Against Morality

by Rosanna Mclaughlin

Genres: Essays

88 pages, Paperback

Published June 24, 2025

Reviews

[Isai Soto]

In Against Morality, McLaughlin describes the flattening of art through its enrapture in moral battles. She weaves between Chaïm Soutines paintings, Tár (2022), Ana Mendieta’s questionable use of Santeria, Dana Schutz’s Open Casket, Gentileschi’s Judith Slaying Holofernes (1611-12), eventually ending with documenta 15. I thought this was fierce, and was well balanced to not be a rallying call for transgression for transgression’s sake.

McLaughlin refers to liberal realism as the simplistic moralizing, and reshaping of art to appease our woke moral senses. For the most part I agree with this. As a post Oct 7 book though, the way she treats the Palestinian genocide does feel like she’s unsure of where she’s supposed to stand in order to get this published. In this case, she perpetuates this flattening in order to appeal to a publisher’s sense the same way she claims that artists shift their art to appeal to an institutional sense.

so she’s right ?

[Lieske Huits]

Thought-provoking, and effectively a critique of the morality of centrism, although annoyingly (probably due to its limited length) it lacks some nuance in setting out "the art world" as its main instigator of Liberal Realism (who are we including in this homogeneous glob that is the art world, and why are we banking so much on the assumption that there is concensus there?).

Also, for me, it raises the issue of how to separate the baby from the bath water, and whether at some point we can contend with dealing with (I apologise for taking this metaphor too far) a very wet baby.

AND ANOTHER THING. While I am sure this idea about the function of art works (mostly) for contemporary art, it is very ahistorical, and in that sense (as perhaps, with most writing on contemporary art that vaguely gestures at art history) would have benefitted from some engagement with how this debate is taking place among art historians of art that predates, say, the First World War.

[A N N A]

One of the most thought provoking, inspiring, fresh and original essays I read in years.

If I would ever become an art teacher, I would want my students to read this.

[Gabby]

Go off Rosanna you compelling queen, this was a damn good essay.

[Natalie Wehrer]

Incredible. Thought provoking. Transgressive even, although by nature, would never claim that title for itself.

[J S]

Absolutely brilliant application of the amoral tendency in philosophy to tangible phenomena (art and the art world) that makes this little book seem almost more useful in a lot of ways than those of other philosophers who have wielded the tendency with what can only seem in comparison to be obscurity.

[melancholinary]

There is something slightly ironic about a short essay like this: a perspective that, only a few years ago, might have been considered fairly normal can now seem controversial. Although it presents itself somewhat provocatively, it is, honestly, one of the best essays I have read this year. McLaughlin’s writing is direct rather than flowery, and she is remarkably clear about what she thinks. In terms of its argument, the essay shows how moral values are increasingly applied to works of art: both through revisionist readings of historical works and through the black-and-white moral frameworks now imposed on contemporary art. It describes a situation in which art has become increasingly biographical, and almost merely an ideological mouthpiece, rather than being judged in relation to its artistic achievements. There is very little room left for transgression. What is also compelling about this short essay is its suggestion that the space for experiencing moral ambiguity and ambivalence is gradually being eroded, as though everything now exists within the political constellation of the extreme centre. In Rosanna McLaughlin’s terms, this is “Liberal Realism”: something like an extension of capitalist realism. Art becomes a platform through which people are expected to understand morality, but only a morality that must be good—and good according to the terms of a particular hegemony. For McLaughlin, this produces a complicated and potentially dangerous consequence: moral controversy can be instrumentalised by the right wing and by reactionary forces.

In relation to the extreme centre, this also made me think about postcolonial Indonesia. In its formative period, the country was very much invested in trying to please everyone across every part of the political spectrum. This was, in many ways, Sukarno’s project—until it lost its direction and was unable to sustain a clear political ideology. This becomes especially resonant at the end of the essay, when McLaughlin offers a sharp critique of documenta fifteen as perhaps the most moralistic contemporary art exhibition imaginable. With its Sukarno-esque spirit of internationalism, and all the controversies surrounding it, documenta fifteen revealed how morality itself can become a problem—particularly when moral standards are altered or selectively applied in response to a work such as Taring Padi’s. It is a genuinely excellent essay that asks us to reconsider art as an experience that can jolt us, disgust us, shock us, or be transgressive and subversive, without having to spoon-feed us a particular set of moral values.

[Yurt]

Yet another under-considered, under-researched, self-aggrandizing cancel culture piece.

The tonal parallels with "Monsters" by Claire Dederer, do not work in its favour.

There is value that could be excavated from the "Liberal Realism" that McLaughlin seeks to define. The text whispers around the edges of something compelling -- the problems of neoliberal multiculturalism; the creepy, extractive ways one can align with a seemingly altruistic cause; the limits of biography as a lens through which one interprets art; how annoying the digital essay world can be.

But McLaughlin can't dismount long enough from her own indignation to focus on landing this plane. Instead she has produced an extremely short book that still manages to burn wordcount on smug asides and tangential accounts of other people's foibles, while under-evidencing some of the text's main points.

One of the book's major grievances (of which there are many) is the authour's impression that huge amounts of funding are being diverted from "good art" in favour of pablum-y "diversity art". Is this true? Maybe. You can't actually tell from this essay if it is, but that won't stop McLaughlin from being mad about it.

This "good" vs "diverse" framing has the same set of issues it always does. At one point the authour compares an art exhibit featuring portraits of queer Aotearoans
to something out of National Geographic. We may ask: who is being positioned here as the inherent opposite of the "good"?

There are more interesting ways to do racism, and there are better ways to seriously interrogate the limits of EDI.

This could have been a real work of media criticism while maintaining the throughline of whiny autobiography, but it fails to deliver a fully considered message or to make its own solipsism compelling.

'Against Morality' is a work of theory by someone who has not done all that much background reading, and it shows.

Also, this book once again proves that a good tweeter does not a good authour make.

Edit: 'Against Morality' is sitting at a 4.2/5 on Goodreads and I want all 64 reviewers to know how much I am judging each and every one of you who rated this highly

[Thomas Condon]

I loved how this essay powerfully and succinctly diagnoses the malaise that has plagued so many aspects of western cultural and political discourse since the late 2010s. Particularly appreciated the identification of ambiguity or the opportunity for individual interpretation as an enemy of the current moral hegemony.

[elle]

3.5. Quite surface level and a bit too many hyperbolic Twitter-isms in the first chapter which took me out of it. I was hoping it would be a bit more challenging.

[Luca Jansberg]

Very interesting, would read again.

[Blair Wallace]

Incredibly thought provoking. Balances a lot of ideas about the future of art, identity politics and placing today’s morals on art of the past well while still remaining punchy.

[Amanda Ahlström]

Det här är så relevant för allting som händer nu och Rosanna sätter ord på så mycket som jag haft svårt att själv uttrycka. Wow 10/10