Morality Question: Objectionable Stereotypes as Symbology

[Feil]

Consider a hypothetical piece of artwork - for this purpose, including any genre you please, be it literature, film, the fine arts, or even a video game or advertisement. This artwork presents a non-objectionable, non-discriminatory message, or perhaps exists merely for its aesthetic beauty. Nevertheless, the composition of the artwork relies upon an objectionable stereotype for its effectiveness or beauty. Is this morally acceptable?

I think so, at least to some degree - but I'm not entirely sure. My thinking goes - objectionability exists on a sliding scale, and if one applies a little ends-means justification to artwork, with the creation of good art being a desirable end which may (and must) outweigh the undesirable means. Put another way, one must answer 'yes' to the following three criteria.

-Is there something objectionable?
-Is it necessary to the artwork's beauty or effectiveness?
-Is the effectiveness of the artwork worth the objectionable something?

I am interested in opinions & arguments.

[Serafine666]

Consider a hypothetical piece of artwork - for this purpose, including any genre you please, be it literature, film, the fine arts, or even a video game or advertisement. This artwork presents a non-objectionable, non-discriminatory message, or perhaps exists merely for its aesthetic beauty. Nevertheless, the composition of the artwork relies upon an objectionable stereotype for its effectiveness or beauty. Is this morally acceptable?

I think so, at least to some degree - but I'm not entirely sure. My thinking goes - objectionability exists on a sliding scale, and if one applies a little ends-means justification to artwork, with the creation of good art being a desirable end which may (and must) outweigh the undesirable means. Put another way, one must answer 'yes' to the following three criteria.

-Is there something objectionable?
-Is it necessary to the artwork's beauty or effectiveness?
-Is the effectiveness of the artwork worth the objectionable something?

I am interested in opinions & arguments.

I believe that an objectionable stereotype can be a necessary sacrifice to attain a piece of great artwork. I'm unsure how you deliberately integrate a stereotype into a piece of work that is vital to its aesthetic appeal although I can see how it would happen. Say your gorgeous aesthetics rely on a certain contrast between light and dark and further, say you're depicting a prison or jail. The contrast can be presented as either light-skinned prisoners and a dark prison or a light prison and dark-skinned prisoners. Of those, one of those (a prison filled with dark-skinned people) can be regarded as a stereotype and a very objectionable one although the painter wasn't trying to convey a stereotype when s/he made that choice. If the painting is sufficiently appealing, however, the stereotype might be overlooked in favor of enjoying the overall beauty just as someone who objects to public nudity with abject horror must swallow their outrage to appreciate certain master works (Michaelangelo's "David", for example).
I think the stereotype overwhelms the aesthetics, however, when the stereotype is obviously malicious. In my prison example above, painting the dark-skinned prisoners with a very animal-like appearance would overwhelm any aesthetic value; depicting a certain people as subhuman is simply so ugly so as to overwhelm any beauty that could be gained.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps some examples would help clarify this question.

[Feil]

Perhaps some examples would help clarify this question.

In Tolkein's Lord of the Rings, the dark-skinned races of the East (including the sub-human Orcs) are cruel, barbaric races threatening to destroy the world, while the light-skinned races of the West are a bastion of civilization and justice. On the other hand, this supports the wider light-dark motif that adds to the effectiveness of the mythology.

The video game The Void uses exaggerated stereotypical gender roles to establish symbolism, make the game subtly disturbing, and simultaneously provide the player with motivation and doubt. The female characters are universally helpless and bound to their homes, whose only ability to influence the world around them is through persuasion, deceit, and seduction. Male characters (including the player character) wield complete power over them and were, we are told, supposed to take care of them, before the world got sick.

In the film The Dark Knight, the only major female character (Rachel Dawes) exists to be an object of attraction for two of the three male leads. She has no character traits aside from being an Ideal Twenty-First Century Hollywood Women (educated, employed at a respectable level but not in leadership, vaguely liberated but fundamentally vulnerable, beautiful, straight, moderately chaste, and looking for a husband). On the other hand, as a motive force for Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent, there's no way the plot could have worked without her.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps some examples would help clarify this question.

In Tolkein's Lord of the Rings, the dark-skinned races of the East (including the sub-human Orcs) are cruel, barbaric races threatening to destroy the world, while the light-skinned races of the West are a bastion of civilization and justice. On the other hand, this supports the wider light-dark motif that adds to the effectiveness of the mythology.

Given the fact that Tolkien openly wanted LOTR to serve as a sort of European mythology, it seems like people should find it objectionable. It's bad enough when one thinks it's a mere coincidence, but when it's actually supposed to be a mythology for Europe, that means the eastern races do represent the actual eastern races in the real world. The parallels with skin colours, the use of elephants, etc don't help.

The video game The Void uses exaggerated stereotypical gender roles to establish symbolism, make the game subtly disturbing, and simultaneously provide the player with motivation and doubt. The female characters are universally helpless and bound to their homes, whose only ability to influence the world around them is through persuasion, deceit, and seduction. Male characters (including the player character) wield complete power over them and were, we are told, supposed to take care of them, before the world got sick.

I've never seen that, so I really can't comment on whether it's justified by some sort of aesthetic need.

In the film The Dark Knight, the only major female character (Rachel Dawes) exists to be an object of attraction for two of the three male leads. She has no character traits aside from being an Ideal Twenty-First Century Hollywood Women (educated, employed at a respectable level but not in leadership, vaguely liberated but fundamentally vulnerable, beautiful, straight, moderately chaste, and looking for a husband). On the other hand, as a motive force for Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent, there's no way the plot could have worked without her.

You could have made her character a lot different and the plot still would have worked equally well (or at least as well as it did in the original film; I was not a big fan).

I don't know if you can ever say that the use of objectionable stereotypes is necessary in a piece of fiction. Someone might do it anyway, and maybe it can be excused for some reason or other, and obviously, once it's already written it's hard to imagine it any other way, but that's a pretty tough criterion. Any major element will be such that it can't be changed without altering the nature of the story. It seems to me that any of these elements could be changed (at least in TDK and LOTR) without ruining the story, as long as you're creative enough.

[Ford Prefect]

Honestly, I would say that objectional stereotypes would be very difficult to use in a positive way. I suppose you could use them in an effort to demonstrate that stereotypes are not necessarily true, but that strikes me as being rather trite and a pretty lazy way to deliver a 'rascism/misogny/whatever is bad' message. The question Feil is asking is pretty weird though, so maybe I'm misinterpretating it. I think that deliberate dissonance in values can be used well, either to make a point or demonstrate the context of the setting, but that's not really what he's asking about.

[Simon_Jester]

Part of it is a matter of degree: how strongly are you invoking a stereotype?

Rachel is effectively a damsel in distress in The Dark Knight, but she isn't shown to be especially brainless or weak compared to normal people; most normal people would be pretty helpless dealing with someone like the Joker, too. So one could argue that the movie only invokes the stereotypical gender role (woman as an object of attraction to be saved by man) in a weak sense, rather than implying that this is the natural universal order, or ought to be.

It's reasonable to grumble about something like that, but I'd stop short of calling it immoral. It's not easy to obsessively police everything you do for the sake of avoiding any resemblance to any possible stereotype that could exist in the mind of anyone. Darth Wong's comments on racism here are relevant; if someone has to remind you that a work is invoking a stereotype, then it isn't really there.

Stronger stereotyping, used specifically as a premise of the setting, such as what Feil implies happens in "The Void," is another matter.

[Ziggy Stardust]

An objectionable stereotype is never NECESSARY, as Darth Wong pointed out, and I hardly see the point in "excusing" it. One can appreciate the aesthetic value of a piece of art without having to morally whitewash it. The classic example of the clash between aesthetics and ethics in art is Riefenstahl's The Triumph of the Will (this isn't an example of a stereotype in art, but my point will work nonetheless). The film is beautiful and technically innovative; it is important from both an artistic and historic standpoint. However, the film advances a morally repugnant world view (i.e. fascism). Some critics try to argue that you can watch the film and appreciate it while ignoring its ethical flaws. Unfortunately, this is not possible, as the ethical message of the film is inseperable from its aesthetic expression. That is, the entire point of the film's beauty is to equate Hitler with the idea of a messiah, German volkisch mythology, and heroism. You can't watch the film without considering what its intent was. However, appreciating the film for its artistic brilliance is not a tacit acceptance of its ethical world view. You don't need to ignore it to reject it.

The same argument can be applied to the scenario in the OP. You can appreciate a work of art with an ethical flaw, and you can acknowledge that ethical flaw, without accepting its moral implications. A good example might be D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation: it is a brilliant movie, but much of the plot relies on the portrayal of the Ku Klux Klan as the heroic saviors and the black folk as stupid and brutish.

[Rye]

Objectionable stereotypes can be necessary, especially for comedy. Little Britain, for instance, relies upon it.