Thank you for writing this. I have strong feelings about this topic. Except for the time I was incapacitated with illness in a hospital and was assaulted by a doctor, I have mostly been able to evade serious attack from predatory men. In college, I was dropped as one's advisee when I didn't follow orders, which in turn jeopardized by graduation. I've had the bait and switch of being told I was going to a place to meet people and it turned out to be the man alone. Being a touch (or more) Aspie, I have a very hard time reading people in real life, and so as a non-white woman I was even more vulnerable.
I am perhaps too sensitive for this debate... but I would love to give more praise for talented artists who are not depraved. I really think our culture needs this right now. More than ever really. We should shift our focus to make it crystal clear to this generation and beyond that this behavior should never have been tolerated... and there are seriously so many talented non-creepers out there. Maybe they didn't get recognition because they were not complete self-centered assholes... I don't know. But we should find them and recognize them, and it could also help support their own goodness by making decency part of their identity. (I know that I feel more accountable when people highlight good things I do. I don't want to disappoint anyone.)
My brother used the word solipsistic to complain about coverage of the Vietnam War. His unusual use of the word (at least within the context of my fraternal experience) caused his judgment to stick with me, regardless of the context. I wanted to protest, though, that great novelists, eg the novelists winning the Nobel prize, and poets (see your text, above) tend to engage in copious amounts of self-reflection. Is solipsism, like omphaloskepsis, intrinsically negative?
I don’t actually know if either is first or intrinsically negative. Though the latter is usually meant to convey a certain self-centeredness, I guess huh.
Or let’s just celebrate art, not the creator of it.
I agree with much of your analysis here, but the difficulty I see here is the ability for this concept of the personal life, flaws etc being wrapped up in how we view the art or the work in general is that this can be totally weaponised against the much needed societal dissent. And it is being used so with ever greater frequency.
A simple smear, some rumours or even just some labels on social media and hey presto, the power structure in our society which is vicious, war hungry and profiteering and drug pedalling madness can just get rid of a vital voice. Not by arguing against or wrestling with their analysis and dissident commentary, but by ignoring it and going for the personality. And those are murky waters. As disgusting as the power dynamic and its abuse in the horrific ways you describe are, those murky waters will be far more destructive to humanity in the long wrong. Because one thing is abundantly clear as we scream headlong towards environmental collapse and a seemingly unavoidable massive military conflict, this our power structure has got to change. And that will require loud and numerous dissident voices to be heard. Including dissent like yours calling out that infantile and destructive power dynamics within the now, on the whole, morally bankrupt world of academia.
Take MLK forward to today. He’d be hounded and shut down for his philandering, all that beauty erased and gagged because of what would likely be framed as his abuse of his position.
So i’s urge you please to be careful what you wish for. And as a footnote, Robert “neoliberalcon economic policy thug” Reich preaching about honour..... his record there, the havoc that man has played a big part in unleashing (not personal life, his work and output, in a sense, his art) should have seen him removed from the massive pedestal he now occupies a long time ago.
It’s a pendulum, isn’t it: swinging back and forth from one extreme to the other and hitting all gradations in between on its journey.
The question of separating the art from the artist is always a huge conundrum, one I tend to get into in many of my literature courses with my students., and some of my other art classes too. Honestly, I don’t know if it’s possible to completely separate the art from the artist who created it. We’re all humans, and extremely social animals at that. It’s always an interesting conversation, and my students have lots of questions as they hash it out--does the art have value if nothing from the human is taken into account when talking about it? Is it even possible to do that? Why do we forgive some bad behavior and not others? Is it only okay to do that if it’s really good art? How can we tell? Who gets to say?
Love Michael Jackson’s first two albums. Still do, abhor his alleged actions.
Love the poetry of WB Yeats, hate his fascist tendencies.
Neil Young , totally donkey, but wow that music. The moment the art is out, it’s humanity’s, not the artist’s anymore. That’s the deal - whether the artist sees it that way or not.
But hey, whatever way people want to view it. But there is an impact of how we view things, that is observable/possible to conclude.
So you’re not actually separating the art from the bad behavior of the artist--you’re still quite conscious of it. What you’re doing is you’re reconciling your appreciation for the art with the bad things the artist did. In doing this, you’re not forgiving the artist but you’re giving yourself permission to like their work in spite of them. This is what I mean when I say we can’t actually separate the art from the artist. What we can do, though, is find ways to appreciate the art in spite of the bad guy who’s the artist. I’m not really articulating this as well as I just did in conversation with my partner but I hope you see what I mean.
Also, I totally agree that once the art is published/in the world, it no longer belongs to the artist, it belongs to the reader/viewer/consumer. Notable (problematic) author Lewis Carroll said just this, when asked what his work meant: he said nope that’s up to you, it’s not mine anymore.
Yeah - i get what you mean. In that sense, society makes it very difficult not to “know” about the life of the artist. But i think for me the separation is that the knowing does not in any way affect my appreciation or reaction to their art. The knowing bit is just some academic fact in my head, like a remembered line from a movie. My reaction to art, whilst it obviously involves the brain, is something more than just that. Heart/soul/spirit whatever name we want to put on it.
And if i hear a random new song or see a random new painting, i rarely know anything at all about the artist, so therefore..... i guess i just have a different perspective as to how it functions, certainly internally for me.
That does not mean I condone what he is alleged to have done. that is just not for me to take action on. That's for courts etc. It's a particularly modern idea that how one behaves taints the art. What do we really know about writers, sculptors etc from ages past.....? Very little. Yet, many are lionised with aboslutely no questions.
Also, has Woody been found guilty of anything? I get that it looks bad, but that's hardly conclusive.
Oh, Jenn, this is the kind of navel-gazing I love, because you are looking so far beyond your own navel. I do agree that we artsy women at places like Naropa - dear lord, haven’t thought of that place or the Black Mountain Poets for awhile - were groomed to think that Great Men of Art could do anything they want - for the sake of the Art, always with a capital A - blech! A curse upon these egoists, preying on young women and men with their own dreams. We are still living with this attitude and its consequences.
But enough about me 😉 #MeToo has been much on my mind of late, partly because the obvious predators (hello, Russell Brand) keep getting exposed, but also because the continual ramp-up of AI bots talking with us so helpfully feels like a means of expression being forced on me, no matter how much I say no. We’re all being groomed to tolerate a profound imbalance power in our very platforms for communication. AO: artificial omphaloskepsis.
AO! Wow that’s very interesting, isn’t it. And yes--so much of the conversation around AI right now is about consent. The glaring problem with AI seems to be a problem of consent.
Thank you for writing this. I have strong feelings about this topic. Except for the time I was incapacitated with illness in a hospital and was assaulted by a doctor, I have mostly been able to evade serious attack from predatory men. In college, I was dropped as one's advisee when I didn't follow orders, which in turn jeopardized by graduation. I've had the bait and switch of being told I was going to a place to meet people and it turned out to be the man alone. Being a touch (or more) Aspie, I have a very hard time reading people in real life, and so as a non-white woman I was even more vulnerable.
I am perhaps too sensitive for this debate... but I would love to give more praise for talented artists who are not depraved. I really think our culture needs this right now. More than ever really. We should shift our focus to make it crystal clear to this generation and beyond that this behavior should never have been tolerated... and there are seriously so many talented non-creepers out there. Maybe they didn't get recognition because they were not complete self-centered assholes... I don't know. But we should find them and recognize them, and it could also help support their own goodness by making decency part of their identity. (I know that I feel more accountable when people highlight good things I do. I don't want to disappoint anyone.)
Absolutely we need them more than ever. Thank you so much for this comment—it’s such a widespread thing, isn’t it. And it affects us all.
My brother used the word solipsistic to complain about coverage of the Vietnam War. His unusual use of the word (at least within the context of my fraternal experience) caused his judgment to stick with me, regardless of the context. I wanted to protest, though, that great novelists, eg the novelists winning the Nobel prize, and poets (see your text, above) tend to engage in copious amounts of self-reflection. Is solipsism, like omphaloskepsis, intrinsically negative?
I don’t actually know if either is first or intrinsically negative. Though the latter is usually meant to convey a certain self-centeredness, I guess huh.
Or let’s just celebrate art, not the creator of it.
I agree with much of your analysis here, but the difficulty I see here is the ability for this concept of the personal life, flaws etc being wrapped up in how we view the art or the work in general is that this can be totally weaponised against the much needed societal dissent. And it is being used so with ever greater frequency.
A simple smear, some rumours or even just some labels on social media and hey presto, the power structure in our society which is vicious, war hungry and profiteering and drug pedalling madness can just get rid of a vital voice. Not by arguing against or wrestling with their analysis and dissident commentary, but by ignoring it and going for the personality. And those are murky waters. As disgusting as the power dynamic and its abuse in the horrific ways you describe are, those murky waters will be far more destructive to humanity in the long wrong. Because one thing is abundantly clear as we scream headlong towards environmental collapse and a seemingly unavoidable massive military conflict, this our power structure has got to change. And that will require loud and numerous dissident voices to be heard. Including dissent like yours calling out that infantile and destructive power dynamics within the now, on the whole, morally bankrupt world of academia.
Take MLK forward to today. He’d be hounded and shut down for his philandering, all that beauty erased and gagged because of what would likely be framed as his abuse of his position.
So i’s urge you please to be careful what you wish for. And as a footnote, Robert “neoliberalcon economic policy thug” Reich preaching about honour..... his record there, the havoc that man has played a big part in unleashing (not personal life, his work and output, in a sense, his art) should have seen him removed from the massive pedestal he now occupies a long time ago.
A well written piece, thanks. And be well :)
It’s a pendulum, isn’t it: swinging back and forth from one extreme to the other and hitting all gradations in between on its journey.
The question of separating the art from the artist is always a huge conundrum, one I tend to get into in many of my literature courses with my students., and some of my other art classes too. Honestly, I don’t know if it’s possible to completely separate the art from the artist who created it. We’re all humans, and extremely social animals at that. It’s always an interesting conversation, and my students have lots of questions as they hash it out--does the art have value if nothing from the human is taken into account when talking about it? Is it even possible to do that? Why do we forgive some bad behavior and not others? Is it only okay to do that if it’s really good art? How can we tell? Who gets to say?
Thanks for your comment!
I think it is possible.
Love Michael Jackson’s first two albums. Still do, abhor his alleged actions.
Love the poetry of WB Yeats, hate his fascist tendencies.
Neil Young , totally donkey, but wow that music. The moment the art is out, it’s humanity’s, not the artist’s anymore. That’s the deal - whether the artist sees it that way or not.
But hey, whatever way people want to view it. But there is an impact of how we view things, that is observable/possible to conclude.
Good chat indeed :)
So you’re not actually separating the art from the bad behavior of the artist--you’re still quite conscious of it. What you’re doing is you’re reconciling your appreciation for the art with the bad things the artist did. In doing this, you’re not forgiving the artist but you’re giving yourself permission to like their work in spite of them. This is what I mean when I say we can’t actually separate the art from the artist. What we can do, though, is find ways to appreciate the art in spite of the bad guy who’s the artist. I’m not really articulating this as well as I just did in conversation with my partner but I hope you see what I mean.
Also, I totally agree that once the art is published/in the world, it no longer belongs to the artist, it belongs to the reader/viewer/consumer. Notable (problematic) author Lewis Carroll said just this, when asked what his work meant: he said nope that’s up to you, it’s not mine anymore.
Yeah - i get what you mean. In that sense, society makes it very difficult not to “know” about the life of the artist. But i think for me the separation is that the knowing does not in any way affect my appreciation or reaction to their art. The knowing bit is just some academic fact in my head, like a remembered line from a movie. My reaction to art, whilst it obviously involves the brain, is something more than just that. Heart/soul/spirit whatever name we want to put on it.
And if i hear a random new song or see a random new painting, i rarely know anything at all about the artist, so therefore..... i guess i just have a different perspective as to how it functions, certainly internally for me.
:)
Good discussion, both of you. Obviously this is an important and recurrent issue. For me, it was Woody Allen whose work I admired intensely...
I can, and still do, watch Woody's films.
With no pangs of guilt.
That does not mean I condone what he is alleged to have done. that is just not for me to take action on. That's for courts etc. It's a particularly modern idea that how one behaves taints the art. What do we really know about writers, sculptors etc from ages past.....? Very little. Yet, many are lionised with aboslutely no questions.
Also, has Woody been found guilty of anything? I get that it looks bad, but that's hardly conclusive.
Oh man I went through a Woody Allen comeuppance too. Sigh.
Oh, Jenn, this is the kind of navel-gazing I love, because you are looking so far beyond your own navel. I do agree that we artsy women at places like Naropa - dear lord, haven’t thought of that place or the Black Mountain Poets for awhile - were groomed to think that Great Men of Art could do anything they want - for the sake of the Art, always with a capital A - blech! A curse upon these egoists, preying on young women and men with their own dreams. We are still living with this attitude and its consequences.
But enough about me 😉 #MeToo has been much on my mind of late, partly because the obvious predators (hello, Russell Brand) keep getting exposed, but also because the continual ramp-up of AI bots talking with us so helpfully feels like a means of expression being forced on me, no matter how much I say no. We’re all being groomed to tolerate a profound imbalance power in our very platforms for communication. AO: artificial omphaloskepsis.
AO! Wow that’s very interesting, isn’t it. And yes--so much of the conversation around AI right now is about consent. The glaring problem with AI seems to be a problem of consent.