Is an Artistic Life a Virtuous Life?
- Oct 4, 2022
- 5 min read
Updated: Jun 22
The connection between imagination and morality
If you’re going to talk about a philosophy or a world view, at some point you’re going to have to address the elephant in the room. Is what you’re putting out there actually a good thing not just for an individual but for society? Is it moral?
Right off the bat, one thing about this question makes me a little uncomfortable. Morality? Because it sounds like a list of rules is coming.
But that's not what the Blue Flower is about.
Traditional philosophy is definitely about that. It often asks questions like: What's the right thing to do? Should I lie to protect a friend? Should I keep a promise even if it hurts someone?
Everyone is familiar with the famous trolley problem where basically philosophers are asking whether it's morally defensible to push a stranger in front of a trolley to save five people. Philosophers have spent centuries debating variations of questions like these.
But this is not Blue Flower territory. Blue Flower philosophy asks a different question:
What kind of person are you becoming?
The Blue Flower flows from things like imagination, wonder, courage, empathy, beauty, friendship—all these great things. But at its base, it flows from being awake to life. Being engaged. Not whether you've memorized some kind of rule book.
But of course, at some point the questions overlap.
Because if all these things matter so much—beauty, imagination, etc., then we have to ask ourselves how this impacts the way we treat other people.
And this brings us back to the artistic life.
I know what you're thinking, because when people hear “artistic life,” they think about painters, or musicians, maybe writers or actors. But they usually don't think about morality.
And there's probably a good reason for that. Because frankly, there are a lot of very talented artists who were pretty bad, selfish, narcissistic people. Caravaggio, who was accused of murder, just popped into my mind, but there are countless others.
Of course, artistic talent has nothing to do with character.
So I want to get that objection out of the way right off the bat.
Being an artist is very different than living artistically.
Being an artist is a profession. But living artistically is a way of being in the world.
And this is what I want to talk about.
Because the Blue Flower was never about becoming a poet or a painter. It's about approaching life in a certain way, creatively, with imagination. It's about seeing the magic in the ordinary, seeing possibilities where others might miss them. It's about paying attention.
Parents can live artistically. So can teachers, scientists. Entrepreneurs.
Anyone can live artistically. The Blue Flower was never reserved for artists.
The question then becomes whether any of this has to do with becoming a better human being.
Because the Romantics definitely thought there was a connection.
And it wasn't because pursuing the Blue Flower makes people good. That's silly. It's because living artistically helps to develop some of the qualities that goodness depends on.
Take Wordsworth, one of his most famous lines is:
"The best portion of a good man's life is his little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love."
Notice what he's talking about here. Not big heroic acts. Not a moral code. He's talking about attention, small acts. Ordinary kindness. He's talking about an ability to recognize other people's needs. That's a moral skill. But also, if you think about it, it's an artistic skill.
Because artists pay attention. Remember the Modigliani room, where we stopped to notice the details that everyone else was walking past. This attention, according to the Romantics, can extend beyond beauty or nature to other people, to our relationships.
And then there's Kant- everyone knows what he said about morality. It’s essentially the Golden Rule— one of the most influential ideas in moral philosophy: treat people as ends in themselves rather than merely as means.
But the question is how do we actually learn to see people that way?
And that's once again, where imagination enters the conversation.
And for me, Richard Rorty as well. Because he makes a direct connection between imagination and morality.
Rorty’s central claim is that moral progress doesn’t come from any kind of foundation or universal moral law or reasoning. It comes rather from our ability to identify with others. Ok, you might say. Makes sense. But how?
And then we bring in his famous quote:
"The novel, the movie, and the TV program have gradually, but steadily, replaced the sermon and the treatise as the principal vehicles of moral change and progress."
It's kind of an amazing claim because what he's saying is that stories often change us more than arguments do. And now, if you’re like me, you might be skeptical —"Is this true?” And yet, the impact of stories is undeniable.
Charlotte’s Web
Most of us can remember a story that changed the way we saw the world. For me, one that comes to mind was Charlotte's Web. The book doesn’t contain a philosophical argument. But it did make me care deeply about a pig and a spider, things I would have never even thought about. And looking back, that's exactly what Rorty is talking about. Stories expand our sympathies. They allow us to step outside ourselves and experience the world through different eyes.
But why is this the case?
It's because stories carry emotions.
That’s the secret. It’s why I created Sparkle Valley. Stories allow us to enter into lives that aren't our own and see the world through others’ eyes. Even a spider’s or a pig’s.
Rorty isn’t working with a rule book here. For him it’s simply about becoming less cruel.
And it’s only when we look beyond ourselves, when a stranger stops being a stranger, and his suffering becomes real to us, that this happens.
And that's why for him, “solidarity” is something we create rather than discover.
And this is where Rorty and the Romantics meet.
They meet at imagination. Because imagination is the engine that drives the whole process and allows us to see beyond ourselves.
Lord Byron talked about compassion cultivating a sense of morality:
"The dew of compassion is a tear."
Charles Taylor argued that our relationships defined us.
"Our sense of worth, of well-being, even our sanity depends upon our being able to sustain important relationships."
All these Romantics recognized that morality doesn't occur in isolation. It happens between people, and imagination is what helps bridge the gap.
That brings us to Schiller. He wrote:
"Beauty is the pilot of life."
Out of context, it sounds banal and unrelated to morality. But what Schiller is talking about is that beauty helps to create qualities like reflection and empathy. And that beauty guides us, slows us down. It's what reminds us that life isn't simply a collection of problems to be solved or transactions. Beauty as a pilot in this sense enlarges our world.
The artistic and moral life intersect.
And that's why the Blue Flower matters. It has nothing to do with becoming an artist. It keeps us awake to beauty, to possibility. It therefore keeps us awake to other people.
The Blue Flower is the longing for something more. And if it's pursued honestly, it will lead us outward, toward compassion and more solidarity with others.
So while there is no direct correlation between living an artistic life and a virtuous life, living artistically leads naturally to some of the qualities that virtue requires. Attention, imagination, and most importantly, the ability to see beyond yourself.
Keep Exploring
