Thread: Creativity and Morality are essential partners?

It is the duty of cultural exponents and commentators to be morally and politically engaged from a creative point of view. In todays culture it is essential that Creativity and Morality are integrated and combined so that culture becomes an asset to our society rather than a money maker.

No.

There. I've just contributed as much as you have to any meaningful discussion.

Always hit the newbies with a brick ey Jeremey? Some sort of defense mechanism?

Originally Posted by jonourd

It is the duty of cultural exponents and commentators to be morally and politically engaged from a creative point of view. In todays culture it is essential that Creativity and Morality are integrated and combined so that culture becomes an asset to our society rather than a money maker.

Coberst, is that you? What the heck are you trying to say? Just spit it out. Somehow I think it is *your* morality and *your* politics that you think should be integrated into creativity.

Originally Posted by jonourd

In todays culture it is essential that Creativity and Morality are integrated and combined so that culture becomes an asset to our society rather than a money maker.

History is filled with prime examples of creative individuals challenging societal moral values. Think Elvis Presley gyrating his hips, or Boy George being openly gay.

Or they've had questionable morals in their private lives. Think of the number of drug addicted musicians, or French poets who can't stop screwing other people's wives.

In terms of science, we've had a large number of people questioning the claims of the Church -- something which was frowned upon for hundreds of years.

Philosophy, you have guys like Nietzsche, who's moral views were highly questionable then, and still, in several aspects, questionable by today's moral standards.

If you want to put moral limitations on creativity, all the truly creative people are going to rebel against you.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Always hit the newbies with a brick ey Jeremey? Some sort of defense mechanism?

But an arrogant, presumptive, thoughtless and careless post is an arrogant, presumptive, thoughtless and careless post, regardless of whether or not the poster is a newbie.

Besides, Jeremy quite precisely pointed out that his own post had as much meaning as jonourd's original, or perhaps even more: a valuable and useful insight for jonourd I'd say, as it mixed creativity with morality.

Oh yes, and don't forget just about every cyberpunk book ever written. Neuromancer (the most famous example): Case Cutter, the main character, is a drug addict. He's also a street criminal. He has sex out of wedlock and he's a murderer (or was it accessory to murder? Been a while since I've read it). If we imposed moral limitations, would Neuromancer ever have been published?

Would half the work in Nick Cave's oeuvre ever have been recorded? I refer to lyrics like, "I stuck a six inch gold blade in the head of a girl". (if I remember correctly, he wrote 'Red Right Hand' after spiking heroin. He filled the needle with his own blood, used it to write some lyrics on the wall of a subway station.)

How about The Doors, Nirvana, The Velvet Underground, Alice in Chains, all singing about drug abuse.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Always hit the newbies with a brick ey Jeremey? Some sort of defense mechanism?

But an arrogant, presumptive, thoughtless and careless post is an arrogant, presumptive, thoughtless and careless post, regardless of whether or not the poster is a newbie.

Besides, Jeremy quite precisely pointed out that his own post had as much meaning as jonourd's original, or perhaps even more: a valuable and useful insight for jonourd I'd say, as it mixed creativity with morality.

So instead of insulting him lets be civilised an try to convey what he meant and ask him shall we? Are we going forwards or backwards as a species? Prove to me that atheists can be polite. I've respect for you lot but reserve the opinion that a lot of you are selfish and rude jerks, no offense there but I'd like to change that opinion because I like you all . BTW that opinion is not on everyone, not you anyway shanks.

To the Op, my advice to you is use language to make your problem simpler not harder.

id say the opposite. creativity and morality are mutually exclusive, as they exclude each other. creativity is founded over freedom and morality is founded over limits, and its sole purpose is to surround and control behaviour.

There are ways and circumstances where they can be separate and then whey the can be insepearable. Sometimes they may not be needed at all.

example?

Can't think of any. Sorry,

haha.
the thing is, boundaries are limitations to creativity, and morals are intellectual boundaries. this can easily be exemplified by the way most genius artists were seen as immoral, obcene/promiscuous, agressive, tempermental, excentric or whatever negative adjective there is. for example salvador dali, or paganini, or elvis, you name it. morals are artificial concepts manufactured by leaders whose desire is to constrain the behaviour of the masses as to maintain them under control. morals dont reflect any kind of absolute truth, they only intend to determine patterns of behaviour. and creativity is the exact opposite of that, its freedom of thought and behaviour.