Well, his argument is not very convincing, to say the least. How does he define ‘good art’? or more accurately, define ‘good’ and define ‘art’? From a constructivist point of view, both concepts are social constructions, linked to specific interest groups in a specific context and timeframe. So can he make such generalising, sweeping statements about societies, even continents, and about artists? Is art not a highly individualistic and autonomous exercise? The societal context, what is its importance? Besides, the artist has only limited control over the work of art itself, which has its own course and identity. Often, the work of art may show itself in a different manner than the artist planned or foresaw. Francis Bacon, for instance, in a certain period, could not sell his finished paintings, but he did sell work that were studies only, unfinished work. Interesting is Murray’s idea that ‘good art’ should have a ‘moral content’, if not, it would remain sterile. Yes, quality art will often have different layers of meaning, or will allow the spectator to imagine such meaning. But that does not necessarily refer to moral statements.
In his article, Murray shows himself as a highly moralistic Christian-fundamentalist, with a rather limited understanding about art or artists….