area of knowledge of Ethics and the way of knowing of Reason.

Knowledge questions: To what extent is it ethical to glamorize/glorify immoral behavior through artistic add campaigns?

Real life situation:

Dolce & Gabbana



The controversial predecessor to Calvin Klein’s sexual assault advert; one of Dolce & Gabbana’s 2007 ad was pulled in several countries as it was thought to ‘glorify rape’.

Some people will look at this add and automatically presume it must be a result of the repulsive male mas-agonist pricks running the fashion industry. others will be astounded by the provocative nature of the add as a whole and suggest that it is anti feminism and shows severe disregard to the concepts of gender equality. The reason we cannot make these assumptions and regard the add as being completely inappropriate is because it has "Artistic Value" which leads me to my knowledge question:

To what extent is it ethical to glamorize/glorify immoral behavior through artistic add campaigns?

Art is a form of expression, and Fashion is regarded as art. the question remains, do we really have the right to judge this add if it a form of artistic expression? Rape, murder, theft slander, drug abuse and many other forms of immoral behavior are expressed through different artistic mediums such as paintings, music, fashion, poetry and many others. we listen to songs with inappropriate lyrics promoting drugs and violence, not necessarily being influenced by them but respecting the message they send purely because we classify it as "ART"

The following add shows a woman being held down by a man while two men watch on in amusement. they are all dressed very elegantly and the woman's sexual demeanor and helpless expression clearly portrays her as the victim in this situation.  or is it? is it possible that the add could signify something completely different? perhaps the image is a fantastical depiction of the woman's sexual fantasies? and if this where the case, doesn't that make the woman the dominant figure in the photograph? which leads me to my next point. Perspective. 

How can we label this image as being immoral or "wrong" if we all have different interpretations of the work? Non of us know the intentions of the designer for this particular add, all we know is what our minds tell us, which is result of of our personal beliefs and ideals. thus there is no way for us to accurately interpret what is going on in this photograph in its original context. 

However, the add was still banned from 23 countries. does this suggest that perhaps there is a form of global understanding? and that not everyone interpenetrates the image completely differently and that the photograph is universally rejected? this particular add was published in over 115 major fashion magazines including vogue and Marie Claire which shows that there was some form of appreciation for the photo's artistic value. Which proves that controversial subjects are more accepted when expressed through artistic mediums.

Another example of immorality expressed through artistic advertising is the Sisley fifth avenue add poster:

So does making it art make it right? This goes back to the concept of propaganda, and promoting brands and people through artistic pathways such as music and colorful advertisements. propaganda is often used to sell things and ideas with aren't necessarily morally correct and can be seen as a form of "Brainwashing" due to the fact that it involves the manipulation of the product being sold as well as the misinterpretation of it. 

In my opinion the photograph about isn't necessarily advertising rape through fashion, but advertising fashion through rape. What i mean by this is that the provocative nature of the add is meant to capture you and make the brand seem more interesting and riskay. I do not think that the intention of the designer was to use his brand to promote rape culture, but rather to give it the edge that it needed to spark people's imaginations and provoke their curiosity. 

science and uncertainty

The article on science in relation to error really opened my eyes when it came to the lack of certainty that came along with science. I immediately started thinking about our education system and i started to wonder about the things i had learnt in biology class today. Science evolves around discovery, finding out new information, but often this new information is different from the old information. So how do i know that the things i learn in science class are really viable? We were talking about HIV aids in class today and when we asked about a cure for the virus the answer was "there is no cure" i began to wonder, about all the diseases in the past that probably didn't have cures that perfectly treatable today, and this led me to think about about how the things i learn in biology today will differ from the things my children will learn 30 years from now. Its a taunting thought. The idea that perhaps what i am learning maybe wrong. That even something as credible as science isn't really set in stone. 

In the article there was an expressed fear of the dangers of the never ending quest for knowledge that is science. I do not share the same fear. In my opinion knowledge is key and even though it is a never ending cycle of trial and error we are always one step closer to finding an answer. Science and the discovery of new information does nothing but benefit us as human beings. Think of all the amazing phenomenons that have come out the advancements in technology over the years. The recently created electronic heart could save millions of people who are currently on waiting lists for heart donors, with this new technology they might have a chance of survival. New prosthetic limbs are being created for amputees that feel more and more realistic, a new prosthetic leg that is being worked on is said to be the most realistic feeling one yet. Advancements are not only being made in medicine but also in electronics. The new hybrid is said to run on minimum fuel consumption with the speed and efficiency of an SUV. 

All of these discoveries wouldn't have been made without dedicated scientists searching for answers. If we hold science back we are holding ourselves back because the more you know the more you can use to your advantage. The more knowledge we obtain the more we are able to manipulate it, we can only make changes and improvements in the world if we work to discover its secrets. We take umbrella's out with us when we see grey clouds because we were taught that grey clouds indicate rain. This is all knowledge that is proven and discovered by science and we depend on it 100% everyday in everything we do. We must support it, but we must also question it. In order to advance in science we must also accept that we never really have the answers, which is strange because it sort of questions the whole point of it. If we never really learn anything and all of our assumptions are always faulty then why continue with any research at all? in my opinion in order for us to advance as a race we must continue to grow and evolve.

 The real issue with science is just the constant changing of information. Alot of people wont be willing to let go of the things they had initially learnt because of new advancements in technology. The reason behind this in my opinion is the way in which we are educated. We are taught in school that the things we learn are factual and there isn't really a grey area. When i  open my biology textbook i see alot of bullet points with sentences highlighted in red with the words "NEED TO KNOW" printed in big bold letters above them. in school science is presented as concluded research, as something that is finished and remains the same forever when in reality this is not the case. so how are human beings expected to accept constant advancements in technology when every generation is brought up to believe that the information we learnt in school is constant and unchanging?

Sudanese cultural markings (sholokh)

In Sudan we have a cultural practice called Sholokh. basically it consists of men and women cutting small pieces of their flesh to make patterns and markings. men do it to indicate that they have gone to battle and women do it because it is thought to be beautiful. This tradition has gone on for years and it is one of the only pure Sudanese traditions left in the culture. 

Tribal marks which can also be described as facial marks though well dominated in Africa, can be traced to some foreigners who were living in Egypt in the 5th century BC. During that time, a Greek historian, Herodotus wrote about some foreigners living in Egypt who cut their foreheads with knives to differentiate themselves from the Egyptians. This practice was further adopted years later when several kings of various kingdoms in Africa, started invading other kings and their people for land and other resources. The invaders therefore mark themselves as well as their family members to differentiate themselves from the captured kings and their family members whom they now regard as their slaves. so it not only for beauty but is a sign of wealth and represents high social standing. 

Tribal marks are mostly given to people at a very young age most especially when they are babies. This is because at that age, the child doesn't have a say on decisions to giving him/her tribal marks. The people who make these marks use either razor blades or sharp knives to cut the face and they have native dye, pigmentation or black paste usually from grinded charcoal dust which is put into the open wound to stain the marks, stop the bleeding and to make the wound heal fast. It is the black paste applied to the wound that makes the mark permanent and never fade away growing alongside the bearer.