Yeah.
It’s often something that’s hard to speak about (broadness, interconnectedness, academicization).
In real life, I’m an obsessive moralist and I often find it baffling how people can be — basically — scum; liars, cheats, bullies, etc., in real life, but also care about the moral content of art, often to the point of actually lobbying for censorship in art.
Like. “OK, you want no violence, no immorality, no sexual abuse in art, but this year alone you have evaded tax, you’ve bullied a work colleague into quitting their job, and you’ve cheated on your wife, all without expressing remorse in any way?”
It’s like some people live their lives as if morality only counts when it’s observed, and so, they can be a bully, or a liar, or a cheat in the privacy of their real existence, but they will — without cognitive dissonance — also lobby for art censorship, or pontificate what morals creatives ought to have in their work in order to be considered decent at their craft, and not dangerous social deviants, or even, suffer prosecution (this has happened historically).
I say, thank god for people who put their bad thoughts into writing / painting / music. It’s like “negative-ju-ju upcycling.”
And then, I say that, but also, pointlessly mean art/stories are not for me unless they’re done extremely well. (LOL). I think writing just plain mean stuff, is harder to “make it art,” since a lot about art is in the exchange between the work and the observer of the work.
It’s like, just constant implausible meanness limits how accomplished a work can be; how likely to be legitimately connected to. Whereas moral greyness, angst, authentic character, can make it easier for the art (whatever it is; story, painting, song) to connect with the human condition, and therefore the observer.
Morally plausible art has a better shot at connecting with you.
…I’ve completely forgotten how this links back to the topic.
presses reply and runs away
