The goal of this paper is methodological. It offers a comprehensive mapping of the theoretical positions on the ethical criticism of art, correcting omissions and inadequacies in the conceptual framework adopted in the current debate. Three principles are recommended as general guidelines: ethical amenability, basic value pluralism, and relativity to ethical dimension. Hence a taxonomy distinguishing between different versions of autonomism, moralism, and immoralism is established, by reference to criteria that are different from what emerging in the current literature. The (...) mapping is then proved capable of (1) locating the various theories that have been proposed so far and clarifying such theories’ real commitments, (2) having the correct relationship with actual art making and art criticism practices, and (3) showing the real weight of the alleged counter-example to a moralist position of a work that succeeds artistically because of its immorality. (shrink)

Abstract: The practice of architectural criticism is supercharged with ethical evaluations. But do they have any bearing on the architectural value of a building? And how are the ethical value of an architectural work and its aesthetic value related? I defend the following answers, which define a version of moderate moralism with respect to architecture: An architectural work will in some cases be (1) architecturally flawed (or meritorious) due to the fact that it has ethical flaws (or merits), (2) aesthetically (...) flawed (or meritorious) due to the fact that it has ethical flaws (or merits), and (3) ethically flawed (or meritorious) due to the fact that it has aesthetic flaws (or merits). (shrink)