Blog Critical Reflection #3
Some who consider art an extra-moral area argue we should judge it solely by artistic and aesthetic (formal, technical) criteria, and not evaluate it in terms of moral goodness or badness. This idea is summed up in the claim that “art does not apologize;” it holds that the artist is responsible foremost to making high quality art, not for how that art is then used in the world (its consequences/impact). Drawing on examples of Riefenstahl’s work, consider:
(a) is it artistically/aesthetically beautiful or ugly, and what techniques make it this way? (specify as many formal components as you can).
(b) Do you think the art, or Riefenstahl, ought to apologize? Why or why not--? Consider the different arguments made by Devereaux and Sontag in their articles: what would each say to this question, and what point is each making about Riefenstahl’s work?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment