2. Should the moral or immoral actions of artists effect how we evaluate their art?




In 2007, Guillermo Vargas Habacuc staved a dog as part of an art show. Later his publicist went on to say that the dog was never starved and that it was only chained up for the time of the showing. In a case like such as this it becomes very difficult to separate moral action from the art, since the art itself seems to be committing an immoral action, by having been created. If one is to consider occasions such as this art, it seems that one has separated the question of morality in connection to art.
As to the question of whether or not one should, in this particular situation, it seems that the answer is quite clear, no. However, as most have come to realize, answers are never truly that black and white. In this scenario it seems that part of the intention of the artist was that through his art one would come to the understanding of the horrors that very often happen to animals such as this dog. So the objective then seems to be to create some kind of motivational art. The outcome desired is to try and move people to do something about the situation. Should the question then become whether or not it worked. Did it make people more aware of the situation? Did the means justify the ends? To what extent is this important in one’s evaluation of art?