Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Verantwortung in der Kunst

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbuch Verantwortung

Part of the book series: Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften ((SRS))

  • 358 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Gemäß dem radikalen Autonomismus erfüllen Kunstwerke nicht die Bedingungen, um für das, wofür sie moralisch kritisiert werden, verantwortlich zu sein. Kunstwerke werden für ihre moralische(n) Haltung(en) und/oder ihr moralisch-kognitives Potenzial kritisiert. Beide Möglichkeiten der moralischen Kritik an Kunstwerken kann man gegenüber Bedenken des radikalen Autonomismus verteidigen. Kunstwerke können somit sinnvoll moralisch kritisiert werden.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Anderson, James, und Jeffery T. Dean. 1998. Moderate autonomism. British Journal of Aesthetics 38(2): 150–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beardsley, Monroe. 1981. Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism, 2. Aufl. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hacket Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beardsmore, R.W. 1971. Art and morality, 1. Aufl. London: Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, Wayne. 1998. Why banning ethical criticism is a serious mistake. Philosophy and Literature 22: 366–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, Noёl. 1996. Moderate moralism. British Journal of Aesthetics 36(3): 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, Noёl. 1998. Moderate moralism versus moderate autonomism. British Journal of Aesthetics 38(4): 419–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, Noёl. 2000. Art and ethical criticism: An overview of recent directions of research. Ethics 110(2): 350–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, Noёl. 2002. The Wheel of virtue: Art, literature, and moral. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60(1): 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, Noël. 2008. Narrative and ethical life. In Art and ethical criticism, Hrsg. Garry L. Hagberg, 35–62. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conolly, Oliver. 2000. Ethicism and moderate moralism. British Journal of Aesthetics 40(3): 302–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coplan, Amy. 2011. Understanding empathy: Its features and effects. In Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives, Hrsg. Amy Coplan und Peter Goldie, 3–18. Oxford: Oxford University Pres.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, Gregory. 1995. The moral psychology of fiction. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73(2): 250–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devereaux, Mary. 1998. Beauty and evil: The case of Leni Riefenstahl’s triumph of the will. In Aesthetics and ethics: Essays at the intersection, Hrsg. Jerrold Levinson, 1. Aufl., 227–256. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devereaux, Mary. 2004. Moral judgement and works of art: The case of narrative literature. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62(1): 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickie, George. 1964. The myth of the aesthetic attitude. American Philosophical Quarterly 1(1): 56–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickie, George. 1985. Evaluating art. British Journal of Aesthetics 25(1): 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diffey, Terry. 1995. What can we learn from art? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73(2): 204–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foundas, Scott. 2015. Clint Eastwood’s walking wounded: From ‘Dirty Harry’ to ‘American Sniper? http://variety.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.

  • French, David. 2015. American Sniper has created a cultural moment: Here’s why. http://www.nationalreview.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.

  • Gass, William. 1987. Goodness knows nothing of beauty. Harper’s 274: 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaut, Berys. 1993. Interpreting the arts: The patchwork theory. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51(4): 597–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaut, Berys. 1998. The ethical criticism of art. In Aesthetics and ethics: Essays at the intersection, Hrsg. Jerrold Levinson, 1. Aufl., 182–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaut, Berys. 2003. Art and knowledge. In The Oxford handbook of aesthetics, Hrsg. Jerrold Levinson, 1. Aufl., 436–450. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaut, Berys. 2007. Art, emotion and ethics, 1. Aufl. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giovannelli, Alessandro. 2007. The ethical criticism of art: A new mapping of the territory. Philosophia 35: 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griggs, Brandon. 2015. Why ‘American Sniper’ is a smash hit. http://edition.cnn.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03. 2015.

  • Griggy, Brandon und Leopold Todd. 2015. What people get wrong about ‘American Sniper’. http://edition.cnn.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.

  • Gordon, Robert. 2015. ‘American Sniper’s’ sinister philosophy: Pro-war propaganda wrapped in moral truth. http://www.salon.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03. 2015.

  • Howell, Peter. 2015. Think before you shoot, Clint Eastwood says of war: Interview. http://www.thestar.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.

  • Hume, David. 1992. Of the standard of taste. In Essays: Moral, political, and literary, Vol. I, Hrsg. Eugene F. Miller, 1. Aufl., 266–284. Darmstadt: Scientia Verlag Aalen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Matthew. 2015. Clint Eastwood says he and ‘American sniper’ are both ‘Anti-War’. http://www.huffingtonpost.com. Zugegriffen am 24.03.2015.

  • Jacobson, Daniel. 1997. In praise of immoral art. Philosophical Topics 25(1): 155–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, Daniel. 2006. Ethical criticism and the vice of moderation. In Contemporary debates in aestehtics and the philosophy of art, Hrsg. Matthew Kieran, 1. Aufl., 342–355. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, Eileen. 2006. Artistic value and opportunistic moralism. In Contemporary debates in aesthetics and the philosophy of art, Hrsg. Matthew Kieran, 1. Aufl., 332–341. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, Immanuel. 1793. Über den Gemeinspruch. Berlinische Monatsschrift 22: 201–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieran, Matthew. 1996. Art, imagination, and the cultivation of morals. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 54(4): 337–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieran, Matthew. 2002. On obscenity: The thrill and repulsion of the morally prohibited. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64(1): 31–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieran, Matthew. 2003. Forbidden knowledge: The challenge of immoralism. In Art and morality, Hrsg. José Luis Bermúdez und Sebastian Gardner, 1. Aufl., 56–73. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieran, Matthew. 2005. Revealing art, 1. Aufl. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieran, Matthew. 2006. Art, morality and ethics: on the (im)moral character of art works and inter-relations to artistic value. Philosophiy Compass 1(2): 129–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIver Lopes, Dominic. 2011. The myth of (non-aesthetic) artistic value. The Philosophical Quarterly 61(244): 518–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Thomas. 1970. The possibility of altriusm, 1. Aufl. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nehamas, Alexander. 1986. What an author is. The Journal of Philosophy 83(11): 685–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, Amy. 2015. Entry 14: Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper is one of the most mendacious movies of 2014. http://www.slate.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.

  • Nolte, John. 2015. ‘American Sniper’: Same lefts defaming Chris Kyle as ‘Killer’ wanted every Iraqi dead. http://www.breitbart.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.

  • Novitz, David. 1987. Knowledge, fiction and imagination, 1. Aufl. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, Martha. 1990. Finely aware and richly responsible. In Love’s knowledge, Hrsg. Martha Nussbaum, 1. Aufl., 148–167. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitzke, Marc. 2015. Oscar-Kandidat ‚American Sniper’: Scharfschütze im Kreuzfeuer. http://www.spiegel.de. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.

  • Platon. 1989. Der Staat, 11. Aufl. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pole, David. 1962. Morality and the assessment of literature. Philosophy 37(141): 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, Richard. 1997. Against ethical criticism. Philosophy and Literature 21(1): 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, Richard. 1998. Against ethical criticism: Part II. Philosophy and Literature 22(2): 394–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmalzried, Lisa Katharin. 2014. Kunst, Fiktion und Moral, 1. Aufl. Münster: mentis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, Oliver. 2001. Kunst, Erkenntnis und Verstehen. Eine Verteidigung einer kognitivistischen Ästhetik. In Wozu Kunst? Die Frage nach ihrer Funktion, Hrsg. Bernd Kleimann und Reinold Schmücker, 1. Aufl., 34–48. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidney, Philip. 1966. The defense of poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stecker, Robert. 1994. Art interpretation. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 52(2): 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stecker, Robert. 2005. The interaction of ethical and aesthetic value. British Journal of Aesthetics 45(2): 138–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stolnitz, Jerome. 1992. On the Cognitive Triviality of Art. British Journal of Aesthetics 32(3): 191–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Stueber, Karsten. 2014. Empathy. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Hrsg Edward N. Zalta, (Winter 2014 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu

  • Suebsaeng, Asawin. 2015. Oscar-nominated ‘American Sniper’ made Joe Biden cry. http://www.thedailybeast.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.

  • Taibbi, Matt. 2015. ‘American Sniper’ is almost too dumb to criticize. http://www.rollingstone.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.

  • Tolstoi, Leo. 1998. Was ist Kunst? Eine Studie, 1. Aufl. Schutterwald: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hehir, Andrews. 2015. ‘American Sniper’ and the culture wars: why the movie’s not what you think it is. http://www.salon.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.

  • Walton, Kendall. 1990. Mimesis as make-believe, 1. Aufl. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Kendall. 1994. Morals in fiction and fictional morality. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 68: 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilde, Oscar. 2009. Das Bildnis des Dorian Gray, 1. Aufl. Frankfurt a.M.: Insel Taschenbuch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt, William Kurtz und Monroe Beardsley. 1978. The intentional fallacy. In Philosophy looks at the arts, Hrsg. Joseph Margolis, 1. Aufl., 293–306. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1996. Ethik, Leben, Glaube. In Ludwig Wittgenstein: Ein Reader, Hrsg. Anthony Kenny, 1. Aufl., 351–373. Stuttgart: Reclam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zurcher, Anthony. 21.01.2015. American Sniper: Was Chris Kyle really a hero? http://www.bbc.com. Zugegriffen am 25.03.2015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophisches Seminar, Universität Luzern, Frohburgstr. 3, 6002, Luzern, Schweiz

    Lisa Katharin Schmalzried

Authors
  1. Lisa Katharin Schmalzried
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Katharin Schmalzried .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophisches Seminar, Universität Kiel, Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

    Ludger Heidbrink

  2. Philosophisches Seminar, Universität Kiel, Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

    Claus Langbehn

  3. Kiel, Germany

    Janina Sombetzki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this entry

Cite this entry

Schmalzried, L.K. (2016). Verantwortung in der Kunst. In: Heidbrink, L., Langbehn, C., Sombetzki, J. (eds) Handbuch Verantwortung. Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06175-3_35-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06175-3_35-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-06175-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Sozialwissenschaften und Recht

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation