I have to say that you are taking a slightly different tack to the 'authadox' one. It is perfectly possible for genuine feelings of moral goodness to evolve. Sometimes it is just too hard to fake kindness so people just have kind thoughts and be done with it.

I've never heard of this 'authadox' term, but you could say that I'm largely influenced by what Richard Dawkins has to say on the matter. Perhaps you are right, in that geniune moral goodness can evolve, but only as an evolutionary advantage, which, with humans living in societies together now for tens of thousands of years (although the early ones were of course very small), could definitely be possible. Being nice to other people promotes friendship and a good reputation, which can be very beneficial, and so I think I agree with you in that respect.

An evolutionary stable strategy is not one strategy but a description of a balencing act. So for example, helping an old lady across the road may be 20% advantagouse but this doesn't tell us about the behaviour of any one person. It could mean that everyone helps old ladies 20% of the time or it could mean that only 20% of people help old ladies and they do so all the time... or any mix of those two (more probably).

You're right about this. I shouldn't have used the term, my memory on it being fuzzy having read about ESS's a few years ago. My bad :D

Well in some occasions children have been stranded without parents. But these kids just grew up with a different way, but it seems they still have a good grip on morality only not it's finer points. They don't kill, pester, and they try to get along only in their weird unnatural way. Which is just natural to them.
Also children that have been heavily abused by their parents don't usually go on a revengful quest but rather break inwards and try to protect themselves. I think there is a truth to the this universla moral awareness.

I find this hard to believe. If you can show me examples of this then I'll believe you. Also, it would depend on the age the child was stranded. If a child had lived in a society till age 8, and then was abandoned in a jungle or something, then he/she would already have a sense of moral conduct from living with other people and this sense would probably remain throughout his/or her life. But theoretically, if a child was left to their own devices at age 2, and by some ridiculously unlikely series of events happened to survive as an individual in the wild until say, age 20 or so, I doubt they would have much of any moral sense. They would carry basic innate emotions, and might show qualities such as kindness if it really is an innate quality, but they would have a very hard time integrating themselves into 'civilized' society because they would not have developed a concept of deterrence.

To anyone who believes there is a universal innate code of morality, I suggest you read about the Yanomamo, the South American Indian peoples living in widely scattered villages along the Brazil-Venezuela border. Here are some quick facts about their violent conduct:

LINK (http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/638.html)

Some of the highlights:

"- Warfare, violence and the abduction of women have been extremely important factors in Yanomamo history.

- Approximately 40% of the adult males participated in the killing of another Yanomamo. The majority of them (60%) killed only one person, but some men were repetitively successful warriors and participated in the killing of up to 16 other people.

- Approximately 25% of all deaths among adult males were due to violence.

- Approximately 2/3 of all people aged 40 people or older had lost, through violence, at least one of the following kinds of very close biological relatives: a parent, a sibling, or a child. Most of them (57%) have lost two or more such close relatives. This helps explain why large numbers of individual are motivated by revenge."

...Apparently universal morality is a dubious concept. This reinforces my point that morality largely defined by deterrence and culture.

...And another thing I realized is that religion is a form of deterrence in and of itself, being that it rewards 'good moral conduct' by admission into heaven's gates and punishes 'immorality' by damnation into hell's flames, not unlike authority, which rewards adherence to justice by giving security and liberty, and punishes breaking of laws by an infinite gradation of punishments. Just wanted to draw that connection feeling that it was interesting :thumbsup:

I don't really see a problem with accepting that morality is largely relative. As long as we appreciate that despite some of our violent propensities, we do have a sense of empathy, and we all like to be treated with liberty and respect, then we will adopt a civilized moral code as long as there is deterrence to enforce it.

Squibbit
05-04-2005, 09:47 AM
Why do people speak of 'Jesus' as if he is alive and walking...:rolleyes:

Am I the only one who finds this weird?

umm... don't the book say he like was resurrected and went to heaven ?

haven't read it, just remembered it that way... i been like waiting for that dude
or some other divine entity to come visit us mortals and throw some healing
majik around, but i guess they're figured after last efforts that it's kinda lost
cause or sumthin...

terrorists are stupid , as are big companies and countries and what have you
that abuse and mistreat others.

I believe in BaneKermit, AO-Wolverine and SuneSharessLliira, they're kind of a
combination of all sorts of fun , easy stuff :D



.

MrGrinch
05-04-2005, 11:10 AM
The reason you dont find many artworks with a moral message on this particular forum seems obvious to me.
This forum is built on fostering technical talent in artworks rather than expression of personal moral issues. While this may sometimes also happen, the focus is overwhelmingly on the skill with which you have created the painting.
If you want to see and contribute to paintings created for the purpose of delivering a moral message I'm sure there are many other forums out there where you can do this. The majority of people on this forum however, are looking for, or have, careers in illustration or concept art, where they realise someone else's ideas and the focus is on creating a pleasing image for commercial purposes.
I have some very strong, black and white ideas on morality, and if I chose to I could express them in my artworks and then foist them off on the nice people on this forum. However, that would certainly offend and alienate many people, something I'm not keen on doing just now. So, just as I keep my opinions to myself in social situations I chose not to share them visually here.

jmBoekestein
05-04-2005, 02:37 PM
MrGrinch, I think you are right. I also think there 's the thing that I never no how and not what n case of opinions. To clarify, I have one, but how to fit it in with the rest is the difficult part. And life's many nuances don't seem to allow for short one stop posts and a happy ending in most cases. But I personally feel it's important to express something in art, it shouldn't be void of feeling ir passion. If it seems that way, something is wrong with it imho. I wouldn't mind if someone told me my stuff looks boring for instance, I don't want it to be so I'd want to change it. If I'm incapable of doing so I'm probably in the wrong line of business, the same with communicating someone else's ideas.

uhm...did I actually make a point now? I bl**dy well hope so?:surprised

Nathellion, if we don't admit our misstakes we'll never learn so I have to agree with you. Allthough I'm also unfamiliar with the authadox, I'm still thinking it's the same bud flowering at a certain point in time. LOL. Meaning it's all there, but it needs to evolve into some ready form for actual morality oriented feelings to occur, I'm certain compassion and empathy are amongst the group of emotions in question.

John Keates
05-04-2005, 10:36 PM
Hi Mr Grinch,

Sure, this forum is mostly full of commercial artists selling themselves but a lot of the work that does best here is personal work which I think is to be expected as it is the work that people are likely to put themselves into into more.

Also, it seems that the administrators have tried in the past to steer peoples work in a more artistic direction, this particular section being an example of that.

I have to wonder why you have black and white moral opinions. Maybe it is because you don't talk about them much? Morality is largely about getting on with people, so if your morality leads to you not getting on with people then maybe it isn't doing its job? I don't want to get personal there, its just what I think. However, I do understand that you are here to improve your standing in a commercial realm and sometimes giving your opinion can be damaging to that.

However, as a more general principle, I am a little worried about the idea that we should sweep our ideas under the carpet incase they upset people. If you say something that offends someone then that could be for three reasons. 1.You are bieng offensive, 2.they are being touchy, or 3. a combination of the two. In all of those situations both parties win as they iether learn something or teach something or both.

If, on the other hand, everyone keeps stum for whatever reason, then there is no positive outcome whilst the possibility of the pressure cooker popping increases.

Maybe it is an impossible situation, or a balencing act. The best art comes from strong characters but the commercial art world doesn't like strong characters... but then I think we all know that already.

I think I just went in a circle there... I'm going to shut up now and go to sleep.

GOTgraphic
05-04-2005, 11:08 PM
So yes a blue square can cause happiness or sadness purely by looking at it, but that is an emotive and sensual response and not a moral response.

Don't forget that it could be a physiological response to, as different colors affect the eye in different ways. For instance the focal point of the color blue is far infront of the retinal wall of the eye... thus the brain/eye perceives this color as receding. Its also very agitating to look at the color blue for extended lengths of time... because of the difficulty the eye has focusing on it. BTW, the yellowish green color's focal point is directly on the surface of the retinal wall, and the easiest color to be looked at for long lengths of time.

[edit: red's focal point in behind the retinal wall, blue is infront]

jmBoekestein
05-04-2005, 11:44 PM
Have you ever noticed that when you have a blue sheet of paper with red objects on it that you can't trace it's exact locatioon when you move it sideways slowly. There's an all to obvious lag whenI do that, it really ticks me off.

GOTgraphic
05-05-2005, 12:30 AM
Have you ever noticed that when you have a blue sheet of paper with red objects on it that you can't trace it's exact locatioon when you move it sideways slowly. There's an all to obvious lag whenI do that, it really ticks me off.Yes. Red & blue together are freaky. Red has the longest wavelength and blue the shortest. So when you get these two colors together they vibrate something fierce. Thats one of the reasons that police use the two colors... they attract a LOT of attention... hence the label of "power colors".

Experiment:
Take a sheet of paper colored half red and half blue, put it on a table and then look at something else (put the paper in your peripheral vision). Now while looking at something else, notice how the blue and red colored paper seems to be moving and or shaking. Quite wild. It drives me crazy when I'm at some meeting and someone across the table is wearing red and blue together... :argh:

jmBoekestein
05-05-2005, 01:30 AM
my own siggi has them but desaturated and at low value, then it isn't as offensive I believe but still too much maybe.

I think what I'll try and do is make several photographs of these colours and see hwat actually happens. This experiment works perfectly to prove that orange and blue are complementary. Maybe also with this. FUn thing to try.:)

John Keates
05-05-2005, 01:18 PM
I believe that the these effects are more based on the biochemestry of the eye than optics. There is also a stong fight between green and red.

I noticed the other day that the red writing on my bass speaker contrasts with the grey metal in such a way that it appears embossed.

Anyway, my point about the blue painting was that has a moral aspect because an artist can choose to effect people in ways that have a moral side to them - If an artist wants to adjitate then they might make a blue and red painting for example. I chose the example because it shows how there is a little bit of morality in everything we do and so saying that there is no moral side to your work seems naive to me.

Obviously there are some cultural differences between people and those have to be taken into account.

lovisx
05-05-2005, 01:54 PM
I guess the biggest moral you could learn at this level, is that art made me feel happy, art that makes me feel happy is good. Or, art made me feel angry, art that makes me feel angry is bad.

jmBoekestein
05-05-2005, 03:54 PM
I believe that the these effects are more based on the biochemestry of the eye than optics. There is also a stong fight between green and red.



I'm hoping to find that out. In photographs you can see complementary colours calling eachother up. What if somehow two wavepatterns just conflict and create distortions in the final picture. I thought it was more biochemical, but I'm not really sure.

John Keates
05-05-2005, 05:04 PM
I'm pretty damn sure it is a biochemical thing. Becides, if it were an inteference phenomenon then complimentarity would have no intrinsic effect.

Hey, hang on! What happened to the thread topic? This is imoral and has to stop :p

Squibbit
05-05-2005, 05:38 PM
woohoo , you said phenomenon !

Ordibble-Plop
05-06-2005, 12:04 AM
I believe that the these effects are more based on the biochemestry of the eye than optics.

I edited an article just the other day about the different sorts of lenses found in different organisms and what each has done to overcome the problem of spherical abberation (when light rays hitting different parts of a spherical lens are refracted differently causing poor focusing and resolution).

To overcome the problem fish have a gradient of refractive index in their lenses (they have introduced biochemical anomolies to correct for the physical anomolies) and humans have a cornea with a dome-shaped (hyperbolic) profile. Corrections for chromatic abberations (blue light being focused closer than red) have also been observed in fish.

It's all biochemical of course, given we are talking about the refraction of light through an organic substrate, though it's possible that factors other than just light collection come into play such as filtering and image processing in the brain.

I also read an article on theories of how images are organised (such as by layers) and the effect this can have on colour perception but this post is already way OT. Fascinating stuff though :)


Oh yeah,

It is immoral to impose your morals on others!
It is also immoral to impose your art on others! :P

John Keates
05-06-2005, 08:28 AM
It is immoral to impose your morals on others!
It is also immoral to impose your art on others! :P

Hmm.... really? What do you maen by 'impose'?

jbo
05-06-2005, 08:30 AM
It is immoral to impose your morals on others!

ha. you have to admit, there's a bit of irony in that statement.

jmBoekestein
05-06-2005, 12:24 PM
I think he means presenting it through a medium which can replicate itself infinitely in an instant.

Ordibble P. Lop, indeed really interesting stuff. I'm just going to have to do some web searching.

John Keates, if you imagine light being a vibrating solid object in/just under water, you'll see ripple patterns emerging, what if you put two vibrating elements right next to eachother, ie. 2 lightbeams, they will interact but not full deestroy or negat eaachothers patterns. I think the effect that I'm looking for would be very local, maybe even random colours appearing at the points of intersection. This is just an illustration mind you, it doesn't parttake to reality. Just in case.:)

Maybe we could copy paste the last bits to another new thread, before we get demoralised.:)

offense2theworld
05-06-2005, 02:00 PM
Getting back on the subject of morals...It's interesting to see where this post is leading, but I think the original idea was not to define or impose morals in art persay but rather a comment on the lack of depth in much of the art here. Art is a form of expression, much like music the strongest uses of this medium are those that contain a "peice" of their creator, even if it's not moralistic in nature. But also like music this level of freedom of expression requires a certain level of skill, or at least comfort (I dont have much in the way of skill) with the instrument, or confidence in this expression. I think that those at CG talk you find guilty of the D&D style half naked woman with dragon art, are either lacking in the skills or comfort they feel they need to express themselves, or scared of such expression.

edit: or simply have nothing to express

As for myself (though I currently have no work on CGtalk...or any digital for that matter) my art shows has alot of emotion put into it, and if you look carefully there are religious and/or moral undertones to all of it (again sorry I've got nothing to show as an example, I dont have a scanner and am only just now working on my first digital painting) It's simply who I am and what I beleive, be it offensive narrowminded or dogmatic (titles I actually enjoy receiving) I think thats an important step that makes the difference between art and simply drawing (painting, whatever), and given that this site generally nurtures the amateur artists it's no suprise to see so much shallow "art."

jmBoekestein
05-06-2005, 02:50 PM
:rolleyes:


...



So, like you enjoy being called offensive, narrowminded etc...Was that before or after puberty?:surprised

offense2theworld
05-06-2005, 03:41 PM
funny...I dont mind titles like that because it shows I have convictions about something, say all you want about what they are, but in a culture where everyone would rather be ambiguous about everything just to get along, and relativism is king I dont mind standing for something.

Though before this goes any farther CGtalk is not the appropriate place to make such a stand...back to art

jmBoekestein
05-06-2005, 08:00 PM
You did make a point I think, allthough tact seems to have abandoned yuo long ago.

It seems to me that there is a place for that in art, allthough I myself do not really want to do just that. If everybody else uses tact, than you have the opportunity to shake them up a bit, it's up to you what about of-course.

noen
05-06-2005, 09:02 PM
It seems that there isn't much art around that really deals with moral issues in a big way. There are some people in the 'fine' art world who have an axe to grind, usually some kind of femanism, but not all that many people making moral art to do with other people.

Naaaaawww. If you mean *here* then I'd agree but in the fine art world at large there's tons of moralizing. Some good, some bad. lol!

It seems to me you give with one hand and take with the other. You want moral art but you don't like the moral art you're getting. And by the way, the art world is deeply sexist and has been for a long time. That's what the gorilla girls were protesting for heavens sake! shesh!

You should check out some old soviet propaganda art, there's lots around, and be glad we don't have state proscribed "moral art", not yet anyway. Because if there is one good example of 'moralistic art', that's it.

Besides, this place is for commercial illustration, not art. It's ALL about the money here. Some of it's beautifull but most of it is pretty bland and lifeless.

Brad Holland, now there's some moral illustration for ya! But you don't see challenging illustration like his, its all so corperate now.

noen
05-08-2005, 03:32 AM
Here's an update for those looking for morality in the arts. The New York Times has an article on Botero's recent works dealing with the torture of prisoners by America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/international/americas/08botero.html?hp

Can't see it? Goto ww (http://www.bugmenot.com)w.bugmenot.com (http://www.bugmenot.com) and request a login


botero-big.jpg (http://attachment.php?attachmentid=&stc=1)

jmBoekestein
05-08-2005, 03:23 PM
You make some good points noen, but I can't help but feel that the drawing is a thirty minute scribble, something he got a meatloaf and a glass of milk for. About the same commitment as I have to waiting on a bus.

John Keates
05-12-2005, 09:50 PM
[QUOTE=Nathellion]I've never heard of this 'authadox' term, but you could say that I'm largely influenced by what Richard Dawkins has to say on the matter. Perhaps you are right, in that geniune moral goodness can evolve, but only as an evolutionary advantage, which, with humans living in societies together now for tens of thousands of years (although the early ones were of course very small), could definitely be possible. Being nice to other people promotes friendship and a good reputation, which can be very beneficial, and so I think I agree with you in that respect.

I thought I would reply to this although I left it a little late.

The 'authadox' science that I was refering to is partly Dawlkins himslef. The selfish Gene theory is not about genes for selfishness but rather the idea that genes themselves are selfish and it is they which are subject to evolution. Many people read the book as a sign that scientists think we are all evil and selfish but this is a tragic mis-reading of the book which is really a techical account about the fundamental aspects of evolution.

I thought I would make it clear where I am on that as the word "authadox" has connotations with which I would not like to associate myself.

Nathellion
05-16-2005, 11:39 AM
I know that The Selfish Gene is not about a gene for selfishness. However, I base this opinion on the fact that throughout TSG, Dawkins argues against natural selection on a group level, contending that it operates on the gene level, and hence inadvertently the individual level (because the individual will stop at nothing to preserve it's genes). Meaning that natural selection favors organisms who do the best to preserve themselves (really their genes), even if this be at the expense of the group, hence my opinion that humans are not inherently moral:

"Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish."

-Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
This pretty much sums up how I feel about morality http://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/wavey.gif

jmBoekestein
05-16-2005, 12:29 PM
:thumbsup:Genes only facilitate, something not there before has to happen through them in the end. ;)

CGTalk Moderation
05-16-2005, 12:29 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.