Quote:
Originally Posted by Gráinne
While R.Kelly, MJ, and say, Woody Allen are recent examples, this debate of art vs. artist's character is as old as, well, art.
For example, D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation. Made in 1915, it reflected the attitudes of its time and the 1860's, when it was set. Griffith's father was a colonel in the Confederate Army, and young David must have heard stories. I have no knowledge if D.W. himself was a racist, but do we condemn this movie or recognize it as an art form and jump in movie development?
Or Wagner, of the operas? He was a vicious anti-Semite. Should we never thrill to his "Ride of the Valkyries" again? It's one of my favorites-does that make me awful?
I believe in letting adults use their common sense in what they want to read, hear, watch, etc., and don't want some outside group telling me what I cannot show my children (who have seen BOAN and heard Wagner performed). They realize both Griffith and Wagner were products of their time and place.
If we as a people go down the road of banning things left and right because of the artist's actions, or-and it's not a huge jump to monuments and statues-because the subject didn't have the "right" opinions based on 2019 standards, then we are on a perilous road indeed where we are told what to think and what is "right". Dissension will be punished. There are a few societies, none of which are/were pleasant to live in, in which that was tried.
|
Banning? I think that's a good way to approach the work of an active perpetrator such as R Kelly. There are other approaches that work for me. Right now my personal policy is refusing to support abusers with my money, and opting for compassion for survivors. For instance, I have adamantly refused to spend another cent on anything that might provide Woody Allen with profit. The daughter he abused is a living person who is injured each time her abuser is held up for praise.
I'm an enormous fan of the work of Rodin. When his artistic and romantic partner, Camille Claudel, balked at her erasure from and lack of credit for her contributions to their collaborative pieces, he had her committed to an insane asylum. Rodin was in strong company. Rembrandt had his housekeeper committed to an insane asylum when she sued him in court for breach of contract after he refused to marry her. They had become lovers after the death of Rembrandt's beloved Saskia. Yes, I continue to enjoy the art of those two men, but I never view their work without acknowledging just how craven those men were. Could I enjoy their work if either woman were still alive? Probably not.
Jackson's many victims are very much alive. I can't imagine how painful it is for each of them to hear his work played on the radio. Without warning, many times a day, each of those people might be forced to hear the music, or see the image, of their abuser. Anywhere, anytime. Who knows besides the abused men which songs or images might trigger them? It must be excruciating for many. I choose not to torment survivors of abuse.
I occasionally work with a man who was sexually assaulted by that dumb f*ck, Kevin Spacey. I'm a survivor myself, so I had already recognized his haunted, hunted look before he ever told me about what happened to him when he was a teenager. I no longer have that look myself. Time has been an ally for me. But my co-worker is clearly sent into a terrible place when his abuser is mentioned. Compassion for survivors should be part of our process whenever we discuss how to handle the art of abusers.