letter to the editor
TRANSCRIPT
National Art Education Association
Letter to the EditorAuthor(s): Enid ZimmermanSource: Art Education, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan., 1993), p. 6Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193413 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 02:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:56:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Letter to the Editor
A Response to David Pariser's Commentary on Blaikie (June 1992)
I read Fiona Blaikie's article, and I consid- ered her criticism of our questions as not worth much attention because her re- sponse seemed devoid of logic. The question we posed is related to peda- gogy. "Can a work of art, based on ques- tionable or even a blatantly corrupt ethical position, still have standing as art" is a good question for debate. There is not a "right" or "wrong" answer to this question as Blaikie implies. Rather, a good argument for or against the premises presented in the question is what is needed.
I think that works of art can be based on ethical or moral principles that are flawed, yet if we interpret these works of art as "evil" then we may be caught in an intentionalist fallacy. Does the artist's intent determine if we are to consider "morally flawed" works "art works"? What if Riefenstahl intended The Triumph of the Will to be a criticism of the Third Reich, would you still be able to determine it was built on a "cesspool?"
On the other hand, it has been argued successfully that results of experiments done in Nazi concentration camps cannot be used to inform current research be- cause these experiments were heinous in their original intent. This reasoning can be extended to art objects as well.
I realize that "on the one hand and on the other hand" arguments are "cultural" in nature, but they do offer a reason why the question we posed is not flawed. The question provides an arena for debate. Answers to the question, however, may be flawed.
Photo c Vivienne della Grotta
Enid Zimmerman Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana
6 Art EducationJanuary 1993
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:56:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions