The question at hand predisposes the intersection of Ethics and Arts. How that intersection occurs, however, is unclear. According to the knowledge frameworks, art is persuasive in nature, and has the power to “shape belief” and can be used as “an instrument of social transformation”. As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility. But is that always the case?
The Ethics knowledge framework seems to support this, stating that “an ethical viewpoint seems to imply that the individual takes the interests of others into consideration as well as his or her own”, and suggesting that certain rights require certain groups to carry certain moral obligations. As art has the power to influence others (and not just the artist as an individual), and artists enjoy the rights to (typically) boundless creativity and imaginative expression, it can be reasonably argued that artists or morally obliged to confront moral issues in their work.
However, director Kathryn Bigelow rejects this responsibility in her film Zero Dark Thirty. Many have criticized the director for the film’s lack of morality, brutally presenting the CIA’s interrogation procedure during the US’s infamous Bin Laden hunt without acknowledging the great moral debate that prevailed its procession.
Bigelow seems to ignore such protests in her film, arguing that “the film doesn’t have an agenda, and it doesn’t judge,”. Her argument suggests that her rendition of the counter-terrorist operation was an artistic exploration unrestricted from limitations and open to interpretation. In Zero Dark Thirty, Bigelow exercises her right as an artist to push the boundaries of imagination in her own creative expression. However, does that automatically authorize the director to represent the event in such a suggestive manner?
The answer lies in the context. The biggest issue with the film is its misleading nature, as it seems to distort the historic events of Bin Laden’s capture. Zero Dark Thirty falsely communicates that the CIA’s torturous interrogation methods eventually enabled them to gain essential information in the capturing of Bin Laden, even though many US senators and other government representatives have repeatedly denied this claim. The film seems to suggest that brutality is an effective means of getting what you want, which is incredibly problematic considering the influence that art has the power to impose upon people.
Maybe this is not much of an issue for those who were present during the Bush period while such major ethical debates permeated every news source. However, for those of us recently born into the century of Zero Dark Thirty‘s release, our interpretation of the Bin Laden hunt is disproportionately shaped by the film’s portrayal of events; a film that sends the message that torture and brutality are okay sometimes.
When answering the question at hand, it is important to recognize the blurred boundaries from which artistic expression is separated from moral duty. Imposing ethical regulations too strictly on art reduces its functionality and may enable unjustified censorship (which is ethically compromised in its own regards), but freeing art from any ethical imposition may permit moral disengagement and gives it the power to influence viewers’ minds negatively, possibly even dangerously.
I believe that, with the power to sway public opinion using provocation and emotional currency, all artists are obligated to use their platform to address moral issues in some way or another. However, I don’t believe that they are obligated to do so in all their art. The duty to advocate for moral issues depends on the context of the art.
ISABELLA'S TOK BLOG 