Imagine you are good at art - you can, if you so wish, produce beautiful paintings - but you decide not to. Have [you] done wrong? — Bartricks

:lol: Absolutely not.

Good and interesting topic/question, . My initial instinct is to say that of course you're under no moral obligation to e.g. "produce beautiful paintings" if you have no wish to do so; your time is your own, as long as you're not hurting anyone else then I don't think you've done anything morally wrong.

On the other hand, as a lover of the arts (music and literature are my jam, but there's nothing wrong with the visual arts) and a Nietzschean of sorts in terms of how I look at humanity's existential priority list (I suppose you could call it): the aesthetic experience and aesthetic value are, imo, some of (if not THE) highest and most valuable things humans can aspire to, and the closest things to redeeming the viciousness, suffering, and absurdity of the world and the human experience.

So if someone has the capacity to create great art, I sort of want to say that they should or ought to do so, in some sense; the world and humanity would be better off if they did, and worse off if they did not .. but not in the same sense or to the same degree that one ought not to commit murder, or ought to help or intervene to prevent harm that is in your capacity to prevent. So its not quite a moral obligation, but isn't quite not a moral obligation, either. Is there such a thing as an aesthetic obligation?

Is this not a specific instance of a greater theme - that which exists is given moral priority over that which has the potential to exist. And hence it is not limited only to beauty. Replace "beautiful" with "useful" or anything else that is considered a positive value - I have a greater moral duty to preserve the item that exists, than to create a new additional item.

In some ways, it could be argued that it is a waste of talent if people don't make use of it. I know of someone who was a very good violinist but just decided not to do it any longer. If someone doesn't make use of their potential there is the possibility that they may regret it later, but to see it in a moralistic light may be unhelpful because it just leads to unhelpful guilt.

The trouble is that creativity is not something which mechanical, but it can be in the sense that people may go through the motions in a repetitive way. That would be an emphasis on art as a product. It may be how art and the arts are seen in a consumer society, but that is different from the process.

In some ways, the process of making art may go beauty, and aesthetic techniques. It can be a way of expressing the sublime and beautiful but as a journey it may go beyond this and also about experiencing and living with ugly and the darkest moments of experience and existence. This area was opened up in particular in the postmodernism of the twentieth first century. Each of us may have preferences, whether it is visual art, literature or music. For example, sometimes people are surprised that while I like classical literature my music tastes incorporate goth, metal and punk.

This is where subjectivity comes into it. I read Kant's, 'Critique of Judgment last year and was surprised how he recognised the subjective aspects of aesthetics. The issue may be that each person has their own subjective balance or symmetry rather than it being an 'out there' objective measure, even though there are shared intersubjective cultural aspects. These may involve shared social meanings but the beautiful and the ugly are based within the personal mind of the perceiver, even though there are likely to be overlaps based on the pleasure or displeasures of sensory experiences. In creating art one is making one's mark in the cultural niche but a prescriptive approach to what one should create may extinguish the source of creative inspiration.

Yes, I agree that if someone who is capable of producing beautiful works decides not to do so, then there are a whole range of attitudes that it seems appropriate to adopt towards them. Sadness, disappointment, regret being chief among them. Yet these seem to fall short of being moral attitudes. That is, resentment, indignation and so on do not quite seem appropriate. And nor does it seem quite right to deem the person who has failed to exercise their ability to produce beautiful things to be deserving of harm by virtue of this.

And yes, I think there can be aesthetic obligations, although I'd be slightly worried that the word 'obligation' comes with moral connotations (doesn't have to - but I think it does in many people's minds). I think I'd prefer to say that there are aesthetic reasons to do things - including adopt certain attitudes towards things - alongside the other reasons to do things (such as prudential reasons and moral reasons).

It seems to me, for instance, that beauty calls for certain things - one 'ought' (aesthetically) to appreciate the beautiful (or try to), at least other things being equal. Someone who is unmoved by beautiful things seems to be manifesting a rational failing. But if someone fails to fulfil their aesthetic obligations we just deem them a philistine, rather than morally condemn them. That is, being unresponsive to aesthetic reasons seems more akin to a kind of stupidity rather than immorality.

I am not sure, however, that there is even an aesthetic obligation positively to produce beautiful things. I think if one is already in the process of producing something, then one may have aesthetic reason to take it in one direction rather than another. Indeed, artists are presumably responding to these reasons as they proceed. But these reasons did not exist prior to them beginning to produce whatever it was they were producing. That is, if you start to sculpt a piece of marble, then one may detect that there is aesthetic reason to lop off that bit rather than that other bit - for if one does that, then the result will be all the more beautiful. But there was no aesthetic reason to begin the sculpture. Likewise if one is writing something, then one might try and discern what phrase one has aesthetic reason to employ next, even though there was no aesthetic reason to start writing it.

Gauguin famously abandoned his family in order to pursue his art. It seems to me that if there were aesthetic reasons positively to produce beautiful things (as opposed to just aesthetic reasons to behave in certain was towards beautiful things that already exist or that one is in the process of making), then these would operate to lessen the wrong of what Gauguin did to his wife and children. Just as, by analogy, if doing x goes against what i have prudential reason to do, then that can operate to lessen how much blame I deserve for having done x. But when it comes to Gauguin it seems, at least to me, that he deserves the same degree of moral condemnation regardless of how talented he was.

Yes, although my proposal is that what it reflects is the fact it's more important not to disrespect that which exists, than it is to produce something worthy of respect.

The talented artist who decides not to produce anything has not shown disrespect to anyone or anything. The artist does not owe it to anyone else to produce beautiful things. There is no injustice done to anyone if the artist paints nothing, or the writer writes nothing, or the composer composes nothing. (Not unless they made a promise to someone to do so - but that's different as now a debt is owed to someone).

But there is an obligation not to disrespect those beautiful things that already exist. Imagine, for instance, that the talented artist has in their possession a beautiful work of art by someone else. The talented artist decides to paint over it with another beautiful painting of their own creation.

It seems to me that - other things being equal - this act is wrong. The world has not been made any the less beautiful by it - there is the same amount of beauty, as the new painting is every bit as beautiful as the one that it destroyed - but disrespect has been shown to the painting that was already in existence. Indeed, it seems to me that the artist here has done wrong even if their replacement painting is more beautiful than the original.

Certainly. If something immensely good is already there, it will probably act as a source of significant value and would therefore make it unnecessary for people to make a lot of effort to create something new. Creating a positive is still good but because one has (thankfully) already been created, to pressurise others to continuously do so does not seem right.

Master Splinter really helped Michelangelo chill out.

There are many people with genius IQs out there. I don't think most of them are responsible for the greatest accomplishments of humanity. Odds are good they elected to do their own thing even if they could of done more for the world.

It seems clear enough that you have not. It seems a good thing if you exercise your ability. It might be praiseworthy. But you are not doing wrong if you do not. — Bartricks

The reason for this may shed some light on the question.

If someone held a hostage at gunpoint and demanded you draw them a beautiful painting to let the hostage go, I think you would be obligated to draw said painting if you can. The difference between that situation and the situation where you decide whether or not to draw under no stress, seems to be the clarity of the consequences.

It is not at all clear that if you do not exercise your ability to create beautiful things that anyone would be seriously (if at all) hurt by that. But if there is reason to think that creating said beautiful things will serve to relieve a lot of suffering (somehow) and you choose not to do it, then you would be wrong.

It depends on the situation. There is no clear right/wrong to it. But generally, an artist can't guarantee that their work will have some sort of significant positive influence that justifies the effort, so they are under no obligation to make it.

Note, even if you think that we - those of us with an ability to produce beautiful things - are positively obliged to exercise our abilities, surely even you admit that it is far more wrong to destroy a beautiful thing than it is to fail to create one? — Bartricks

That's because generally, destroying a beautiful thing is entirely unnecessary, whereas an artist may have reasons for not creating a beautiful thing (burnout, no time, mental/physical toll, etc).

If someone held a hostage at gunpoint and demanded you draw them a beautiful painting to let the hostage go, I think you would be obligated to draw said painting if you can. The difference between that situation and the situation where you decide whether or not to draw under no stress, seems to be the clarity of the consequences. — khaled

The point I am making in the OP is not that we are never obliged to create beautiful things. There are all manner of circumstances under which one might be obliged to exercise a talent, such as the one you describe, where exercising it is called for in order to prevent someone suffering a great injustice.

The point, rather, is that the mere fact you have the ability to produce beautiful things - things it would be good for the world to contain - does not generate any obligation to exercise the ability in question.

Yes, there are circumstances under which one would be obliged to exercise it. But there is no standing obligation to do so. Whereas, for instance, there is a standing obligation to show others respect and, indeed, not to destroy any beautiful things in existence.

That's because generally, destroying a beautiful thing is entirely unnecessary, whereas an artist may have reasons for not creating a beautiful thing (burnout, no time, mental/physical toll, etc). — khaled

There are lots of things that are unnecessary, yet morally permissible.

And a person who has an artistic ability and is in perfect health, mental and otherwise, is still not under any positive obligation to exercise their ability.

There are lots of things that are unnecessary, yet morally permissible.

And a person who has an artistic ability and is in perfect health, mental and otherwise, is still not under any positive obligation to exercise their ability. — Bartricks

Destroying something beautiful is generally not only entirely unnecessary, but also harmful (more specifically, denies people pleasure).

There is also the fact that tearing down something beautiful is destroying someone’s property (again, unnecessarily) assuming it is man made. That should be reason enough for it to be wrong.

But even if someone with artistic ability is in perfect health and has the motivation to make something they think is beautiful that doesn’t change the fact that it will take a lot of effort and time, and is not guaranteed to even produce a positive result. It’s not clear it would be worth it for the artist. So there is no obligation to do it.

If the artist could magically create era defining pieces of art at the snap of his fingers, and chooses not to do so, then yes I’d think he’s in the wrong.

One important question may be what is the link between aesthetics and ethics? I am not sure how it stands as a question in the context of this thread but it does seem to have some potential relevance here. There is the comparison between aesthetic and moral beauty. However, there Is a danger that the idea may be stretched towards trying to make ethics pretty, if it is only about superficial appearances rather than a deeper search for appreciation behind surfaces. Certainly, the lives of the artists may reveal many flaws, especially in how their artistic quests led them to in towards the uncanny and strange lands, sometimes almost with disregard of social and moral norms...

magine you are good at art - you can, if you so wish, produce beautiful paintings - but you decide not to. Have you done wrong — Bartricks

I discovered when I was very young that I had a talent for drawing. This was the first skill that I was good at, and I enjoyed sharing my art with family and friends. I developed my skills through college, but since then I have all but abandoned it in favor of other interests which I find more creatively satisfying. Others ask me from time to time if I still draw, and I know some of them think it is a shame that I haven’t continued to pursue this talent. Also, my art was aesthetically accessible to them , whereas my philosophical interests are generally not.
From my vantage , it is as though I never abandoned my artistic interests. My philosophical thinking is very visual, and it has always felt to me as though , rather than abandoning art , I simply transferred my visual creativity from the canvas to the page.

The point I want to make is that there are myriad ways at any point in time we can choose to add value to the world, from contributing to charity to creating art to supporting our fiends and family to building a successful business.Whichever of those at any given time seems to us to be the most satisfying way to contribute to the world ( and to our our own well-being) is what should determine the correct path, not the second-guessing by others who do not know us. The value of the art within us is not for others to determine. The tortured novelist or musician who quits writing or music completely is not cheating the world of their gifts , but opting for the best way to offer themselves to others.

By the same token, art is destroyed ( the demolition of temples and religious icons by new regimes) when it is determined that its existence will cause more harm than good, that is, when it is not perceived as inspiring art but as a source of corruption. What you’re arguing is a truism: we should not destroy what we consider to be uplifting art. And no one ever does. They destroy what they fail to see as uplifting art.

That's a great response.

It's not a truism. It's an interesting asymmetry that cries out for explanation. I am appealing to that which is, i think, self-evidently true: that we who have artistic ability have no obligation to exercise it (that seems self-evidently true) and that it is wrong, other things being equal, to destroy something of beauty (that seems self-evidently true as well). So, those claims are true. But what's philosophically interesting is why that should be the case. I am offering a possible explanation. The explanation in question is not a truism. This is how philosophy works. You try and fine self-evidently true claims and extract their implications.


So, why do we have no obligation to create beautiful things, yet we do have an obligation not to destroy any that already exist?

I have offered a potential answer: that we have a duty not to show disrespect to others, including other things. So, if one destroys a beautiful painting, then one has shown disrespect to that feature of the world. But if one omits to create a beautiful painting, then one has not shown disrespect to anyone or anything.

I have offered an explanation of the asymmetry. I have proposed that we have a duty not to show disrespect to others, including other things (so, including beautiful things).
That is, we do not have a duty to promote the good, or to prevent harm, except where failure to do so would show disrespect.

This delivers the correct verdict: despite the fact the act of producing beautiful works of art promotes the good - the world will have more good in it for one having done so - it is not morally required. Why? Because omitting to create such works does not show disrespect to any person or to any object.

Is there any reason to reject that analysis?

If the artist could magically create era defining pieces of art at the snap of his fingers, and chooses not to do so, then yes I’d think he’s in the wrong. — khaled

That's counterintuitive. So, Leonardo da Vinci had no obligation to produce art, as doing so clearly took him a lot of effort (he produced barely anything). But John Singer Sargent or Picasso did have an obligation to produce art, as they worked very quickly and with ease (as much ease as clicking one's fingers). That just seems prima facie false

But John Singer Sargent or Picasso did have an obligation to produce art, as they worked very quickly and with ease (as much ease as clicking one's fingers). That just seems prima facie false — Bartricks

How do you draw that conclusion? No, none of them were obligated to create art, because none of them could have known their art would have been worth creating. There are many people who can create art quickly and with ease, and who even think their art is fantastic, yet there are very few Picassos. They didn't have the benefit of hindsight.

My example was a hypothetical. An artist cannot know that his piece will bring much good. But if he did, and he could create it easily, then yes he would be obligated to do so.

Because omitting to create such works does not show disrespect to any person or to any object.

Is there any reason to reject that analysis? — Bartricks

There are many things that do not show disrespect to any person or object and yet are morally obligatory. For example, reporting a robbery if you see one. So it seems that "does not show disrespect" is not enough to guarantee something is not obligatory.

I am presenting a different analysis. That the creation of art is not obligatory because it is effortful and not effective at producing much good (statistically). I don't think something effortful can be obligatory unless it has a very good chance to produce a lot of good.

:up: The effort is certainly the pertinent factor (alongside the degree of the necessity of the good).

I think the ugly deserves to be the focus of art too. And it can be well done with talent also.

But of course, art can give us more than just beauty. It can question us, make a statement, express a lot more.

Imagine you are good at art - you can, if you so wish, produce beautiful paintings - but you decide not to. Have you done wrong? — Bartricks

Art is complex, as is the judgement of beauty, and your example makes it appear simple. To begin with, you need to distinguish between what the artist knows as "beautiful", and what the audience wants as "beautiful".

So, for example, the artist might produce what oneself knows to be beautiful, yet it is not respected as such by others, so the artist is not paid, and must take a real job. Then the artist might quit producing art for the reason of having no time for it. In another case, the artist might get paid for one's work, and be inspired to produce more, but the work might be known by the artist to be not beautiful, and only being produced for money.

Those are two possible reasons why the artist might give up on producing beautiful work. One, because there is no pay for it, and the artist does not have the time, and the other, that the artist gets good pay to produce things which the artist believes to be not beautiful.

There are two keys required for unravelling the issue. One is to understand what qualifies as "beautiful". And the other is to understand the importance of money in the artist's life. Since money is a necessity for living, and there is no necessary relation between beauty and compensation, the artist has no obligation toward beauty. We cannot remove the importance of money, and simply assume that the artist's necessities are supplied, because that kills the will to do anything.

To begin with, you need to distinguish between what the artist knows as "beautiful", and what the audience wants as "beautiful". — Metaphysician Undercover

No I don't. The issue here is not what makes something beautiful or what beauty is. The issue is why there is an asymmetry - why is there no obligation to produce the beautiful, but an obligation not to destroy anything beautiful?

I have offered an explanation. The job, then, is to test that explanation.

Those points do not seem to connect with my point. That is to say, everything you have said could be correct, regardless of whether what I have argued is correct or not.

How do you draw that conclusion? N — khaled

Jeez. You said that if an artist could produce art with the click of his fingers, then he would have an obligation to do so. Yes?

So, unless you think there's something special about the act of clicking one's fingers specifically - in which case you're nuts - then your point is that if one can produce things of beauty with great ease, then one is obliged to do so. That's YOUR view. That's the view you expressed here:

If the artist could magically create era defining pieces of art at the snap of his fingers, and chooses not to do so, then yes I’d think he’s in the wrong. — khaled

Now, it's an implausible view for the reasons I explained. John Singer Sargent's party piece was to draw pictures of people in seconds that were fantastically good. Similarly, Picasso could produce artworks in seconds. Whereas other artists - Da Vinci, Vermeer etc - took ages. It is implausible that the former had an obligation to produce art, whereas the latter did not. The truth is that it is self evident that neither have obligations to exercise their respective abilities, regardless of how easy it would be to do so.

See?

Jeez. You said that if an artist could produce art with the click of his fingers — Bartricks

False. I said if an artist can produce era defining pieces with the click of his fingers. That is to say, if the artist can produce art he knows will be good (and can do so very easily). Which never actually happens.

See?

Oh, what a brilliant distinction......not. Same applies. See? (Psst...look up Leonardo da Vinci and Picasso and Sargent......note that they produced era defining work....)

Perhaps you should focus instead on the 'clicking the fingers' bit. Is your view that it is producing art by the act of 'clicking one's fingers' that is specifically normatively significant? Is that your view Khaled?

Oh, what a brilliant distinction......not. Same applies. See? — Bartricks

I'm afraid that if you cannot grasp the distinction then I think you're too far gone to be worth debating. Please reread what I wrote. These quotes could help you out.

How do you draw that conclusion? No, none of them were obligated to create art, because none of them could have known their art would have been worth creating. — khaled

They didn't have the benefit of hindsight. — khaled

An artist cannot know that his piece will bring much good. But if he did, and he could create it easily, then yes he would be obligated to do so. — khaled

That is to say, if the artist can produce art he knows will be good (and can do so very easily). Which never actually happens. — khaled

Here let me say it one more time Bartricks. Maybe 5th time is the charm. For creating art to be obligatory for an artist, the artist must:

1- Have very good reason to think that his art will bring about much good before they produe it.
2- Be able to produce it relatively easily.

You will notice, Bartricks, that having produced era defining art does not meet condition (1). See?

You have no case.

First, you clearly know nothing about art or artists if you think any of those artists I mentioned didn't know they were creating era defining work. Believe me, most great artists - most great anything - knew full well they were great at the time. It's typically others who do not recognize greatness at the time. The great typically know they are great, which is precisely why they continue doing what they're doing despite not being recognized or encouraged.

So we can use any number of actually great artists to refute your silly argument, or we can just as well imagine an artist who knows full well that were they to exercise their artistic ability, they would create great art (for there is no contradiction involved in the supposition). And it remains as obvious as ever that there is no positive obligation on the person to exercise their ability.

So, those with great artistic ability are self-evidently not under an obligation to exercise it. And that remains the case whether they can exercise it with ease or whether exercising it involves finger snapping.

Thus you have failed to provide a counterexample to the self-evidently true claim that those of artistic ability are not under any obligation to exercise their ability, other things being equal.

Yet we are under an obligation not to destroy anything beautiful that is already in existence, other things being equal.

So, there is no obligation to produce beauty. There is an obligation not to destroy any that exists.

That, note, is the starting point of my discussion, not its conclusion.

Believe me, most great artists - most great anything - knew full well they were great at the time. — Bartricks

Knowing you're a great artist =/= Knowing the next piece of art you produce will bring about much good. Similar to how a gold medalist, even though they (and everyone else) knows they're a great athlete, cannot know they will get a gold medal, or even do well at all in the next olympics.

we can just as well imagine an artist who knows full well that were they to exercise their artistic ability, they would create great art (for there is no contradiction involved in the supposition). — Bartricks

But I already did a while ago:

If the artist could magically create era defining pieces of art at the snap of his fingers, and chooses not to do so, then yes I’d think he’s in the wrong. — khaled

And you did not deny that when it was first said. That makes me think:

it remains as obvious as ever that there is no positive obligation on the person to exercise their ability. — Bartricks

Is false. If it was obvious, you'd have denied my quote above.

But at this point I'm just saying X and you're saying "Obviously not X" without any support. The classic "I'm right you're wrong because it's self evident" argument you love so much.

I can't understand why you post discussions in the first place if you believe all your premises are self evident and all your reasoning flawless. That's something I've wondered ever since your first post. What are you even trying to accomplish?

it is not morally required. Why? Because omitting to create such works does not show disrespect to any person or to any object. — Bartricks

I have offered an explanation. The job, then, is to test that explanation. — Bartricks

If that was the job then why no response to this?

There are many things that do not show disrespect to any person or object and yet are morally obligatory. For example, reporting a robbery if you see one. So it seems that "does not show disrespect" is not enough to guarantee something is not obligatory. — khaled

Knowing you're a great artist =/= Knowing the next piece of art you produce will bring about much good. Similar to how a gold medalist, even though they (and everyone else) knows they're a great athlete, cannot know they will get a gold medal, or even do well at all in the next olympics. — khaled

What's that got to do with anything?

Is false. If it was obvious, you'd have denied my quote above. — khaled

Er, what? I did deny it. Read the OP. Clearly I believe that it is self-evident that those with the ability to produce beautiful things are under no positive obligation to do so.

You have provided no evidence to the contrary. All you've done is say what you believe. Namely that - for some stupid reason - you think that if an artist can produce beautiful work by cilcking their fingers, then this somehow means they are under an obligation to produce it, whereas if they produce their work by other means - no matter whether it is just as easy for them or not - they are not.

Look, you just have a silly view. You can't defend it. All you're going to do is repeat your belief - which, let's be honeset, you hold simply because it is the negation of mine - but you cannot show it to be implied by anything self-evident.

Its the same old story time and time again. I appeal to apparent self-evident truths of reason and show how they lead to some interesting conclusions. What you do is just deny the self-evidence of the self-evident truths of reason and then just insist "well my view is as good as yours". It's tedious.

Now, I am not interested in debating with those who can do no more than deny the obvious. That's not good philosophy.

If you can show how an obligation to produce beautiful things is implied by some genuinely self-evident truths about morality, then you'd have the beginnings of a case. But that's not what you're even attempting to do. All you seem capable of doing is saying over and over "my view's as good as yours, ner, ner, ner". It isn't. It's stupid. A stupid view is a view that starts with counter-intuitive claims and uses them to arrive at counter-intuitive conclusions.