The relationship between art and morality plays a secondary role in the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). In this area, Schopenhauer failed to establish consistent principles and incurred contradictions. Nevertheless, it teaches us lessons that are worth examining. For Schopenhauer, artistic experiences (he was in particular referring to playing music and listening to music) help people escape their pressing problems. When enjoying music, theatre, literature or painting, individuals stop perceiving the world and focus their minds on something else. Although Schopenhauer didn’t employ the term “escapism,” his definition of art falls close to this psychological term. One shouldn’t forget that psychologists coined the term “escapism” in the mid-twentieth century, that is, about two hundred years after Schopenhauer’s death. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer theorised that artworks draw viewers into a state of abstraction, meditation or contemplation. Artistic experience can lead viewers to blur the borderline between themselves and an invented world. However, Schopenhauer overlooked several crucial points. I am afraid that he never figured out why some artworks convey a philosophical message and others not. He also failed to grasp the connection between artworks and the artist’s point of view, especially in the area of ethics. In his essay collection “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), Schopenhauer mentions numerous artworks but examines them only from the escapist perspective. His analysis never answers the crucial question: What is the meaning of art? Schopenhauer fails to identify the difference between high- and low-quality art, and shows little concern for what the artist is trying to say. Instead of addressing major questions, Schopenhauer comes up with an abstruse theory. He argues that artworks enable the viewers to connect with underlying truths, that is, with the will (“life force”), which he viewed as the force driving the world. Schopenhauer’s explanations are clearly contradictory. He is saying, on the one hand, that artworks help viewers disconnect from reality. On the other hand, he is also saying that artworks enable viewers to connect with an underlying reality. No wonder that philosophers find Schopenhauer’s theory of art hard to fathom. If he regards artworks as expressions of the will, does it not mean that they all convey similar messages? If artworks represent the will from the artist’s point of view, does it not mean that artists can misrepresent the will’s message? Although Schopenhauer’s books span a three-decade period, they never solve the contradiction outlined above. In fact, later Schopenhauer’s works only deepen the contradiction by adding spurious explanations. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-the-relationship-between-art-and-morality/