(Scroll down for topic intro)
THE VENUE: Caffè Nero
It is now autumn, so we will meet indoors for the next few months.
When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Nero location.
Note that we may combine the events if one location attracts too few signups. Look out for updates nearer the time. The locations are only 2 minutes apart.
We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.
An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.
Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.
There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.
WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)
THE TOPIC: Is some art depraved and what should we do about it?
Thank you to Richard for preparing this week's topic.
This topic is inspired by Daisy Dixon's 2026 book Depraved: The Story of Dangerous Art, and some ideas are taken from there. But this write-up does not seek to represent her position, and our discussion will not assume knowledge of the book.
What counts as depravity?
The obvious category is obscenity. When there is also cruelty, lack of consent, or the involvement of children, the likelihood of our identifying depravity goes up. Indeed, without any such elements, judgements of depravity may depend on the values of specific times. For example, homosexuality used to be thought depraved, but in many societies that is no longer so.
Cruelty without any obscene aspect might also count as depraved, especially if the victims were random people or animals.
Criminality that was heedless of the interests of other people or of society might be thought depraved, even without physical violence. It seems to take a certain and very unpleasant kind of person to engage in serious crime casually.
Another category, recognised much more now than in earlier centuries, would be oppression that involves casual disregard of the status of the victims as independent human beings. Examples are women and racial minorities. There seems to be something very wrong with a mindset that regards such oppression as acceptable.
Can mere representations be depraved?
We think of a person, call him or her B, and B's actions as depraved. And it seems that a requirement is that other people, call them C and D, are adversely affected by B's actions. But art only represents what people may do. It does not have an adverse effect on C and D, except through B's deciding to view the art and then deciding to imitate the actions portrayed in it.
So is the art innocent because any impact flows through B's free decision? Or is the art depraved because quite a few people who view it will be drawn into imitating the actions portrayed? Or even just drawn into imagining imitation, even if they are not at all likely actually to imitate?
If art can be depraved for imitation reasons, does the fault lie in what is portrayed, or in the way it is portrayed? Maybe the same actions could be portrayed in a way that encouraged revulsion (so not likely to tempt B), or in a way that encouraged enjoyment (so very likely to tempt B, at least to imagining imitation and maybe to actual imitation). It is after all a feature of art that the manner of portrayal is central. Art is meant to draw us in and inspire us. It is not a neutral report on whatever is portrayed.
Finally, is it somehow depraved to enjoy the work of an artist who is known to have led a wicked life? And does that make the work depraved?
What should we do about depraved art?
Should we destroy some art? Or would that be to impose our current judgements on future generations who could no longer see the original works? (We could not destroy all copies or photographs, even if we wanted to.)
Should we control access to certain works? But who would decide who was appropriately qualified to see them for scholarly purposes? And again, copies and photographs would still be available.
Should we add information at art exhibitions about the content or the origins of works?
Should we just say that it is up to each person what art to see and how to react to it?
Please come along on Sunday, with examples in mind.
