Should evil men create art?

Only Pokemon fanart

You may be right. Please tell me why.

But the influence of art on others is not known. It seems more likely to me that evil would come out of an evil man's art than good.

Are you sure? Men may have evil thoughts, and this would perhaps make them evil to some degree, but this is different than a man who has committed acts of evil.

>A creation stands above its creator, a creation is fixed, static and eternal, it doesn't change value along with its creator, it captures a moment between immense clarity and blinding enmity. Don't judge a creation for the creator's pendulum of madness and wisdom. A thing's beauty is absolute and self-evident.

they can and do

Is being offended or disgusted suffering?
Someone will dislike every piece of art.

True. Behind every bad woman is a bad man.

Yes. For an example, I'll provide a very typical and widely excepted specimen that is considered to be an evil man. Adolf Hitler. He's been dead for 72 years, 3 months, and a couple weeks or so. Almost all WWII veterans are dead, and anyone who was even a small child while he was alive are either dead or in retirement. So, what would be left of Hitler's views if he never wrote the book Mein Kampf? Because this book was written, we still have available his own words that make up his views, and so we can not only learn exactly what his thoughts were and why he had them but also if people began to question his motives for some reason, or question if he ever truly was anti-Semetic or whatever, then we have Mein Kampf to remind us of exactly who he was as a person.

Yes, this can also potentially lead to his ideals carrying on in some people's minds, but that's pretty much to be expected. There's likely some individuals out there who are also pro-Stalin and pro-Mao. Anyways, I do believe that evil men should create art. For one, it's free speech, and for two if evil men create evil art then let people see that evil for what it is. They can decide for themselves. Yes, some people will go with it; some will agree. Who's to say that's necessarily a bad thing? Maybe it will reveal the evil individuals around us. I believe there's a variety of valid reasons to allow evil men to create art, in fact some people might even consider myself evil for some of the things I write in my books. So be it!

>should
>Implying any obligations are real

I suppose that if an evil man could create something that is truly beautiful that that could justify it. I am somewhat skeptical that an evil man could create something truly beautiful. They might create something that many think is beautiful, but perhaps they are being deceived.

That doesn't mean that the larger effect of their doing so is a cause of suffering.

Being offended or disgusted is suffering, but if you are offended by something that is truly and objectively beautiful, then you are in a state of ignorance and that kind of suffering is probably good for you.

Word by word:
>Should
Almost never a good start to a question. Places limits on art/literature, indicates misunderstanding of how to properly relate to art/literature in a personal sense due to the way it's commoditized by the society you're a part of.
>evil
What the fuck does this even mean? Indicates fundamental misunderstanding of human nature, or at least a fundamental misunderstanding of the type of things that you need to define before asking a question.
>men
Small point, but since I'm trying to point out all the things wrong to give you the idea of just how amazingly dense your question was in stupid shit per word, women create art as well. Hell, children create art (and by some definitions of "men" they would not be included), should have been "people". Even better word choice might have been "beings", to include all possible forms of life.
>create
This is fine, indicates that the issue is them bringing the imagined art into physical reality; good word.
>art
See "should". Outside of extreme edge cases (a painting that kills people), there isn't art that blanket "shouldn't" be created, there is only a public too primitive to properly contextualize it. Your problem here is that you haven't defined the goal we're after. What is the "should" in reference to? The betterment of society? Is that the goal of art? Think about that question and then you'll have a better idea of how to answer yours.

Now, what is art?

What exactly is the intrinsic value in dissecting Hitler's psyche though?

It is possible that knowing about evil is possible through art and that this may be a good thing, and this could justify it. But this would be to assume that good can come out of an evil thing, which I am somewhat skeptical of.

If you're down, it would be cool if you could list out some more of those reasons.

I am of the opinion that it is better to assume that obligations may be real than to give in to despair and assume there isn't.

Your response is helpful. Thank you.

When I say "should", I suppose I am referring to the betterment or detriment of the artist and the individuals in their society. It is possible that art has benevolent properties and it is possible that it has malevolent properties. If this is true, it seems more likely that a malevolent being would create malevolent art and a benevolent being would create benevolent art. Also, I think it is good to at least consider the possibility that maybe there should be limits put on art, at least if the artist wants to do the non-malevolent thing.

By "evil" I mean that which causes suffering, which I admit is perhaps overly simplistic, but it seems to me like that would be the fundamental reality of evil.

I agree that "beings" is a better word.

It is better to assume that art may be benevolent or malignant than to assume that it is neither because I am in a state of ignorance and considering that actions may have effects is safer than to assume that they don't. To assume this means to assume that certain things should perhaps not be portrayed in art. It seems more likely that evil things being portrayed in art would create evil in the world, but perhaps I am wrong. But supposing an evil man attempted to portray good things, I would wonder whether they were capable of doing so. I would also wonder whether a murderer could ever become a good man.

That's not an argument, you've just quoted aomething that describes what you believe in. Why does the creation stands above the artist? If informations about the artists are public, then they are part of the perception of said piece of art. On which grounds are you arbitrarily excluding an evident part of aesthetic perception from the act of Art evaluation?

evil men shod shove their dicks in your fat gay ass homo

Does Beauty exist? More generally, do ideas exist?

Evil men create art everyday.

Nice dubs

This is the gist of my opinion:

Everything in this universe is art, i.e. a created object. Some things are closer to ultimate beauty than other things. I assume that beauty is orderly and perfect, amongst other things. Let us call this ultimate beauty Art. The only thing that is not art is nothingness itself, so let us call this Non-Art. Some objects in this universe are closer to Art than others and some are closer to Non-Art. Thus, a complex painting is closer to Art than a single grain of sand.

I don't know whether Beauty exists because I am an ignorant man, so for now I am assuming it exists in my efforts to not be ignorant. But ya, I definitely need to think more about it.

Not as good as the trips in the other post.

I am skeptical of subjectivity. On what basis do individuals experience the awe of beauty and decide that something deserves the label of "beautiful"?

Nah. It's an aesthetic, but art is actually more subjective than even "evil"

Beauty is also subjective, but art doesn't always have to serve up beauty of course.
Ideas exist.

>Ideas exist.
That's a statement, not an argument.

>On what basis do individuals experience the awe of beauty and decide that something deserves the label of "beautiful"?
It is their decision. That's what makes it subjective.

>beauty is subjective
smdh

Is it rational though? What is the root of one's sense of beauty?

That they might not exist is your idea, but my idea is that you're wrong.
Ideas are very hard things kill off.

One's rational is subjective. Some find beauty in the crucifixion, I find it barbaric on many levels.
The roots are personal

So, ideas exist because you believe so?

>art, i.e. a created object

Pfff

One might say that there is a threshold where, since an object is closer to Non-Art than Art, it would be more accurate to call it non-art, but I don't think I'd be able to identify that threshold. I could probably point at examples though.

Yes.

I have no patience for solipsism. It's irrelevant.

This is not solipsism, though.

Drop the other shoe, philosophy boy.

Of all the threads debating free will and determinism and you guys never told me what I was siding with had the name compatibilism. Out with it already.

>not an argument.
now where did you get that idea?

Mao's little red book is another one, I have no idea what's in it but it's a big part of human history because it lead to the death of, what was it, 70 million people? Even look at religion, some people believe that religion is evil, ALL religion, even though Christianity seems to me to preach acceptance, forgiveness, tolerance, and so on and so forth. Still hoping to read more of the Bible. I think another source of evil though is the Quran, I've read a fair bit of that and... God damn. It goes on and on and on about not taking Christians or Jews as allies, promotes the hunting down and killing of Polytheists (which I think would include Wiccans, Hindus, and I suppose Vikings/Norsemen), of course doesn't have much of anything good to say about women from what I can tell, and also repeatedly says to fight in the name of Allah. There's also a lengthy bit about how if you refuse to fight in the name of Allah when called upon, then you will be "punished with a painful punishment."

Anyways, although I think the world would be a better place if nobody held Islamic beliefs, those who forget or ignore history are doomed to repeat it. It's been something like 1400 years, but what if the book NEVER gained traction and was lost to obscurity, the only copies of the Quran being destroyed and nobody remembering any of the words. I do honestly think that human history would be a little less drenched in blood, but now we know about those cancerous ideals. If another religion should come about whether it be now, in a hundred years, a thousand, or whatever, if it talks about women being less than men, advising husbands to beat wives if they should be arrogant, forbidding people from eating pork, not taking people of other religions as allies (even if they're your father or brothers) or possibly even actively hunting down and killing people of other religions, stuff like that, then people can say "woah woah woah, we've had that before, check out the Quran and all the things done in the name of 'Allah', too many millions of people have been killed, raped, and enslaved for that religion and it sounds like this new one is shaping up to promote the same things."

So basically it all can be boiled down to that cliche saying "those who forget about history are doomed to repeat it" and also I just think it's a good idea to educate one's self on what is evil because it can potentially make it easier to see it when it manifests itself.

>objectively beautiful
better luck next time, kiddo

Idea implies that my thoughts refer to something that exists outside of our perception. So, I haven't got this idea from anywhere, as far as I know it's just a thought.

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The existence of ideas are only tangentially related to solipsism and debates over free will.

Art cannot be considered good or evil ( manevolent/benevolent) you described evil as something that causes suffering therefore art cannot be evil unless you want to say that it's depiction can cause suffering if that is the case this is not limited to just art. How one interprets art is subjective. Evil people can make manevolent art but they also have the capability to make benevolent art too. Art doesn't always have to reflect back on the creator. What do you mean when you say art? If an evil person made a drawing of a house on a sunny day is it art? Is it manevolent? Is someone who is evil always causing suffering?

What about music that propagandize evil causes? Like a piece composed to celebrate Hitler, or a poem that promotes heroin addiction?

>evil men

what other kind is there?

Is it causing suffering in the moment or is it based on who is listening to it?

It is based on the essence of the music itself, for this was its purpose.

What are you trying to say

I'm saying: if art is produced specifically to support evil causes, doesn't that make it evil?

The art itself is not evil even if there is an intention behind it, it's still subjective. You may interpret it as evil but what about those who agree with it? Are they evil because you disagree?

Yes they should. Defining something as evil becomes dangerous due to the subjective nature. Unless you root it in something absolute, for some that is a religious pillar, the goal post will always be shifting. Even if you were to ground your morality and definition of evil based on what God commanded, humans must be free to make their own choices.

I suppose the question would shift if the piece of art would endanger a certain group. That is a price I believe freedom should be able to pay.

>I suppose the question would shift if the piece of art would endanger a certain group. That is a price I believe freedom should be able to pay.

I agree arguing wether or not it is evil is pointless.

That the best you could come up with?

I retract this reply in light of now seeing this post, hey-Seuss, are you pretentious.

I saw that sculpture at the Getty museum recently and just about shat myself

In order to address the question I need to find what it means to the OP.

I got sidetracked for a bit before making the follow up question. What's your problem?

What about those who agree with child rape? Who cares, it's evil, to not be able to see it you literally have to have a mental illness.

I mean, let's say I am a pop star and I decide to romanticize the idea of heroin addiction to teenagers (11-15 years old). Wouldn't that music be evil? Would that music be morally neutral only because there are a bunch of heroin smugglers who want to sell heroin to teenagers?

Art can be evil. It doesn't surprise me that to prove that Art can't be evil you had to say that nothing can be evil.

Call me close minded, but intuition tells me when the question of OP's is presented, even in broad cases, the person is asking of someone who would intentionally implement delusions of grandeur into really any artistic medium which could contain it. Someone who knowingly inserts what they believe to be harmful insights into their work.

No need to pose as open minded to radicalist ideologies when you can interpret a thought in a way which encompasses them all. You aren't being insightful, you're being smug.

>What about those who agree with child rape?
What does this have to do with the idea of art being evil?
>I mean, let's say I am a pop star and I decide to romanticize the idea of heroin addiction to teenagers (11-15 years old). Wouldn't that music be evil?
Youre making hypothetical scenarios
just to fit your argument. No the art itself is not evil still. The individual is though but because against that.
>Would that music be morally neutral
Based on subjective perspective still

Also people make songs about killing all the time, tell me do people find chief keef evil.

Anybody who namefags.

Isn't it possible that exposing oneself to art that evokes the Good (if it is truly and absolutely Good) would have the effect of helping one see what is not good?

Why do you think beauty is subjective?

I would think that art, like many other things, is likely to be capable of causing harm, and I think the greatest harm it could cause could be subconscious. Evoking egoistic, destructive, and distracting pursuits in people seems like a possible consequence of art. It is also possible that all art is Good, one teaching one how to be and another teaching one how not to be, but I am somewhat skeptical. Perhaps art that teaches one how not to be by celebrating how not to be (i.e. art by someone who thinks being an evil man is good or not good) could help someone see the consequences of their flaws.

I am of the opinion that art necessarily reflects back on the creator, whether the creator is aware of it or not. Some creations may be so banal that it is universal to anyone, even the most wretched beings, but it still reflects something, in my opinion.

I think that most people are probably evil to some degree, but I think there are people who are more good than evil.

This is a good point. I agree that humans must be free to make their own choices, or else they don't exist in a certain sense. So then, evil men should be able to create art, but this art may cause harm, so the evil men would be committing a crime. But my original intention for the question was always more about whether a being, recognizing in themselves that they are evil, should choose not to create more evil by creating art. That is, if they want to not create any more evil.

Meant

>What does this have to do with the idea of art being evil?
I'm trying to define a evil action, since you're trying to say that there is no such thing as "evil". Here's the evil action: unnecessary child rape.
Is art that support something that is clearly morally wrong evil?

>Youre making hypothetical scenarios just to fit your argument. No the art itself is not evil still. The individual is though but because against that.
These scenario fits. You say that art can't be evil, I've given a few examples of art that would be objectively evil.

>Based on subjective perspective still
This is not how moral discourse works. Saying that people might disagree does not matter, for they might disagree for no reason at all. What matters is the argument used by who disagrees, those can have validity.
In this case I've posed to you causes for which there are no good moral arguments. Art that openly support those inherently evil causes is evil itself.

You can't be that narrow-minded right? There's an obvious difference between someone saying they're dangerous, and someone subliminally influencing a person--mass of population-- negatively, intentionally

I believe I see some smugness in your post. Is this correct?

We live in a world where BDSM is artistic, horror movies repeatedly depict grisly murders for people's thrills. I don't like these things, but someone does. (I do blame capitalism)
I'm not trying to be some edgy radical but there's no denying the openness of the terms "evil" and "art"

Yes, I should be allowed to make art.

Dancing out now. Till next time
youtube.com/watch?v=3KaiB0Q6ndE

Not to mention, it doesn't matter what the puppets which the puppeteer dance think of the hand which swings them. It only points to the intention of the engineer, not the pilot.

Not the guy you're talking to, but arguably intellectual ideas are not art. Art is possibly the mechanism for communicating the ideas. So art would be the sensuous aspects, how things are being communicated (e.g. metaphor, structure), but not what is being communicated. In this case, some art could be used in the service of evil ideas, but would not be evil itself. Ultimately though, if the art is in service to evil ideas, it is basically evil.

> But my original intention for the question was always more about whether a being, recognizing in themselves that they are evil, should choose not to create more evil by creating art. That is, if they want to not create any more evil.

Then the question shifts to one of personal responsibility. I read it as a broad question that would bring in a societal aspect. I think even that question doesn't have a clear answer. I think very few men we view as evil would have the same opinion of themselves. Evil men could view their actions as good or justified as a means to an end. I don't want to get into the loop of saying everything is subjective. Are there any objective standards you are using to define evil?

>Art is possibly the mechanism for communicating the ideas
This is an incredibly arbitrary statement. So Shakespeare's plays are nothing more than words printed on a page (or nothing more than sequences of characters, depending on how you want to see it)?
Or a Bach's fugue is nothing more than the contrapunctual textures, rather than what emerges from them?
What reasons could I have to separate the meaning of a piece of Art from the piece of Art itself? If anything this is the last thing I would ever dream to ignore.

You should really explain why you think that.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by evil.
Hitler painted, and he did a hell of a lot better than me.

How is it any different? chief keef and many other rappers these days glorify doing things like drugs and killing.
This becomes a question of morals now.

This why modern literary studies are a dying breed. Because why the hell would someone present a convoluted question in a generic manner. Either you assumed the post was underwritten or you thought you were being (smugly) insightful. There is no grey line. Even if the OP did group those who partake in BDSM under the drape of evil beings, you still were being smug.

>objectively beautiful
That's harder to discern than deciding who is evil, lol. Why is Veeky Forums consistently retarded as fuck?

Holy fuck you're dense--he doesn't believe he is harming people by doing it, and even if he was, you can't know it.

Art is informed by the artist so to say the two are independent would be a bit much however, art is a separate entity from the artist. The sins of an artist were not committed by his art, rather the art was committed by the artist and the sins were committed by the artist.

youtube.com/watch?v=pMaYAFuC3RQ

I think the art of "evil people" has something intangible and indescribable not present in other art; It's as if their depravity itself conveys beauty.

I misunderstood your previous post settle down lad. You meant with the intention of hurting someone I understand that now.

There's only one line of text to read. I didn't misunderstand you.

Could you give me an actual example. Of music with an intention to hurt someone?

>This becomes a question of morals now.
OP's question was "Should evil men create Art?"
you said "Art can't be evil". It was about morals from the beginning.

Music that was deliberately written to explicitely propagandize the Nazi government.
Is that a good example? If you're a Nazi just substitute Nazis with whatever evil regime you can think of.

Carlo Gesualdo was a murderer, but he was probably not evil. He spent the rest of his life agonizing over his regrets and feverishly trying to find peace through the Christian Faith.
Imho the idea of separating the artist form his art stems from the fact that artists will be called out on things as irrelevant as kinks and religious beliefs. Yet I would say that there is a treshold, and once the artist overcomes it his lfie automatically becomes a relevant factor when it comes to evaluating his art. Imagine if Gesualdo music was composed by Albert Fish.

Idfk that's what the OP is asking for, I'm just cracking a couple ignorant skulls

It's more of wether morals are objective or not because if I argue that the song about rape kids is not objectively bad yes I think it is bad but it is not objectively bad. When I say it becomes about morals I mean wether or not we share the same morals stance on a subject

I was never really trying to push my idea on anyone I just wanted to put some ideas out there so I'm not sure why you assume I'm ignorant.

There's a difference between a song about child rape and a song about promoting child rape. In the first case it can be a moral depiction of an immoral act, while the second case is clearly immoral. I'm not that prude.

What would "no" to that question even mean in a practical sense

Cheesus, you're on Veeky Forums. Stop taking shit personally.

Are we judging this as bad based on the morals given to us by society? Or are you saying this is objectively immoral period?

I think that both questions are intertwined in a way, but ya, good to look at both of them separately. I am an ignorant man, so I don't KNOW an objective standard for evil, but right now what I think is that evil is that which causes suffering. I also think that the causing of ignorance or distraction from the truth is evil and and perhaps the greatest form of evil. But this is assuming that there is an ultimate truth that can liberate people from suffering, which is merely an belief that I have been attached to lately.

I'm wondering whether some art, even some philosophy, amongst other things, is a causing of distraction from the truth. This would mostly be a matter of influencing an individual's perception of reality being harmed by harmful, ignorance-inducing ideas or distracting one from the true nature of reality by having them contemplate things that are essentially a waste of time.

I don't really think that, it's just an idea I have thought. But, supposing I take this idea of mine to be true, the art of Shakespeare's plays would be in how his ideas are being communicated (e.g. the beauty of his language, the pathos he evokes). In the case of Bach, I think the only meaning is that his music can evoke a sense for beauty in people, which I think may be an important thing. I think that the effort and intellect that went into his compositions and how those things translate into beauty could mean something as well.

The meaning of an art object is the most important thing, in my opinion, but that meaning doesn't necessarily have to be anything more than awakening people to a sense of what Beauty is. If the meaning is something more than that, than that is also very valuable.

This is an even more radical speculation, but perhaps our languages are constructed such that the communicating of important ideas lends itself inherently to beautiful language.

Evil meaning the causing of suffering. I imagine that Hitler was a good man on some level, like every person, and that this might have been why he was able to create some beautiful pictures. I would be skeptical about whether he could have been capable of creating works of earth-shattering beauty though.

It is possibly harder to discern objective beauty. What I had in mind is that people may be able to recognize objective beauty, it's just that some have not awakened this part of themselves to the same degree and some people doubt its reality. But ya, maybe beauty is subjective.

He is the art music composer I listen to the most, probably. His music is quite beautiful. If art is a communication of the soul, then Albert Fish could probably only create music like this if he was genuinely repentant, as Gesualdo likely was.

Is there a society that could justify these actions? What such an argument would look like? How do you justify torturing children unnecessarily?
Moral arguments are possible, and although foundationalism is pure utopic drivel, one can still single out actions and deeds that are simply impossible to justify morally.

what if causing suffering is virtuous to me. In utilitarian terms that would balance out since the suffering I inflict is equal to the pleasure it brings me to inflict it.

No there wouldn't ever be a society that would justify this but we don't know if such a society existed in the past, these questions would not be a concern to early humans, they wouldn't even need to justify it.

...

That would make you a psychopath

It only seems virtuous. Upon murdering or raping or committing some other heinous thing against someone, your capacity to find intimacy is diminished, if not extinguished. To live authentically, you must announce to all whom you encounter what you have done. Otherwise, you live with secrets, and those who live with secrets are unknown to all. You live a life where you cannot connect with anyone.

Unless they justify their actions and assume they are a different person then they were before, forgiving their past actions by convincing themselves they didn't do it and ridding themselves of blame forgetting they had done it. That's what psycopaths do.

The fact that they may have happened has no moral significance, what matters is the justifications that lay behind said practices. If there aren't any, if said practice was done for arbitrary reasons, why should I consider it moral? And why should I give any validity to it? At best I would presume that it happened to moral ignorance, since in this scenario people have never found a reason to do these things.

>these questions would not be a concern to early humans, they wouldn't even need to justify it.
This does not mean that their actions were moral.