Stories with(out) Morals

[KRWright]

I made the pigeon pink in the last panel just for the hell of it.

Yeah, and you run into the issue here that your moral would be abou the subversion of expectation and the chaotic elements of the creation of art. Your moral would be that the audience cannot dictate the intention of the author. Because that was the whole thought process behind what you did. The very act of trying to create something without a moral BECOMES the moral.

Also, intentionally or not, you set up all kinds of other things with that because of the cultural signifiers of colours, or pigeons etc. You might say "Oh it's some silly thing" but once you hold it up as art, it's not. It's something that can be analysed. And your very position of saying 'this is work without morality' is a moral position.

There is very little abstract art that is just for fun. A lot of it has meaning or at least purpose. You pointed it out yourself. Creating things you like, 'just for fun' also is a moral - that art should not have deeper meaning than just the artist having fun.

See how no matter how deep we go, we can't remove the human element?

[DokiDokiTsuna]

Yeah, and you run into the issue here that your moral would be abou the subversion of expectation and the chaotic elements of the creation of art.

But...it wasn't. I didn't turn the pigeon pink in the last panel because I figured no one would expect it. Or because I felt like something needed to be or should be different. I just kinda thought it'd be nice to make a comic where a pigeon changed color. '_'

You might say "Oh it's some silly thing" but once you hold it up as art, it's not. It's something that can be analysed.

Analysis from other people is separate and different from intention of the artist. I'm not disputing that.

Creating things you like, 'just for fun' also is a moral - that art should not have deeper meaning than just the artist having fun.

It could be, but it isn't for me. I don't think art SHOULD not have deeper meaning than having fun. I believe it can, and because I believe that I did it. But that has nothing to do with anyone else. It's not a message, it's a fact that exists to be observed.

See how no matter how deep we go, we can't remove the human element?

I'm not trying to remove any human element...having fun is a very human element, actually. I'm just trying to show that it's a separate element from morality. Just doing something that you like because you like it is different from consciously presenting a notion for other people to consider and/or accept.

[darthmongoose]

It's a good video, I dig it.

But really, arguing over death of the author doesn't really get around the issue that DotA as a literary theory really only applies to the author's commentary on things they deliberately put into their text. Not things they unknowingly put into their text through things like cultural values, assumptions and their own biases.

Like.... Okay here's a page from the old version of my webcomic (Oh god, old art, kill meeee):

Fan Dan Go - FanDanGo_02_005

Now, this page reads INCREDIBLY GAY. If we apply death of the author here, wow, this page is gay, who cares what the creator says about what she intended, this is gay as heck oh my god. If we apply knowledge of me in the present, haha wow yes, that sure is a comic made by a lesbian right?
Okay but... when I drew this page.... I did not know I was gay. So at the time, canonically, I would have said "no, I didn't intend for this interaction to come across as gay". This comic was so accidentally gay that basically the entire UK comics scene worked out I was gay before I did.

I put a really gay dynamic between these two female characters because I was excited by the idea of passionate exchanges and banter between women. I just put it in for the heck of it because I liked it. I didn't think twice about it. It's not intentional any more than the pigeon turning pink is just aww nice, I like that, I'll put it in my comic, completely unburdened by any deeper meaning!
....But that doesn't mean it's not gay. The fact that I wasn't aware that really I was putting that in there because I find passionate encounters between women exciting and appealing because I'm a gay woman illustrates my point: Just because you're not thinking about some detail you put into a work, it doesn't mean that it has no meaning and doesn't say something about your values, or the values of your culture.

[burginlewis]

I'm beginning to wonder if this thread should not have started with the definition of the word "moral."

Not trying to be meta, but this is one of those words that people prefer to define for themselves because it has so many social implications. But there IS an official definition, and we ought to begin there to avoid confusion. Especially with multiple language speakers present.

[KRWright]

But...it wasn't. I didn't turn the pigeon pink in the last panel because I figured no one would expect it. Or because I felt like something needed to be or should be different. I just kinda thought it'd be nice to make a comic where a pigeon changed color. '_'

Yeah but you created in the context of this thread's discussion - thus it has a meaning and a purpose and something you were consciously trying to subvert. The thought process behind it was to try to come up with what you presumed would be something meaningless, but it was to prove a point - thus it gained meaning.

it's a fact that exists to be observed.

Again, we run into objectivism which, honestly, doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. There's a reason Rand isn't considered much by most philopsophers or critics.

having fun is a very human element

Having fun is a moral statement though isn't it? What do you class as fun? How is that different to someone else's? How is 'fun' art seen as different from 'purposeful' art? Whether it's subconscious or not doesn't matter.

[Iris-Grimoire]

I think this goes a little into the meaning of art problem though. Again - a moral doesn't have to be good, or improvement, or even anything remotely significant(edit: looking at Etymonline, it does literally mean good behavior, but I guess it got muddled because people use it along with theme). Maybe the pidgeon comic can be about subverting your expectations of a joke and instead turning into an anti-joke. That's kind of a theme - the color of the pidgeon doesn't matter, but that someone read that comic expecting something and you gave them something very minimal. It can be the theme and moral in itself, no need to be symbolic or even easily put into words, which is what a lot of abstract art does.

Going back to Garfield since I'm not replying to anyone in particular. It could be nihilism, but also, Garfield has to share life with people he, on surface level, doesn't even like. There are days where he hates everyone, there are days where he's happy with them, there are days their presence or lack thereof does something entirely different; but he has to keep interacting with them. It is a theme we all can relate to, and a moral of sorts.

Art that is for the fun of it, has the fun of it as its theme. It's cyclical. You did it because it was entertaining; other people found it entertaining and could think of something else for a second; or they got upset, and hyperfocused on this tiny detail of your art that made them angry. I get that conceptual art is a LOT of the Emperor's New Clothes with a few thousand dollar bills attached to it, had to swallow that stuff for 4 years of art school, but the principle is still kind of interesting to explore.

[KRWright]

Definition of Moral
Derived from the Latin term “morālis,” moral means a message conveyed by, or a lesson learned from, a story, a poem, or an event. It is not necessary that the author or the poet has clearly stated it. It can be left for the audiences or the learners to derive. However, at times, moral is clearly stated in the shape of a proverb.

The moral to a story is a universal aspect of the majority of fictional literature that it not only entertains, but also it serves the purpose of instruction, information, and improvement of the audiences. The chorus in the classical drama, for example, commented upon the proceedings and drew out a message for the audience. The novels of Charles Dickens, on the other hand, address the drawbacks of the social and economic system of Victorian Britain, carrying morals of their own type, which are implicit.

In children’s literature, morals are exclusively introduced by the phrase, “The moral of the story is …” Modern story telling does not employ these explicit techniques, but uses irony and other devices to convey it.

Taken from: https://literarydevices.net/moral/

[DokiDokiTsuna]

Yeah but you created in the context of this thread's discussion - thus it has a meaning and a purpose and something you were consciously trying to subvert. The thought process behind it was to try to come up with what you presumed would be something meaningless, but it was to prove a point - thus it gained meaning.

Dude, that was an example...I came up with the example in the context of the thread's discussion, and the only way such a comic would count as a valid example would be if it had been created separately from this discussion, which was what I meant. Not that it would count if I went and made it solely to prove my point, because THAT clearly wouldn't make sense.

If you need me to tell you, I included that example to bring to mind random comics that people make that depict things that happen just for the hell of it, which do exist. Not necessarily one of my own creation.

Again, we run into objectivism which, honestly, doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. There's a reason Rand isn't considered much by most philopsophers or critics.

...What?

Having fun is a moral statement though isn't it?

Is it, though? I think you should probably support that with something...

What do you class as fun? How is that different to someone else's?

I dunno...but in this case, is a difference in 'fun' really equivalent to a difference in morals? Maybe the eyeball, which is a body part, could be labeled one way or the other...but what if, just for fun, I drew that swirly pattern? Or a cube with one red side and all the other sides blue? Or a lemon? Or a piece of Jello?

What makes these things fun? If someone else decides they're not fun, is that a difference in morals? I think they'd be fun to depict in art. What about that thought constitutes a moral statement?

How is 'fun' art seen as different from 'purposeful' art?

I think it's as simple as a difference in intention. I could paint a red fence and call it a statement about communism. Or I could paint a red fence because red is my favorite color (it is). Either is applicable, and the number of people who support either explanation does not make either explanation more or less valid. The purely subjective intention of the artist is the only thing that truly separates purposeful from fun.

BY THE WAY, IN CASE ANYONE WAS WONDERING WHAT I MEANT IN THE ORIGINAL POST: I was really just talking about morals purposely applied during the creation of the work, as in issues that the author consciously intended to explore, SEPARATELY from what the audience sees in their creation.

The discussion has gotten way more nebulous, and that's fine, but if you want to refer back to where this all began, just know that ^THAT is what I was talking about.

[TAMAnnoying]

I think I agree with you here! but I also feel that the responsibility of interpretation is on both the author and the reader. It’s important for the author to be aware of bias people might have for their work and how they might interpret the moral problems. Such as the idea of a pidgin that becomes pink in the last panel. Someone could always interpret it as a gay or trans joke. An artist should be aware of this possibility. However that dosnt mean that they shouldn’t draw their art for fun.

On the other side an audience member is in their right to interpret the comic strip however they want, but they should also be aware of their own bias, that just because pink is seen as a gay color, dose not mean that that is what the artist wanted people to see out of the comic strip. In som cultures and some places pink is seen as a masculine color for example. Granted both of these interpretation would ultimately be wrong to what the artist wanted. But it’s always good to remember your own bias when reading other peoples work.

As the page you showed me for example. I would not have seen it to be gay- as I come from a background where many of my lady friends are very touchy and very informal. (We call each other names when we see each other at our work place). So I would personally see this scene as childhood friends who are unsure how to react to one another with their new status, one being formal and one being informal. Would I still consider that being secret gay lovers is a possibility? Sure. But it’s not my firsts and it should be the only interpretation I get, as it means I’m not trying to pay attention to the other context you’ve put forward. It would make me an irresponsible reader

[KRWright]

Dude, that was an example...I came up with the example in the context of the thread's discussion, and the only way such a comic would count as a valid example would be if it had been created separately from this discussion, which was what I meant. Not that it would count if I went and made it solely to prove my point, because THAT clearly wouldn't make sense.

Yeah but the point still stands that there is always a triggering feature to creation - even if it's just boredom. There's almost always a message, a meaning. If someone purposefully goes out of their way to say 'there's no meaning' that means either a) they aren't aware of their subconscious biases or b) they are making something that holds the message of having 'no meaning' which is a paradox because that itself has meaning.

I don't know how else to word this again.

...What?

Ayn Rand, who wrote the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, gave birth to the idea of objectivism. That there is an objective truth that can be observed. It's generally thought of as a ill-concieved philosophy, because it's not actually a very good lens through which to view the world and what happens.

Is it, though? I think you should probably support that with something...

Without going too deep - yeah. Someone might find doing things incredibly harmful to others 'fun', like drawing racist propaganda for instance. What you find fun or funny can also be a moral statement.

I dunno...but in this case, is a difference in 'fun' really equivalent to a difference in morals? Maybe the eyeball, which is a body part, could be labeled one way or the other...but what if, just for fun, I drew that swirly pattern? Or a cube with one red side and all the other sides blue? Or a lemon? Or a piece of Jello?

What makes these things fun? If someone else decides they're not fun, is that a difference in morals? I think they'd be fun to depict in art. What about that thought constitutes a moral statement?

We go back to the definition in the first place, and that is that the messaging is part of what makes it and it doesn't have to be intentionally there on the artist's part either.

morals purposely applied during the creation of the work

In which case, we're not really discussing anything. This is fluff and not based in any kind of literary or acadmic theory. It was a discussion that was created where you essentially only wanted one type of answer - one that was very surface level.

Thats fine, but I'm bowing out.

[vfinnigan]

Accepted. The moral is that cats are spoiled rotten gluttons, but we love them anyway.

[burginlewis]

No kidding... did anyone else see the cat run into the end zone during the Dallas game last night? 🤣🤣

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/11/05/black-cat-delayed-an-nfl-game-kevin-harlans-call-was-purr-fect/

[DokiDokiTsuna]

There's almost always a message, a meaning. If someone purposefully goes out of their way to say 'there's no meaning' that means either a) they aren't aware of their subconscious biases or b) they are making something that holds the message of having 'no meaning' which is a paradox because that itself has meaning.

First of all: Your point has merit, but I find it confusing that you said 'almost always', yet you're talking about absolutes. What is this exception you're thinking of that prompted you to write in 'almost', and why isn't it relevant enough to this discussion to actually be mentioned...? I think it ought to be, if it exists.

Second of all: Conclusion (a) is subjective and cannot be proven, and Conclusion (b) still doesn't make sense to me: why does 'having no meaning' count as a message?? I define message as 'something you want to tell someone', but what do I want to tell someone by creating something without the intention of telling anyone anything? (And why should anyone other than me get to decide what that is, if it exists?)

Ayn Rand, who wrote the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, gave birth to the idea of objectivism. That there is an objective truth that can be observed.

Oh...well, in that case, that's not what I was talking about anyway. I was referring more to the fact of 'existence' than 'truth'.

What you find fun or funny can also be a moral statement.

BUT, and this is my point: it doesn't have to be. I'm speaking about that exception, exclusively.

We go back to the definition in the first place, and that is that the messaging is part of what makes it and it doesn't have to be intentionally there on the artist's part either.

...I asked four questions and that statement didn't answer any of them. ._.

It was a discussion that was created where you essentially only wanted one type of answer - one that was very surface level.

Why does everyone assume that when I clarify my original point or intent, it means I 'only wanted a certain type of discussion'?? (I swear I've heard that ten different times at least...) If I really wanted this thread to go in only ONE specific direction, I would have begged for it to be closed hours ago, 'cause even before Garfield was brought up it was WAY off track.

I brought up what I originally meant so that people would KNOW. That's all! For the exact reason I said!! I thought I saw people mentioning the OP here and there, and I thought it would be nice if they didn't have to make assumptions about what I meant...like you obviously saw fit to do. 9_9

Just a disclaimer for the future: I'm not a control freak! I LIKE when discussions go to strange places and end up more interesting than when they started! It's kind of the point of me starting all these topics! >_<
And if I go out of my way to make it clear to you what I originally meant with the original post, it's probably NOT because I want to muzzle you and MOST LIKELY because we're arguing about something and I don't want you to misunderstand me!

[AceRagz]

I only brought up Garfield because the discussion of that there are stories with no morals or point still can be interpreted as having a point or moral by anyone. I just wanted to add to the death of the author discussion going on. If it bothers you I can delete the comment and move on from the topic it's not really abig deal anyways.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

I just wanted to the death of the author discussion going on. If it bothers you I can delete the comment and move on from the topic it's not really abig deal anyways.

God, I hope you're not replying to me...because the whole point of me writing that addendum was to make it clear that I'M FINE WITH IT!

TALK ABOUT WHATEVER YOU WANT THAT'S RELATED TO THE OP; IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME!! >______<

Please, PLEASE, if nothing else; I just want everyone to understand that, PLEASE...what more do I need to say??

[AceRagz]

Doki please calm down. I am only making sure it's okay I didn't want to step on any toes. That's why I said it isn't a big deal because it really isn't either way for me. I just didn't want to accidentally be upsetting you.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

Oh, okay...I'm sorry about all the yelling, by the way; I probably look like a crazy and I don't want anyone to think I'm actually losing my mind and crying behind the keyboard or anything. ^^; It's just my way.

If I were saying that in real life I'd probably still be yelling, but by my tone you'd be able to tell I wasn't that serious.

[vfinnigan]

I don't deliberately write my comics with any single moral. I try not to moralize, but it's because in my particular genre, moralizing means propagandizing, and the people I write about - war veterans - are almost all rather sensitive about writers using their experiences to promote some agenda instead of just sharing their stories. And because that happens so much, many veterans are very leery of any writer or journalist who says, "Your story would make a great book! I'd love to share your stories!"

So I state facts. I don't bash any country, though I also don't shy away from the bad things they have done. This of course means that I also don't write about my own country in some jingoistic nationalist manner. The only time I actually call someone outright evil, I'm only quoting verbatim a veteran describing Saddam Hussein.

Granted, there are still morals that I hope people can draw from the books I've written. Most notably, that veterans aren't action movie stereotypes, but real people with a wide variety of perspectives.

[TAMAnnoying]

I’d just like to say that this is one of my problems with “this work has not morals” because of the simple idea that you’re writing about real people or that (because you’re writing about real events) your list of morals in the story are conflicting and muddled. You can have a story that has a conflicting message and still have morals because the entire point is to make you think and reconsider world views (or just tell a real story of what happened to very brave people)

[vfinnigan]

I think there's some confusion. There is a difference between having moral value and a story having a specific message we might call a moral. A story can have moral value without preaching anything in particular.

A commitment to truth is a moral thing. But if I have to beat people over the head with the message that, for example, the bombing of Guangzhou, the Babi Yar massacre, or the dumping of crude oil into the Persian Gulf are evil, they probably wouldn't understand that or care anyway. If I have to reiterate what the Act of Congress said about the WASP facing injustice and inequity and tell people flat out that racism and sexism are wrong, that won't convince those who disagree. And right or wrong, that veers into propagandizing, which I won't do even though obviously I believe all these things are wrong. I think most people are capable of learning enough by having to empathize with the people whose stories I share.

I think when a story has moral value but no single specific moral, people can derive more than one valuable lesson from it or just have a great time reading it, whatever they want. They might even get a different lesson every time they read the same story. Excessively heavy handed moralizing rarely makes for good reading, anyway.

Then again, I also generally prefer more subtle, less heavy-handed storytelling anyway.