@
richardp ...When I think about the question of how we judge artists who do terrible things and whether we can separate the individual from their art, I guess I take it on a case by case basis, and I judge them based on a number of factors...
First...Is this an individual artist or was this a collaborative project? I've specifically thought about this with the films of Roman Polanski. The guy should be ostracized from the film scene forever, but how should we look at his films in retrospect, films that were the result of many different people's talents? For example, Mia Farrow is a huge part of why Rosemary's Baby is great. I'd argue it's her best performance and that her life's work doesn't deserve to be sacrificed because of Polanski. It's not fair to punish someone unrelated. Polanski doesn't OWN the entire film. I contrast this with the poet Ezra Pound, who was a fascist who literally gave speeches cheering on the genocide of Jews. He's a "solo" artist, so I'm fine saying that we should condemn him and his work. That said, this isn't always an easy question, because a piece of art may be
somewhat collaborative and yet heavily dominated by one person. House of Cards is a collaborative project, but Spacey is the center of the whole thing, so I personally couldn't watch the show and ignore him. And like Allegro said, this may or may not also be the case with certain bands.
Second...How much of the art itself directly overlaps with the artists wrong doing? For example, I was absolutely horrified to learn that Miles Davis beat his wives. I haven't listened to his music much since learning that, and I haven't decided how to think about it. That said, instrumental jazz music really has no obvious direct relation to domestic violence, so I can at least see the
potential for someone arguing that this music can be enjoyed despite the terrible actions of the artist. I'm not saying that someone is wrong for condemning the work of Miles Davis, but I'm just saying I feel that it's
somewhat easier to argue for the separation of the art from the person when the art itself is so thematically unrelated. Contrast that with Louis CK, whose work addresses masturbation, and it's just too close for comfort. Like how am I supposed to tune that out or not make an instant connection between his comedy bits and his real life actions? Or, for example, I could never listen to R. Kelly's music given that I'd be listening to a bunch of sex jams by a person who is a pathological rapist/abuser of minors. I literally can't imagine a worse choice of an artist to have soundtrack your sexual experiences.
Third...What capacity is there for complexity in this artist's work, specifically with regard to their own wrong doing? What I mean is, is this person's art still worthwhile for the sake of understanding the very thing that they did wrong? One example I can think of is the southern gothic writer Flannery O'Connor. In some of her personal letters, she wrote some fairly racist stuff. And yet I think her own fiction writing is still important for the purpose of condemning southern racism and critiquing the hypocrisy of southern culture as a whole. Her stories directly confront racism within her own culture, the passing along of racism from generation to generation, etc. So I feel like it's fair to say that Flannery O'Connor was a complicated person who, depsite her flaws, did something good by attacking the very things that compromised herself. I don't feel that this is the case with, say, John Wayne, who was a gross racist shithead and who never contributed to any piece of art that tried to address racism or that might complicate our understanding of him, so I say fuck him.
I could write more but... I'm just trying to explain that, for me, it's a complicated thing that I judge on a case by case basis and I think about it from LOTS of different angles. And I also fully admit that some of my ideas may be wrong. My position on this stuff is far from perfect, nor is it static.
Originally Posted by Mantra
Reply With Quote