Art
and Morality
Introduction
The opposite views about literature or art in general the view of moralist is that the writer influences the lives and characters of his readers therefore he should try to be good and influence the people in the view of aesthetics who believe in the theory of Art for art's sake is that the writer cannot influence his readers so the writer should not influence them and enjoy the art for the sake of art.
There are two opposed theories about the
function of art, “the utilitarian theory and the non-utilitarian theory.” The
utilitarian theory believes in „Art for life’s sake‟ and the
non-utilitarian theory believes. The utilitarian critics believe that art must
be judged from the view point of its morality healthy effect on society and
individual. They think art and morality cannot and must not be separated. On
the other hand the non-utilitarian critics object that its purpose is not to
give any moral lesson but to give aesthetic pleasure. They believe art has no
end or purpose. It exists for its own sake, as a thing of absolute beauty.
Relationship
of Art and morality
The question that arises concerned about the
function of Art and what is the return
of a morality and beauty among the Greeks, Plato believed in moralistic view of
art. According to Plato the real purpose of art was to accumulate moral value
but In England the attitude of critics to word at and relation to morality has
been varied characteristic while The Artist and critic have followed the
moralistic view and other have advocated the theory of Art for art's sake.
Moralistic view among those
who believed in the more realistic view and directive view of at the poet of
18th centuries must be given a pride of Place in the 16th century Sydney Hudson
advocated that, at must instrument as well as the light he could not be a
didactic artist the same applied to Shakespeare and Spencer who the sympathy of
readers for their virtues and noble characters without directly being directed,
It was Milton who first time employed the art of poetry form moralistic purpose
particularly.
The artist had to make some consciousness to
the demand of the moralist. The Greeks and the Aryans insist that the function
of the poet is to reform the world. The poet like Valmiki, Vyasa, Homer, Aeschylus
are regarded as moral and spiritual guides of society. Bharat a prominent
critic in his Natyashastra states,
“The purpose of drama is to
please and teach at the same time.”
Moral
value of literature
The protagonist of the
theory that literature of art has a moral purpose are of a far larger number
than those who believe in the art for art's sake theory.
Plato and Aristotle both
emphasis on the moral value of literature Spencer wrote the Fairy Queen in
order to fashion a gentleman or noble person in virtuous and gentle disable in
Milton wrote Paradise Lost with a view of justifying the way of god to man to
stay deal with further remarks there is no such thing as a moral or immoral
book books are well written or badly beaten that is all.
Victorian
age
The theory of art for the
sake of life came to be more fashionable than it was before. The Victorians
forcefully supported the moralistic view of art. In Victorian age poets like
Tennyson, Browning, and Arnold, prose writers like Ruskin and Carlyle and novelists
like Dickens, Thackeray and George Eliot all favored art for its moral value.
Ruskin emphasized the need of morality in art and satisfies the conscience of
middle class morality. Ruskin and Plato both advocated the moral aspect of art
but their methods were different. Ruskin praised the arts because they are
moral.
Romantic
age
In the romantic period
Shakespeare, Dante and Milton are philosophers of the life power who William
Wordsworth emphasized the dialectic element in Literature to when remind I am
nothing if not a teacher
John Keats who was a worshipper of beauty said that only
those can be true poets to whom the miseries of world are mysteries and will
not let them rest
Ben Johnson in his „Every Man in His Humor‟
clearly states the purpose of writing poetry,
“I’ll strip the ragged follies of the time,
Naked as at their birth, with a whip of steel, print wounding lashes on their
iron ribs.”
20
century
In the 20th century Bernard
so and strongly emphasized the moral view of Art for the sake of art I would
not take the trouble of writing a single line is a well-known statement of
Bernard so and the writers should not with the artist but with the teacher the
priest and the prophets.
“The artist can never be, by
the nature of things, so independent of the mass of as to make artistic
excellence his sole object; on the other hand moral worth…”
Conclusion
life ought to be like that
says the moral list life looks like that says the artist the artist has no
longer duty to accept that of expressing it as reflect perfectly as he can and
communicating it to others.
Literature is a mirror of
society, culture, nature, art and artist. It reflects every hidden mysteries,
value, assumption of art and morality directly or indirectly. Arnold was a
moralist. He believed in the principle of "Art for life's sake". We
can say that both the moralistic and the aesthetic views are partially true.
){kind=link}