Food for thought - Entry 2

Food for thought

 Does art have to be morally good in order to be a good work of art?

Art is a powerful form of expression. It can convey many different things. When we say the word art, what comes to your minds? Generally its powerful explosions of color and patterns or pencil sketches etc... However art can be done in many ways. Art is a talent. It is a way to express something you are feeling anonymously or even publicly about. Art takes many forms. Even physical forms. For example body art. Even though you use paints, the entire idea is to create something unique and interesting. Art, in my opinion, does not have to be morally good to be art. However there are some limits to this conclusion. Some people may think, naked women being painted on or painted of may be morally wrong, however the consent is given by the muse and the art is created with no problems, and affects no one in a bad way. However if you take a situation where someone is trying to show the problems of hunger through art and actually starves a dog and does not give it food or water, just for his artwork. That is wrong, There is a limit to being morally wrong. That affects other living beings, which should not be happening. Hence my conclusion is that art does not have to be morally good to be art, however there is an extent and a limitation to which something might affect the health or well being of a living being.