In the preface, Wilde writes that "there is no such thing as a moral or immoral book." In other words, art has no effect, other than aesthetic, on individuals or society. Do you agree with Wilde's premise? Does this novel adhere to his statement?

[Kyle]

What do you think?

[Kyle]

I don't agree with his statement. I think that books can be moral or immoral, in that they can teach lessons, both good and bad, to the reader.
For example, in the book, Dorian reads a book that he says changed his outlook on life, even saying it "poisoned" him.
I feel like this book is full of lessons to learn, but Wilde was just trying to defend himself. He was an openly gay man, and so anything he wrote was automatically scandalous. If he said that his book was full of life lessons and everyone should pay attention and learn from it, I think it would only make matters worse for him.

[Hannah]

Well, I think art definitely can have an effect of the way people think (though not all art does). If it didn't, people wouldn't write essays, some would never attempt poetry, and Banksy's art wouldn't even be a thing.
As far as wild basing the book on the idea of art not being moral or immoral: I don't think that was his point at all. In fact, I think maybe Lord Henry was there to present the ideas that Wilde was trying to tear apart. Like, to me, Wilde's whole book was based on the idea that the painting of Dorian Gray was representative of his morality, or actually, his immorality. In Wilde's book, art was used as a means to convey Dorian's transgressions. It wasn't stagnant or impersonal at all - it changed to reflect Dorian's sin and was a mirror of his soul.