From cave painting to handicrafts, bone tools to paintings, sculptor making to literature and music to film making; there were ethical rhythm and morality of passions, there were no fastness and their art was more than the intentions to achieve personal acclaims or force people to believe what they were trying to represent. In the desire of achieving applaud, when people started to represent their passion in pretentious way; they lost the morality which undoubtedly entertained others but exited the realm of art also when people tried to represent their moral passion excluding entertainment, their piece of work digressed from art.
So art is rightful blend of both moral passion and entertainment because entertainment without moral passion is television and moral passion without entertainment is preaching. In the ancient era, art in its pure form had both moral passion and entertainment. Artists like Luck Bacilli, Leonardo dad Vinci, Dante Aligner, Leo Tolstoy, Michelangelo and many more aspired to the sense of wrong and right as it was manifested in nature. For example, Michelangelo -the famous Renaissance painter, made famous statue of PETA (mother of Christ holding his dead body).
Need essay sample on Art; Moral passion ?
We will write a custom essay samplespecifically for you for only $12.90/page
The mother of Christ as carved out of stone by Michelangelo is like any peasant women of time. Any holy grandeur is not allotted to both the dead Christ or to his mother. The face of Christ shows the pain while his mother’s face shows grief. He could have sculptured both Christ and his mother in more grand fashion, for example he would have made the dead Christ look serene without expressions of pain and suffering while the mother of Christ would have been shown with a happy smile at her son’s martyrdom. The feelings he showed are human and natural.
He did not show an improbable reality in his paintings and statues to incite propagandist religious fervor thus his morality is both of morality of nature and of art without propaganda and sentimentality. It was not Just Michelangelo who sculptured and painted like this; work of almost all the artists of his era and before him like Leonardo “Mona Lisa”, Sago’s “The potato eaters”, Dent’s “Dolce Still Novo” and Tolstoy “Soapstone sketches” shared same morality. Their art also satisfied the aesthetic sense AT toners Ana enter ratline teen. Scars, won Is generally outing to have known the painting only by repute said about Leonardo “Mona Lisa”: “the smile was so pleasing that it seemed divine rather than human; and those who saw it were amazed to find that it was as alive as original. “(Paul Barstools, p. 267) Their moral passion was not a source of amusement and entertainment Just for the people of their era but for the people of all times. Television, which is deemed the best source for the promotion of arts, has probably tainted the pure sense of it by teeming ideas with entertainment and eliminating morality from passions.
There is no room for moral passion in the dramas and movies that are broadcasted on television. Television programs Just focus entertainment. To increase rating of their channels, people working behind represent the nature in a way people wants to see it. They add glamour which appeals both women and men and enhances their desire of looking beautiful and ideal. According to psychologists, “Societal standards of beauty hanger dramatically over time. In the sass, Marilyn Monroe and other starlets were considered to be the ideal image of how a woman’s body should look.
That has changed in subsequent decades, and the new standards of beauty are that “thin is in” (Barlow and Duran, p. 76). Dramas and movies often exhibit action, violence, sex and comedy which amuse viewers but have no moral reality. Art is a reflection of nature but what the television programs exhibit is not reality. “Television is not real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to Gates, p. ) Programs like millionaire, wipe out and fear factor appeals the money making desire which substantially increase the number of viewers and their channel rating.
They undoubtedly provide entertainment but leave no message rather create a desire of being rich in a blink of eye. In brief, rather being a source of promoting arts, television is a money making business by entertaining people. Artist becomes preacher when he tries to enforce his moral passion excluding entertainment. Art is a reflection of nature and as nature has both moral passion and entertainment in it, so it follows that art should also have both. When someone tries to enforce his moral passion, he certainly has some intentions that could be good as well as bad.
For example, Sir Seed Named khan undoubtedly wrote great but he has no entertainment in his writings and had clear intentions of betterment of their fellow-men. That was the need of time; they could not use entertaining language or add entertaining aspect in his writings because at that time situation was crucial. His writings were master pieces and also contributed towards Urdu literature but his writings could not be thought as pure art. Seed Named khan was not an artist; rather e was purely a great preacher and there is difference between pure art and preaching.
There were many other revolutionary writers who wrote to bring change but the time they lacked entertainment, they became preacher. Furthermore, any person who writes something cannot be thought an artist. There are many persons who wrote for propaganda or to achieve their personal purposes but it does not mean that they were artists. For example, former Pakistani president Parade Muscular wrote a book about his life’s incidents: “In the Line of Fire: A Memoir” but it does not mean that he is an artist.
Also, Pakistani bowler Sophia Stark’s book does tot make him an artist, because he probably had intention of propaganda or had some intention of achieving world’s attention, furthermore his writing lacked both moral passion Ana enter retirement. People, won Delve Tanat art Is Just enter retirement and has no moral passion, argues that the artists of Renaissance and other eras made nude monuments to satisfy aesthetic sense and to amuse people. They believe that there is no morality in their nude fugues. This sort of argument arises from lack of understanding of how the art is taught and created. It would be virtually impossible to teach someone how to draw accurate human anatomy without this essential tool. Furthermore, expressions of nudes are extremely opposite of expressions of figures wearing trench coats, hats and dark sunglasses. They also allow the artist to show people outside of a historical context if he wishes to do so, put any kind of clothing on a person in a painting or a sculpture and one ties them down to a time when that kind of clothing was common or popular and apart from times when it was not. “(Brian K.
Yorker, p. L). People who object nudity in arts also argue that nude monuments incite sexual activities so it should be avoided. There is a wide gulf between nudity to seduce and nudity to show. Nude sculptures are altogether different from pornography and it is inappropriate to consider them identical. For example, Misfield Parish’s “The Dinky Bird” is a nude picture but it has nothing to do with sex. The Catholic Church also had nude pictures painted on its walls, thousands of people visit church but they never complaint about this.
Because it is written in their Bible; “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. “(King James Bible, Genesis. 2:25). So it is clear that nude monuments of ancient era were not Just for entertainment but also had moral passion. Artist who sacks moral passion and works for the sake of entertaining his viewers become Joker and an artist who simply tries to enforce a moral becomes drudger. Moral passion soaked in entertainment is like a respectable canal that never overflows its bank.