Modesty, Morals, and Horse Crap.

This was my response to a discussion question for my summer course on Dramatic Theory and Criticism.  The question was, "Is there a place for morality in art, most specifically on the stage? If so, who should judge what is and is not morally acceptable? If not, how do we separate pornography from art? Is there a difference?"  It was a very difficult question because I simply am not sure where the answer lies.  What I've written is basically stream of thought.  I tried to be as fair as possible and yet establish a foundation for my beliefs.  No reason for posting on here other than to just share my thoughts and maybe get some of yours.  Rock on!

I cannot help but feel that there is a level of morality that must be represented in art. The question, then, that causes me pain is my justification in this argument. I could certainly cleve to my religious beliefs to support this claim, but that is in no way fair to those who do not adhere to my set of convictions. Likewise I am drawn to the statement that I know pornography when I see it. Once again, not a very strong argument.

If art is, as I stated in the previous discussion, a matter of the artist's purpose and selflessness then perhaps this is where art's moral compass should lie. I even see failure in this however. One could feel passionately about child pornography, and send it to be seen by the multitudes in a selfless way and yet, I think, it would be fair to say that everyone would agree that this is not art and is, in fact, reprehensible in every way.

I think, perhaps, if we look to fulfill what I believe are the three purposes of theatre there might be a mode of defining art, specifically theatre. Theatre, in all cases, should entertain, educate, and enlighten it's audience. Buy stating that theatre should always posses all three of these qualities there is a certain criteria that must be attained. What we would call pornography in this culture does not fulfill all three of these qualities. Although it could be argued that it entertains and even, to a degree, can educate it does not enlighten and is therefore not theatre.

This, as anything in this world, is not perfect. I would then add onto this a need for theatre to be purposeful and meaningful. That is to say that a plays plot, language, spectacle, music, character, and thought should always have a purpose and a meaning and serve the overall intent of the play. Therefore a character, such as a devout priest, would not curse in a play because it would not be in his character and would not serve the plot, but rather hinder it. If this character were to curse there would need to be a specific and clear purpose for it, and then it must be meaningful both to the character as well as the plot. Everything in a play must follow this notion, otherwise incosistancies and a complete loss of message and purpose will be suffered.

Other than these vague concepts I am afraid all I can justify my views with is what I feel is an internal, human right and feeling about what is right and what is wrong. Though what murder is may be argued, there is no question in anyone's mind that murder is wrong. Likewise, along the same lines and as I said earlier, there is a base knowledge in everyone that child pornography is the worst kind of moral infraction. I hope I have been able to share my thoughts and beliefs in a fair and understandable way. Feel free to comment and question as I'm not sure about any of this myself.