The relationship between moral ugliness and the aesthetic value of the film from the perspective of moderate moralism

Number of pages: 114 File Format: word File Code: 32727
Year: 2014 University Degree: Master's degree Category: Art - Graphics
  • Part of the Content
  • Contents & Resources
  • Summary of The relationship between moral ugliness and the aesthetic value of the film from the perspective of moderate moralism

    Master's thesis in the field of philosophy of art

    Abstract

    One ??of the most important questions in the field of the relationship between morality and film is whether a film can be considered lacking in aesthetic value or having an aesthetic defect due to its moral ugliness. In response to this question from Plato until now, there are different views such as "extreme moralism", "moderate moralism", "aestheticism", "moderate self-ritualism", "extreme immoralism" and "moderate immoralism". In the meantime, "moderate moralism" as one of the contemporary approaches, claims to provide a more appropriate explanation. In this article, after clarifying some concepts as presuppositions, such as the moral ugliness and the aesthetic value of the film, moderate views are expressed in three types. The results of this research show that the most important points of difference between extreme and moderate moralist viewpoints in the scope of moral evaluation coverage are the use of the principles of "as long as" and "from all aspects" and being open to the plurality of values. Moderate moralist views differ on several issues. From the point of view of the coverage of moral evaluation in artistic types and their examples, Kroll accepts works whose moral aspect is involved in attracting or preventing the audience from being attracted to the work. Gut accepts works that express an ethical perspective and recommended responses related to the field of ethics. Kieran only accepts moral evaluation in some narrative works whose moral aspect is related to the believability of the work. The second difference is the use of the adverb "sometimes" (Kroll and Kieran) or "always" (Gatt) to communicate the moral and aesthetic aspect. Based on moderate views, we can reach a model for aesthetic moral analysis that includes other aesthetic values ??of the work. In the final part, this pattern is examined in the two films "Greez" and "Orange Cookie" and it shows that these films have aesthetic defects as far as they have morally flawed aspects. style="direction: rtl;"> 

     

    1 Introduction

    11 problem plans

    The relationship between "ethics" [1] and "aesthetics" [2] * among philosophers, like other thinkers of the humanities, has always been accompanied by different views and different currents in This topic has been formed. In some arts, such as film, the issue of the relationship between morality and art is raised in its most acute degree. In modern society, the possible effects of film on society are greater than the possible effects of other arts. The reason for this should be found in the number of cinema audiences compared to the audiences of other arts, and it should also be taken into account that the film engages the two senses of sight and hearing at the same time, and this causes more involvement with the film than other works of art.[3] The hundred-year experience of cinema also shows how much the audience is influenced by cinema and what role movies play in shaping their attitudes and actions. Paris" [4] (1972), "Murder with a Chainsaw in Texas" [5] (1974) and "Natural Killers" [6] (1994) or there were conflicts related to movies in Iran, an example of which can be related to the screening of five films "I am a mother", "Private life", "I am his wife", "Wooden bridge" and "Snow on the pines" (2013). 2013 followed.

    From a philosophical point of view, ethics and aesthetics may be considered as two completely separate fields, but the connection between aesthetics and ethics is better revealed when we consider that moral and artistic evaluation benefit from common concepts such as "good" and "bad" and "valuable" and "worthless" and both are in a branch called "theory of value" [7] or "valuation" [8]. On the other hand, this can also be a distinguishing feature, because the position of evaluation and judgment [9] in these two are different from each other, and judgment is unquestionable in ethics and questionable in art.On the other hand, this can also be a distinguishing feature, because the position of evaluation and judgment [9] in these two are different from each other, and judgment is an unquestionable thing in ethics, and in art it is considered doubtful and even impossible.[10] But in any case, from the time of ancient Greece until now, a kind of philosophical current has argued that there is a close and mutual connection between the moral quality of works of art and their aesthetic value[11]. In the meantime, a group believes in some kind of relationship between art and morality, which ignores all artistic values. This view has not had many buyers, but its more sophisticated version, which considers moral quality as only one of the criteria for judging works of art, has been very influential. As it can be said, critical and aesthetic thinking from the Renaissance to the Age of Enlightenment and in the sequel to the Victorian Age has mainly been the crystallization of this thought. In the meantime, there is another point of view on the relationship between ethics and art, which is called "moderate moralism" [12] or "moderate moralism" and claims that it expresses a view that does not have the problems of the predecessors in this field. Beside these two moralist currents, there are also the currents of "self-orderism" [13] or "aestheticism" [14] and "immoralism" [15]. In this research, referring to other currents, the research question will be analyzed from the perspective of moderate moralism.

    12 research questions

    In the field of the relationship between ethics and cinema, we face several questions, some of the most important of which are: Violence, racial discrimination and the like are morally discussed, does it cause moral corruption of the audience? Can moral ugliness in works of art justify their censorship? Do we have a moral obligation to preserve works of art in some ways, such as colorizing black and white films? Are there structural similarities between aesthetic and moral judgments? The answer to some of these questions should be followed in examining psychological and sociological experiences or political philosophy and proposing a theory about freedom of speech, but what we are trying to investigate in this research does not include any of these questions.

    The main question in this research is whether the moral ugliness of a film can be equated with its aesthetic and artistic weakness, and accordingly, the film has moral ugliness. described as a weak film from an aesthetic point of view? In other words, is there a philosophical relationship between the moral ugliness of the film and its aesthetic value? For example, can Griffiths' film The Birth of a Nation (1915) be considered aesthetically flawed simply because it portrays blacks in a negative light and promotes racism? If the answer is yes, is this moral ugliness, aesthetic weakness? Or can one simply evaluate a work morally, without considering ugliness as an aesthetic weakness? Different philosophical currents and approaches have provided different answers in this regard. In this article, this question is examined from the perspective of "moderate moralism" as one of the contemporary philosophical currents.

    13 Assumptions

    1 In the moderate point of view, moral analysis is only applicable to some movies.

    2 The criteria for relating the characteristic or moral quality of the film to its aesthetic aspect is that it is effective in its artistic and aesthetic experience and the absorption and reception of the film's content negatively or positively.

    3 The moral experience and the aesthetic experience of the film are not two separate things, and moral considerations do not necessarily prevent us from dealing with the aesthetic aspect of the work of art, and the moral beauty or ugliness reflected in The answers that the film demands from the audience are the same as the aesthetic beauty or ugliness of the work.

    14 research goals and methods

    This research is fundamental (theoretical) from the point of view of the type of work, because it is among the theoretical researches that aim to discover the principles of scientific theories. and the expansion of science. In front of that is applied research, whose goal is to improve production methods. Considering this type of research, this article seeks to expand the understanding of the viewpoint of "moderate moralists" regarding the relationship between film and ethics.

  • Contents & References of The relationship between moral ugliness and the aesthetic value of the film from the perspective of moderate moralism

    List:

    Abstract. A

    The first chapter: generalities. 1

    1 Introduction. 2

    11 problem design. 2

    12 research questions. 4

    13 assumptions. 5

    14 research objectives and methods. 5

    15 research background. 6

    151 internal background. 6

    152 foreign background. 8

    16 research structure. 10

    2 value and valuation. 11

    21 What is value. 11

    22 Values. 12

    23 moral ugliness of the film. 18

    231 Definitionism. 19

    2311 Moral naturalism. 20

    2312 metaphysical theories. 21

    232 Non-definitionalism, intuitionism. 22

    233 Agnosticism, non-descriptiveness. 23

    234 Defining the moral ugliness of the film. 24

    24 aesthetic value of the film. 31

    Chapter Two: The relationship between art and ethics. 34

    1 criteria for dividing views 35

    11 aesthetic communication. 35

    12 value ratios. 38

    13 analysis and review. 40

    14 Terminology Agreement. 42

    2 Self-discipline. 43

    21 Aestheticism. 43

    22 moderate self-regularism. 45

    23 analysis and review. 46

    3 immorality. 49

    31 extreme immorality. 49

    32 moderate immoralism. 50

    33 analysis and review. 51

    4 Moralism. 51

    41 extreme moralism. 51

    411 Platonism. 52

    412 utopianism. 53

    413 comprehensive variable moralism. 55

    414 analysis and review. 58

    42 moderate views. 60

    421 The difference between extreme and moderate views. 61

    422 moderate moralism. 63

    423 The originality of morality. 75

    424 The most moderate morality. 88

    Chapter three: The ratio of moral ugliness to the aesthetic value of the film. 97

    1 film analysis based on the moderate point of view. 98

    11 film selection criteria. 99

    12 models of film analysis. 103

    2 Applying theoretical foundations to the study cases. 112

    21 Griz. 113

    211 Explaining the moral aspects of the film. 114

    2111 violence. 115

    2112 How to have a marital relationship. 119

    2113 eroticism. 122

    2114 Crime. 124

    212 analysis based on moderate views. 126

    22 orange cookies. 129

    221 Explaining the moral aspects of the film. 130

    2211 Violence. 130

    2212 Eroticism. 136

    2213 Freedom of will. 137

    2214 behavior of government. 140

    2215 Church behavior 141

    2216 Criminality. 142

    222 analysis based on moderate views. 143

    3 Conclusion. 147

    4 The future of discussion. 148

    Footnotes 149

    Resources. 150

    Resources for further study 157

    Source:

    Ahmadi, Babak, Truth and Beauty: Lessons in the Philosophy of Art, Tehran, Nash Karzan, twenty-second edition, 1391.

    Aristotle, on the art of poetry, translated and explained by Sohail Mohsen Afnan, Tehran, Hikmat, first edition. 1388.

    Staker, Robert, "Value in Art", edited by Jerrold Levinson, translated by Fariborz Majidi, General Aesthetic Issues: Part II, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran Art Academy, first edition, 1390, pp. 119147.

    Smith, Geoffrey Novel (under review), Analytical History of World Cinema, translated by Translators Group, Tehran, Farabi Cinema Foundation, first edition, 1377.

    Esoulin, Pir (interviewer), "A conversation with the prolific writer Anthony Burgess", translated by Asadollah Amraei, Kihan Farhangi, number 59, year 5, February 1367, pp. 6061.

    Azazi, Shahla, family violence, Tehran, Sali publication, first edition, 1380,

    Plato, The Period of Plato's Works, translated by Mohammad Hasan Lotfi and Reza Kaviani, Tehran, Khwarazmi Publications, 1367.

    Ingersoll, Robert J., "Art and Ethics", Ethics, translated by Mehdi Habibollahi, number 15, Spring 1388, pp. 147162.

    Osborne, Peter, "Marcuse, Herbert", edited by Michael Payne, translated by Payam Yazdanjo, Farhang Andisheh of Critical Thought, Tehran, Publishing Center, 4th edition, 1389, pp. 590-591.

    Bell, Clive, "Art and Ethics", Art, translated by Mahnaz Mostafaei Alaei, number 26, autumn 1373, pp. 3742.

    Palmer, Michael, Ethical Issues, translated by Alireza Al-Boye, Tehran, Organization for the study and compilation of humanities books of the universities (SAT), first edition, 2018.

    Peckinpah, Sam, Conversation with Peckinpah, compiled by Kevin J. Hayes, translated by Hossein KarbalaiHayes, translated by Hossein Karbalai Taher, Tehran, Phoenix Publications, first edition, 2013.

    Tanner, Michael, "Ethics and Aesthetics?", edited by Jose Louis Bermudes and Sebastian Gardner, translated by Meshit Alaei, Art and Ethics, Tehran, Academy of Arts of the Islamic Republic of Iran, first edition, 2017, pp. 2143.

    Tolstoy, Leo, Art What is it?, translated by Kaveh Dehgan, Tehran, Amirkabir, eighth edition, 1372.

    Johnson, Robert Vincent, aestheticism, translated by Masoud Jafari, Tehran, publishing center, first edition, 1390.

    Javadi Amoli, Abdullah, Raheeq Makhtoum: Description of transcendental wisdom, part four of the first volume, Qom, Asra publishing house, first edition, 1375.

    Khandan, Ali Asghar, Moghalatat, Qom, Bostan Kitab Institute, 9th edition, 1392.

    Duncan, Paul, Stanley Kubrick, translated by Saeed Kashmus, Tehran, Avand Danesh book, 1st edition, 1382.

    Deagaoyan, Daoud, "Investigation of effective factors in assaulting the police", Police Knowledge, number 27, winter 1384, pp. 6094.

    Dicky, George, Art and Value, translated by Mohammad Rouhani, Qom, Islamic School of Art, first edition, 2012.

    Sarel, Tom, Society, Art and Ethics, translated by Masoud Ghasemian, Tehran, Authoring, Translation and Publishing Institute of "Metan" works of art, first edition, 2013.

    Shaleh, Felisin, Cognition of Beauty: Aesthetics, translated by Ali Akbar Bammad, Tehran, Tahori Library, 1357.

    Shepard, Ann, Fundamentals of Philosophy of Art, translated by Ali Ramin, Tehran, Scientific and Cultural Publishing Company, 7th edition, 1388.

    Shetrobe, and, "Art Judge", edited by Joachim Ritter and others, translated by Seyyed Mohammad Reza Hosseini Beheshti, Historical Dictionary of Philosophical Concepts, Tehran, Hikmat Research Institute and Iran's Philosophy and Novarghnoun Cultural Research Institute, first edition, 1389, vol.1, pp. 166169.

    Tabatbai, Seyyed Mohammad Hossein, Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an, Tehran, Daral-e-Kitab al-Islamiyeh, 7th edition, 1384.

    Tabatabai, Seyyed Mohammad Hossein, Nahayeh al-Hikma, research and suspension of Abbas Ali Zarei Sabzevari, Qom, Al-Nashar al-Islami, 5th edition, 1430.

    Frankena, William, Moral Philosophy, translated by Hadi Sadeghi, Qom, Kitab Taha, 1st edition, 1376.

    Cari, Gregory, "Commentary on Art", edited by Jerrold Levinson, translated by Fariborz Majidi, General Aesthetic Issues: Part I, Tehran, Academy of Arts of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1st edition, 1387. pp.85117.

    Kazebeh, Alan and others, The Principles of Film Criticism, translated by Jamal Haj Agha Mohammad, Tehran, Pai Jhe Publishing House, 1360.

    Kroll, Noel, "Art and the Realm of Morality", translated by Mohsen Karmi, Art and the Realm of Morality, Tehran, Qaqnos, first edition, 1392, pp. 1167.

    Kroll, Noel, "Art and Ethical Criticism: A Brief Report on the Direction of Recent Research", translated by Mohsen Karmi, Art and the Realm of Morality, Tehran, Phoenix, first edition, 2012, pp. 69147.

    Kubrick, Stanley, "Michelle Siman's interview with Stanley Kubrick about a Cookie Orange", A Cookie Orange, compiled and translated by Mehdi Fayazhikia, Tehran, Afraz, first edition, 1389, pp. 111135.

    Kubrick, Stanley, "Stanley's letter to the editor of the New York Times", an orange cookie, compiled and translated by Mehdi Fayadzikia, Tehran, Afraz, first edition, 1389, pp. 1018.

    Cook, David A., The Comprehensive History of World Cinema, translated by Hoshang Azadivar, Tehran, Cheshme Publishing House, first edition, 1381.

    Keiran, Mathieu, "Forbidden knowledge: the challenge of amorality", edited by Jose Lewis Bermudez and Sebastian Gardner, translated by Meshit Alaei, Art and Ethics, Tehran, Art Academy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, first edition, 1387, pp. 6992.

    Keiran, Mathieu, "Art and Ethics", edited by Gerrold Levinson, translated by Fariborz Majidi, general problems of aesthetics: Part I, Tehran, Art Academy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, first edition, 2017, pp. 235277.

    Gatt, Brice, "Art and Ethics", edited by Brice Gatt and Dominic McIver Lewis, translated by Babak Mohaghegh and Masoud Ghasemian, Encyclopaedia of Aesthetics, Tehran, "Metan" Institute of Authoring, Translation and Publishing of Art Works, printed 4th, 1389, pp. 251259.

    Gatt, Brice, "Art and Knowledge", edited by Jerrold Levinson, translated by Fariborz Majidi, general aesthetic issues: Part I, Tehran, Academy of Arts of the Islamic Republic of Iran, first edition, 1387, pp. 203234.

    Gensler, Harry, An Introduction to Contemporary Moral Philosophy, translated by Mehdi Akhavan, Tehran, Scientific and Cultural Publications, first edition, 1390.

    Levinson, Jerold, "Philosophical aesthetics; An Overview", edited by Jerrold Levinson, translated by Fariborz Majidi, Philosophical Aesthetics, Tehran, Art Academy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2nd edition, 2012, pp. 950.

    Murshidlou, Mustafa, "Marx, Nietzsche, Kubrick", Rowaq Art and Thought, New Edition, Year 5, Number 1, August 2015, pp. 5666.

The relationship between moral ugliness and the aesthetic value of the film from the perspective of moderate moralism