Separating the Artist from the Work

[LDAHL]

I heard an interesting discussion of this in a podcast, and have talked about it with my kid. To what extent, if any, should we let negative things we know about an artist color our view of their work? Realizing in this context “negative” is a somewhat subjective term.

Should a history of abusing women and children affect our enjoyment of R Kelly, John Lennon, Woody Allen or Bill Cosby? Or the anti-semitism of Mel Gibson or Wagner? Or if the artist is viewed as a TERF, fascist, communist, atheist, anti-Catholic, jingoist or any other outlook one might take issue with? If someone turned up something negative about Shakespeare, should we stop reading “the Tempest”? I’m not talking about views expressed in the work itself, but the behaviors and attitudes of their creators.

On the one hand, you could say we should enjoy a work in it’s own right without burdening it with a lot of extraneous baggage. On the other, you might say that choosing to enjoy a particular piece of art is an act of self-creation for which we need to take some level of personal responsibility. It may matter if the artist is living or dead. I don’t think many people care about the personal morals of the people who built the Parthenon. For instance, suppose Hitler was an absolutely brilliant painter. I could see our views of his work being different between 1946 and 2496. Does (or should) time make a difference?

[happystuff]

You have squeezed a lot of questions into the OP!

My initial thoughts are that "appreciation" and "support" can be - and maybe should be - two separate things. While I may be able to appreciate a painting by Hitler, that doesn't mean that I support Hitler, either as a person or an artist. These two are not mutually exclusive so it is possible to not appreciate and not support, to support and not appreciate, to not support and appreciate, or appreciate and support.

Throw "time" into the mix and I think you will often get different answers. People change over time. Experiences, knowledge, etc. often cause the baser "likes" and "dislikes" to change. For example, I used to like the children's singer, Rafi (even as an adult), but now - not so much. My taste in art, literature, even religion, has changed as I have changed. So, yes, I think time CAN make a difference - not necessarily DOES make a difference.

Really looking forward to reading what others say!

[razz]

People are complex beings, all of us, with warts and strengths. different values, different time frames, degree of notoriety in the public sphere ... To judge another using the same challenges in criteria is tough.

EG - I attended an exhibit of David Bowie's art with his songs played in the background. I couldn't wait to get out of there. Never interested in him so knew nothing of any warts or strengths but felt it was an uninteresting display of his art, both aural and visual.

The OP question is a good conversation starter, though.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I may choose to enjoy aspects of the art, but I'd be unlikely perhaps to pay for it if it was objectionable enough (not that anyone cares if we are talking Shakespeare, I think the copyright has long since expired :) ). But it's as if I'm otherwise buying art of various sorts all the time? Well no, not really, but if I wanted to I could. Even books it's mostly used though really.

[catherine]

When I go to a museum, I don't ask to see biographies, citizenship grades, rap sheets, or Facebook pages of the artist. I respond to the art. Same for when I read a poem, or see a play.

A person's character may intentionally or unintentionally be reflected in their art, but that's irrelevant to my personal experience with the work itself.

[iris lilies]

Before happystuff replied I was thinking that the passing of time has something to do with this.

I’m sure most of the great artists whose works have stood the test of time were misogynist, sexist, racist, or -IST in some way. Time is a factor here because the art itself stands on its own, outside of the context of our current culture.

I don’t see how you can separate the artist from his art with contemporary artists. That doesn’t mean that you have to eschew the art of a bad person. It means the artist himself is a factor in today’s world. A couple centuries from now, the “badness “of the person will not be a factor. Unless of course the art is specifically representing something evil.

Hitler’s landscapes have only survived in interest because of the artist himself, not because of quality of the art.

[Rogar]

I don't think there is a one size fits all, but would separate performing arts compared to static arts. For example, I don't think I could separate Clapton, Cosby, Woody Allen, etc. from their real life persona since their negative image is closely associated with their art. I've never been a fan of Wagner since his music portrays overt power and supremacy, at least to me, but I really don't know a lot about him. In some ways painting and sculpture have a bigger physical separation of art and artist but their artwork may be more likely to reflect each other and would have to go more case by case. I think the further back in time the art goes, the less important.

There is also the positive side. For example I might like Neil Young for his stance on wars or Andy Goldworthy's environmental sculptures.

[iris lilies]

Wait, why is Eric Clapton negative? I just can’t keep up. “Layla” is one of the top 10 rock ballads ever produced.

[Rogar]

Wait, why is Eric Clapton negative? I just can’t keep up. “Layla” is one of the top 10 rock ballads ever produced..

He's an anti-vaxxer. Maybe it doesn't bother his fans, but it bothers me.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/eric-clapton-vaccine-lockdown-racist-comments-1239027/

EDIT: For that matter, what's the deal with John Lennon in the OP? That's a new one for me.

[Teacher Terry]

I guess I missed that John Lennon abused women and children. From what I read he was abused by that nut job Yoko Ono.

[rosarugosa]

What an interesting question, and I agree with Rogar that it's not really black and white. If an artist is living, I don't think I would want to give financial support to someone whose values were diametrically opposed to my own, sort of the same "vote with your wallet" mentality as when you try to support local small businesses, for example. If the artist is dead, this would be less of a concern, especially if long dead. On the other hand, hanging a painting in your home by Hitler would definitely be making some sort of statement , regardless of the merits of the actual painting.
Iris makes a good point about artists of old most likely being "ists." I've thought about this in the context of the whole "cancel culture" movement. I think some consideration must be given to the person's context - place, time, culture. For example, I won't hold it against George Washington that he probably wasn't a feminist. And I'll bet there were people who worked tirelessly to free the slaves and win civil rights for blacks who used terminology that would be very offensive today.
I do buy modest works of art, and I do not tirelessly research the artists first by any means.
I have heard that John Lennon was not a nice person and I'm a bit disgusted with Eric Clapton, but I still like some of their music.

[early morning]

IMO, it would seem that art - intentionally produced art, at least -is an expression by the producer, and I don't see how the artist's world-view can be separate from that expression. To me, that's why the further back in time the artist made the work, the less we know about their world view, and about their world at large (in general - we know the big-picture stuff but little nuance) - and thus the less personality and opinions are judged as part of the work. I know art scholars study those things, but the general consumer of art is less informed - I know I am!! But to separate a current artist from their work, to support one and not the other, is harder. Once I know something very negative about an artist, it is very hard for me to NOT see that stance in their work. In addition, just as I don't wish to support business people/businesses I find objectionable, I don't wish to support, with my dollars, artists who espouse views and act in ways I vehemently disagree with. There are shades of grey in all of this, of course. Good question, and something I've often discussed with myself, lol.

[Yppej]

To me one consideration is did the person know they were doing wrong?

I don't listen to Michael Jackson for this reason. But I might read a novel by someone from the Victorian era whose views were not seen as wrong then, but are now.

I also allow room for redemption. A rock and roll singer could extol drugs in lyrics but later go to rehab and change. Bob Dylan is one who underwent a conversion experience.

[catherine]

I think it takes the fun out of enjoying art if you are all tied up in judging the artist. Too much work to navigate their moral compass and align it with their art.

[Simplemind]

I can appreciate without supporting. Kind of like the saying "I love you but I don't like your behavior right now". I can love the art and intensely dislike what the artist is known for in other areas of their life. I come from a family of artists and I take it at face value. I look at art every day. I rarely know the name of the artist and rarely would I even go so far as to find the name let alone the biography.

[catherine]

To me one consideration is did the person know they were doing wrong?

I don't listen to Michael Jackson for this reason. But I might read a novel by someone from the Victorian era whose views were not seen as wrong then, but are now.

I also allow room for redemption. A rock and roll singer could extol drugs in lyrics but later go to rehab and change. Bob Dylan is one who underwent a conversion experience.

Michael Jackson and Bob Dylan wouldn't even come close to my threshold for using their behavior as a metric for their art. And, really, how do I know what goes on in a person's soul? This form of censuring beauty because of the creator's human flaws is way too Inquisition or Fahrenheit 451 for me.

[Yppej]

Michael Jackson and Bob Dylan wouldn't even come close to my threshold for using their behavior as a metric for their art. And, really, how do I know what goes on in a person's soul? This form of censuring beauty because of the creator's human flaws is way too Inquisition or Fahrenheit 451 for me.

I don't search out dirt on artists and didn't know about Dylan's faults until he outed himself.

As to Michael Jackson, being a serial child molester definitely meets my threshold and the news of it was pretty inescapable. I imagine he was a victim himself - recall his comment, "Before you judge me, ask me about my childhood" - but to me that is still no justification. His nephew Taryll was molested by another uncle of his. There have been many sex abuse scandals covered up in the Jehovah's Witnesses church. This was not unusual in Jackson's circle. I feel for the victims.

[early morning]

I can appreciate without supporting
agree - and I don't seek out info on artists. However, if that information comes to me, be it positive or negative, I am unable to remove it from my head. It becomes a part of the lens I am using when I see / hear work by that artist. It may not be fair or right, and I don't always particularly like it, but there it is. Obviously, others' MMV. And that's a good thing! :)

[iris lilies]

It is probably “…ist” to malign Yoko Ono who, we are told by feminists, was a beacon of originality, a strong visionary artist in her own right. She is now seen through a lens of The Patriarchy for breaking up that Beatles gang, her life becoming a footnote to her dead husband’s life as is typical in our misogynist method of drawing womyn’s history. And etc. Just sayin’ the view from Feminist Land.

Speaking of womyn, That JK Rowling, author of Harry Potter, is garnering a ton of media attention for her
“…ist” proclamations.

There are many criticisms of the Harry Potter books I could make, but steering children away from them because of the author’s opinion on current cultural affairs is not one of them.

This is a clear case of Not-Hitler’s landscapes. His are not artistically worthy in their own right, but Rowling’s children’s books are artistically worthy.

[LDAHL]

How about cases where a normally apolitical artist is pressured by some anonymous internet mob or other to “use their platform” to promote some view? As seems to have happened with Taylor Swift.

Or, perhaps more commonly, demands some craven act of contrition from some figure for merely associating with a transgressor? Like that comic who foolishly became a friend of Dave Chapelle thirty-odd years ago, and must now answer for his opinions.

Would this sort of thing be possible without the felt need for maintaining a social media presence as a prerequisite for fame? I don’t care about my dentist’s political philosophy. I certainly don’t apply a moral litmus test when I need a plumber. I don’t even bother with Yelp reviews because I have no idea if the reviewers are shills or crazed Karens who get a sense of power from badmouthing others.

[iris lilies]

How about cases where a normally apolitical artist is pressured by some anonymous internet mob or other to “use their platform” to promote some view? As seems to have happened with Taylor Swift.

Or, perhaps more commonly, demands some craven act of contrition from some figure for merely associating with a transgressor? Like that comic who foolishly became a friend of Dave Chapelle thirty-odd years ago, and must now answer for his opinions.

Would this sort of thing be possible without the felt need for maintaining a social media presence as a prerequisite for fame? I don’t care about my dentist’s political philosophy. I certainly don’t apply a moral litmus test when I need a plumber. I don’t even bother with Yelp reviews because I have no idea if the reviewers are shills or crazed Karens who get a sense of power from badmouthing others.
You would be surprised at the number of people who think that “voting with my pocketbook” and not hiring that plumber who wears a MAGA hat is the right thing to do. Me, I completely respect competent tradesmen and I know that those people will never get their plumbing fixed because it’s hard enough to get tradesmen here of any political stripe let alone when you cut out half of them.

I still remember the scuttlebutt that came to our ears, when DH was working. One of his customers, also a Frenemy of ours, warned another customer that DH might listen to Rush Limbaugh while he was working in his house so beware, be forewarned, perhaps wear protective gear on his delicate ears.


But DH was so good, so inexpensive, so reliable, that she could not afford to NOT use him.


The forwarned guy told us about this, laughing a little, because he is a gay man who is sympathetic to certain Republican ideals and he was not afraid to say that. But the social signaling and slicing by identity was very strong even back then and that was what, a good 15 years ago?

[catherine]

Where are the certified confessors (ie priests) when we need them? Everyone and their mothers are taking on the role of confessor and doling out both penance and absolution, and I think social media is to blame. It has made cartoon Hatfield and McCoy cartoon characters out of us all. Not hire a plumber because he has a MAGA hat? Not hire a contractor/builder because he listens to Rush Limbaugh? Really??

[iris lilies]

Where are the certified confessors (ie priests) when we need them? Everyone and their mothers are taking on the role of confessor and doling out both penance and absolution, and I think social media is to blame. It has made cartoon Hatfield and McCoy cartoon characters out of us all. Not hire a plumber because he has a MAGA hat? Not hire a contractor/builder because he listens to Rush Limbaugh? Really??

That is very interesting concept, that societies might need a designated confessor where we can push those who transgress against society at a level that’s lighter than getting the law involved.

I don’t mind social censure for those who transgress, I just want to know what the pathway back is. I don’t want to see most people permanently banned. There is not a clear method of laying aside the sin when there’s no actual confessional.

I watch Michael Jackson videos because he is an astonishing artist, probably the most brilliant pop culture musical artist to come along In 50 years, but I don’t consider his diddling of small boys in that fandom.

[catherine]

That is very interesting concept, that societies might need a designated confessor where we can push those who transgress against society at a level that’s lighter than getting the law involved.

I don’t mind social censure for those who transgress, I just want to know what the pathway back is. I don’t want to see most people permanently banned. There is not a clear method of laying aside the sin when there’s no actual confessional.

I watch Michael Jackson videos because he is an astonishing artist, probably the most brilliant pop culture musical artist to come along In 50 years, but I don’t consider his diddling of small boys in that fandom.

We definitely had a lot of shunning back when "society" was limited to a block or a neighborhood or a church congregation. When my mother divorced in 1964 (horrors!) people were still pleasant to her face, but she didn't get invited to too many kaffeklatsches. But now that people can react to celebrity misdoings via FB, Twitter, you name it, the confessors come in the form of 1k tweets which collectively sway public opinion and rolls it up into a big public shunning.