Does art have a moral purpose? Can we properly criticise an art

This has been debated for thousands of years. So yes, you can, but its equally valid to critique art purely as a matter of aesthetics. I would argue both forms are useful, and it is basically impossible to only engage in an either/or approach.

did you just read Dorian Gray for the first time?

>>9403383
If art would tread on 'moral grounds,' or even requires those 'moral grounds' to make some point, then yes. Should art be given a free pass? No.
The best art eludes policing. Or comes loaded with protective counterarguments.

>>9403403
>the problem is hard to solve so both answers are right

Boy oh boy, anon, I'm glad you were here to clear that up.

>>9403403
>>9403613
>This has been debated for thousands of years
The better conclusion is actually, that you're very unlikely to find the answer to it on this board or even in your life. People are pretty much retarded beyond a certain literal level, when it comes to higher concepts we're all lost.

>>9403383
>Can we properly criticise an art object on moral grounds?
no
t. hegel

>>9403577
>The best art eludes policing. Or comes loaded with protective counterarguments.
more relevant in past times but even so hiding behind allegories or what have you because some priest-follower gets offended should not be tolerated anymore.