"No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style." - Oscar Wilde, Preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray.

"Mannerism" in Wilde's usage means a distinct style or trait, rather than the Italian school of art. All artists have mannerisms. Though the work I've shown here has quite a bit of range, there are enough things in common that the photographs can usually be attributed to me fairly easily. It's the term "unacceptable" that's puzzling. Unacceptable to whom? Is distasteful the same as unacceptable? And most specifically, what does "ethical sympathy" mean?

Ethics, unlike morality, is universal and absolute. Is "ethical sympathy" a choosing of sides? Does Wilde mean that an artist must not make artistic decisions based on ethics?

There are artists who "have a message." Usually those artists who are trying to say something specific don't make anything profound. But examples such as Salgado counter the argument.

Or maybe not. Salgado has a message and it defines all of his work. The message and style are equivalent. He is trying to make the world better. But Wilde also said "All art is useless." If Salgado's work is useful, is it art?

Perhaps Wilde's quote at the beginning is simply license to ignore ethics in making art. But that doesn't seem right either. I'll have to think about this some more.

(The model is Myra, photographed in my hotel room in Kiel, Germany.)