Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should we judge the quality of artwork based on the conduct of the artist?
The quality of artwork should not be judged based on the conduct of the artist.
Everyone who makes the world worse in one way can make it better in another.
Disregarding a work of art on the basis of its origin hinders progress in human creativity.
The quality of a work of art can have no moral implications.
A finished work stands on its own.
Artists should try to keep private and public selves well separated, so their work can be appreciated purely on its own merit.
While evaluation of art is subjective, much is illuminated by context. The creator's biography is relevant context.
Questioning previously held assumptions about artistic quality is the way the arts have always progressed. To place any work beyond the reach of any kind of criticism stifles artistic progress.
An artist's contribution to society isn't as valuable as the damage caused by their behavior.
Celebrating an artists work while they are alive may give them the influence and financial resources to avoid the consequences of their abhorrent actions.
The meaning and quality of an art piece can be changed by context relevant to the artist.
The creators of great artworks are generally credited and often celebrated, and we must not celebrate criminals and other reprehensible individuals.
Should Culturally or Historically Significant Artwork Be Property of the State?
Should Religious Education that is Based on or Promotes a Certain Faith or Religion be Abolished in Schools?
If we could bring back the Neanderthals, should we?