Artistic Creation and Ethical Criticism by Ted Nannicelli

BOOK REVIEW A is ic C ea ion and E hical C i icism by Ted Nannicelli Monika Bokiniec Uni e si y o Gdan´sk, PL CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Monika Bokiniec Uni e si y o Gdan´sk, PL [email p o ec ed] TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Bokiniec, Monika. ‘A is ic C ea ion and E hical C i icism by Ted Nannicelli.’ Es e ika: The Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics LIX/XV, no. 1 (2022): pp. 80–84. DOI: h ps://doi. o g/10.33134/eeja.323 A book e iew o Ted Nannicelli, A is ic C ea ion and E hical C i icism. New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2020, 288 pp. ISBN 9780197507247. In philosophical aes he ics, he deba e on a and mo ali y is usually ph ased as a ques ion o whe he he mo al alue o an a wo k has any bea ing on i s aes he ic alue. In his A is ic C ea ion and E hical C i icism, Nannicelli o e s an explana ion o his ocus. Acco ding o him, he schola s who ini ially con ibu ed o he deba e ancho ed he discussion in he in e p e a ion o li e a u e. As a esul , hey ypically ad oca ed a posi ion ha Nannicelli calls pe spec i ism – namely, an in e p e a ion- cen ed app oach ha aims a mo ally e alua ing he e hical pe spec i e ha an a wo k exp esses, endo ses, o p esc ibes o i s audience. Ano he eason o he ocus has a isen om associa ing his app oach wi h he aes he ic cogni i ism deba e, amed by he ques ion o whe he a can be a sou ce o mo al knowledge. While impo an , he exclusi e ocus on he ela ionship be ween mo al and aes he ic alues sides eps many o he equally signi ican ques ions, such as hose abou he c ea ion and p oduc ion o a , he e ec s ha a may ha e on he audience, he mo al and social consequences o a , and issues pe aining o censo ship. Nannicelli’s wo k b ings some o hese ques ions o ocus, especially he e hical issues ela ed o he p oduc ion p ocess o a wo ks. The pe spec i is app oach o he ela ionship be ween mo ali y and a has, i seems, passed i s momen um. The map o po en ially de endable posi ions has ins ead been d awn along he mo alism–au onomism–immo alism axis. Nannicelli’s book con ibu es o he e i al o he deba e on a wo ks’ mo al and aes he ic e alua ion. I does so by highligh ing hemes and a o ms ha ha e, up o ecen ly, emained in he ma gins o he deba e. In his ega d, Nannicelli’s book compa es o ano he con ibu ion o 81Bokiniec Es e ika DOI: 10.33134/eeja.323 he heme – namely, James Ha old’s Dange ous A : On Mo al C i icism o A wo ks (Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2020). Bo h Nannicelli and Ha old subsc ibe o en enched posi ions wi hin he adi ional deba e on aes he ic and mo al alue by iden i ying as a mode a e mo alis and a mode a e au onomis , espec i ely. Howe e , he p ima y ocus o hese wo books lies elsewhe e. Thei mos ou s anding achie emen s consis in hei ea men o ques ions ha a e ele an o he wide public and hus pa e he way o philosophy o con ibu e o social li e. The co e ques ion add essed by bo h books is: wha is he p ope objec o he e hical c i icism o a ? In con as o he adi ional aming o he deba e, bo h Nannicelli and Ha old p opose a shi o ocus, Ha old by emphasizing he e ec s o a , Nannicelli by u ning o he p ocess o a is ic p oduc ion. This e iew explo es he p oposal o e ed by Nannicelli.1 Nannicelli ad oca es a ‘p oduc ion-based accoun ’ as a iable and o en mo e ui ul al e na i e o pe spec i ism bo h in philosophical aes he ics and e hical c i icism o a :2 ins ead o ocusing on he wo k i sel , we should u n o i s p oduc ion and i s ci cums ances, such as he ea men o human subjec s (especially in pho og aphy), animals, he en i onmen , o he bea ing o he a is ’s mo al cha ac e on c ea ing a wo ks. The i s pa o his book is dedica ed o in es iga ing he objec ions o pe spec i ism and he po en ial bene i s o a p oduc ion-based app oach. Pe spec i ism aces se e al challenges. Despi e i s p ominence among academics and c i ics (o gene ally ‘ he cognoscen i o he a wo ld’, p. 105), i a ely has any bea ing on e e yday encoun e s wi h a o public policies, pa ly because o i s connec ion o aes he ic cogni i ism, which, acco ding o Nannicelli, elies on empi ical claims unsubs an ia ed by e idence. Mo eo e , pe spec i ism assumes ag eemen abou he wo k’s meaning (called, by Nannicelli, ‘local c i ical monism’, p. 39), which, howe e , is p ac ically una ainable. The same a wo k may allow in e p e a ions sugges ing i s mo al p aisewo hiness and ep ehensibili y, depending on he eading. As long as he a wo k’s meaning is no se led, i s mo al alence emains unse led as well. In Nannicelli’s iew, c i ical plu alism, which ecognizes ‘ easonable in e p e i e disag eemen s among equally in o med c i ics’ (p. 11), suppo s he p oduc ion-o ien ed app oach. I allows o mo e objec i e e alua ion since we migh no be able o be o he same mind ega ding he in e p e a ion o he wo k bu can s ill ag ee on he mo al e alua ion o speci ic ac ions he a is has aken, especially i we conside po en ial ha m done by hei ac ions ( o example, aking a pho og aph o a naked child o ha ing a sha k hun ed and killed o he pu pose o c ea ing an a wo k). Nannicelli poin s ou ha he easibili y o pe spec i ism depends mainly on he domain o i s applica ion: ‘ he medium o he a wo k is pa ly de e mina i e o he so s o e hical c i icism o which i is open’ (p. 72). Pe spec i ism can only be applied o a wo ks wi h iden i iable pe spec i es o a i udes. Howe e , many a is ic domains, such as some non- ep esen a ional and non-na a i e ins ances o ins alla ions, pe o mance a o land a , do no all in o his ca ego y. E en i he a wo k p esen s iden i iable pe spec i es, i emains open o p oduc ion-o ien ed c i icism. The e o e, Nannicelli aims no o ejec pe spec i ism bu a he o explo e o he meaning ul 1 Fo a discussion o he o me , see I is Vidma Jo ano ic´ and Valen ina Ma ianna S upnik, ‘C i ical No e on Ha old’s Dange ous A ’, his issue o Es e ika. 2 Nannicelli delibe a ely uses ‘e hical’ and ‘mo al’ in e changeably. 82Bokiniec Es e ika DOI: 10.33134/eeja.323 ways o p ac ice e hical c i icism. In his iew, pe spec i ism and p oduc ion-o ien ed app oaches a e ‘mo e o less app op ia e in di e en con ex s’ (p. 72). The need o go beyond pe spec i ism in he e hical c i icism o a becomes e en mo e p essing i we wan i o ha e an ac ual impac on people’s li es, as Nannicelli does: o answe i al p ac ical ques ions ha people, especially amid he con o e sies o he ‘pos -#me oo’ e a, legi ima ely ha e abou he mo al aspec s o a . In Nannicelli’s wo ds, ‘ his was no me ely an academic ma e ’ (p. 1) bu some hing ‘people wan o know’ (p. 3). His goal is no o answe any speci ic mo al ques ions bu a he o so ou he possible, sound, and aluable ways o answe ing hem. Pe spec i ism, which has domina ed he philosophical deba e, ails o espond o such conce ns, a leas no o mos o hem. The p oduc ion-o ien ed app oach, oo ed in i ue e hics and con ex ualism, is close o ou daily e hical e alua ion p ac ice – no only in he con ex o a bu also in gene al. A wo ks a e p oduc s o in en ional ac ions, and hese ac ions should be aken in o accoun in he e alua ion o he ou come. A e de eloping a concep ual ounda ion o his p oduc ion-o ien ed app oach, Nannicelli de o es he second pa o his book o showing how he app oach can be ui ully applied o a ious ields o a , such as pho og aphy, en i onmen al a , and s and-up comedy. E en in cases whe e he a wo k is ep esen a ional and hus mo e eadily open o in e p e a ion in e ms o i s pe spec i e, he e is a p ope place o he p oduc ion- o ien ed app oach. In his sense, pe spec i ism and he p oduc ion-o ien ed app oach may be complemen a y. Howe e , he e a e si ua ions in a p oduc ion in which he wo app oaches a e no ea ed as complemen a y; in such cases, Nannicelli a gues, he p oduc ion-o ien ed app oach should ake p ecedence. Nannicelli illus a es his poin wi h examples om pho og aphy, whe e ou o e all assessmen o he wo k includes he way in which human subjec s ha e been ea ed in he p oduc ion p ocess. Some imes, ‘in ou o e all assessmen s o he ela i e e hical alue o dis alue o pho og aphs, he e hical alue (o dis alue) we asc ibe o a pho og aph om a p oduc ion-o ien ed poin o e ides he e hical alue (o dis alue) we asc ibe o a pho og aph om a pe spec i is app oach’ (p. 72). In e alua ing pho og aphs, we should, o example, ake in o accoun whe he he human subjec s po ayed ha e been in he posi ion o gi ing in o med consen o being pho og aphed in ce ain si ua ions. This line o a gumen can be ex ended o o he a o ms. Fo example, i we assume ha we ha e mo al obliga ions o animals and he na u al en i onmen , mo al ques ions in ol ed in a p oduc ion become essen ial o assessing a wo ks c ea ed in ields like bio a o land a . As Nannicelli obse es, he e he disc epancy becomes e en mo e s iking be ween he pe spec i is app oach, which is in luen ial among heo is s and c i ics, and he p oduc ion-o ien ed ocus o he a -in e es ed public. The mo al ques ion behind many a wo ks discussed in Chap e s 4 and 5 is whe he a is s ha e he igh o ea li ing and eeling c ea u es as p ops in hei a -making p ocess. Al hough his ques ion is, acco ding o Nannicelli, he main conce n o he gene al public, i is o en ei he o e looked by c i ics who adop pe spec i ism o no ed bu conside ed i ele an in compa ison wi h he wo k’s meaning. The ailu e o ake he p oduc ion p ocess se iously enough is pa ly mo i a ed by he common idea ha he p oduc , an a wo k, is some hing independen o ha p ocess. Howe e , Nannicelli claims his is no always ob ious and depends mainly on he medium. Pe o mance a o ac ion a would se e as examples o domains whe e he p ocess is e iden ly a pa o he wo k’s iden i y and hus emains a alid objec o 83Bokiniec Es e ika DOI: 10.33134/eeja.323 e hical c i icism. Ne e heless, as is also he case in a wo ks wi h di e en ‘on ological s ipes’ (p. 119), he p ocess may become pa o he wo k’s a is ic iden i y, e en i no in an ob iously s aigh o wa d way. Discussing Damien Hi s ’s The Physical Impossibili y o Dea h in he Mind o Someone Li ing (1991), Nannicelli concludes: [I] killing and p ese ing a sha k in o maldehyde in a pa icula a -his o ical con ex is pa o he iden i y o Hi s ’s wo k and imbues i wi h a is ic alue, hen he e is no p incipled eason by which we can deny ha he e y same ac ion also a ec s he wo k’s e hical alue. To he ex en ha hun ing a sha k o he pu poses o c ea ing a is une hical, i yields a p o an o e hical law in Hi s ’s a wo k. (p. 122) He makes a simila a gumen o he impo ance o he mo al e alua ion o a is ic in e en ions in he na u al en i onmen , such as land a , which app op ia es pa o he land as an elemen o i s iden i y. I he land was ha med du ing he making o he wo k, hen he e hical law o his wo k becomes i s aes he ic law. Finally, Nannicelli discusses he ques ion o he ex en o which he a is ’s cha ac e legi ima ely bea s upon he mo al judgemen o a wo ks hey p oduce. He app oaches he ques ion in wo ways: by examining he ela ionship be ween he a is ’s cha ac e and hei wo k in he speci ic case o s and-up comedy (Chap e 8) and by discussing he mo e gene al ques ion known as he ‘wicked a is p oblem’, ocusing on examples om music and pain ing (Chap e 9). In s and-up comedy, he answe seems ela i ely s aigh o wa d. Inso a as he comedian’s cha ac e and wha we know abou he comic’s ac ual li e is cons i u i e o he in e locu o y o ce o hei wo ks h ough hei on-s age pe sona, he a is s’ cha ac e ma e s in ou o e all a is ic e alua ion o hei pe o mance. Does his en ail ha he en i e body o wo k p oduced by an a is wi h a ques ionable mo al cha ac e would be ‘ ain ed’ mo ally and hus a is ically? As Nannicelli obse es, he gene al public o en calls o he ejec ion o he a is ’s en i e wo k based on some newly acqui ed ac s abou hei misconduc . Nannicelli disag ees wi h his conclusion: he a is ’s cha ac e and ac ions a e ele an only in cases in which we can demons a e ha hey a e ea u ed in o he wo k and explain how. As he concludes: Fo he mo al cha ac e o he a is o legi ima ely bea upon ou app ecia ion o he a wo k qua a , ea u es o hei mo al cha ac e mus igu e in o a causal explana ion o he wo k’s a is ic ea u es such ha i he wo k had been c ea ed by someone wi h a di e en mo al cha ac e , i would ha e subs an i ely di e en a is ic p ope ies. (p. 238) In o he wo ds, we mus ha e a is ic easons o suspec ha a pa icula a wo k is mo ally ain ed and p o ide a causal explana ion o he wo k’s o mal o con en ea u es. One issue in he book ha aises po en ial doub s is ou abili y o es ablish he co ec iew on how he wo k was p oduced and on he a is ’s in en ional ac ions while c ea ing i . In he p oduc ion-o ien ed app oach, hese a e he p ima y g ounds o e alua ing a wo ks mo ally. The p oblem is e en mo e isible when he e is a ime gap be ween he con ex s o c ea ion and ecep ion3 – a poin ha Nannicelli ecognizes 3 Nannicelli illus a es his p oblem wi h D. W. G i i h’s The Bi h o a Na ion (1915) and con o e sies su ounding he ilm’s ecep ion oday. 84Bokiniec Es e ika DOI: 10.33134/eeja.323 TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Bokiniec, Monika. ‘A is ic C ea ion and E hical C i icism by Ted Nannicelli.’ Es e ika: The Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics LIX/XV, no. 1 (2022): pp. 80–84. DOI: h ps://doi. o g/10.33134/eeja.323 Published: 15 Ma ch 2022 COPYRIGHT: © 2022 The Au ho (s). This is an open-access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License (CC-BY 4.0), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal au ho and sou ce a e c edi ed. See h p:// c ea i ecommons.o g/ licenses/by/4.0/. Es e ika: The Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics is a pee - e iewed open access jou nal published by Helsinki Uni e si y P ess in coope a ion wi h he Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y in P ague. bu does no sa is ac o ily se le. In ac , i seems ha he a gumen he de elops agains pe spec i ism by ques ioning he possibili y o a unique in e p e a ion o an a wo k migh be equally applicable o he p oduc ion-o ien ed app oach. While i may be easie o de e mine ac s abou he a is ’s ac ions in some cases o a is ic p oduc ion and ake hem in o accoun in ou o e all app aisal o he wo k, such as hose in ol ing he p oblema ic use o animals o o he o ms o abuse, o he cases a e less s aigh o wa d. As we mo e owa ds he a is ’s cha ac e o mo i a ion o c ea ing he a wo k, he uni ocal e alua ion o ele an ‘ ac s’ may be as inaccessible o us as ag eemen abou he wo k’s pe spec i e in he case o in e p e a ion-o ien ed app oaches. Acco dingly, appealing o hem as g ounds o e hical c i icism may be jus as ela i e as in he case o pe spec i ism. Finally, al hough Nannicelli add esses p oblems ha a e a ma e o public deba e (such as he exploi a ion o animals o child en, o he a is ’s cha ac e ), how his book ac ually akes pa in his deba e emains a ma e o discussion. Ne e heless, o a eade willing o engage wi h Nannicelli’s philosophically in ica e language and complex conside a ion o he heme, he book will se e as a ese oi o in o med a gumen s and examples. COMPETING INTERESTS The au ho has no compe ing in e es s o decla e.