Now that we are well into the era of #MeToo, the question hangs in the air -- how do you deal with the art of a monster? Along with untold millions of my fellow citizens, I've long enjoyed the comedy of Bill Cosby. Harvey Weinstein has produced dozens of movies, including several I admire. And Roman Polanski directed one of the best films of the 1970s, Chinatown.
I wouldn't any woman I care about, or any woman at all, to be forced to spend five minutes with any of these men. Yet do we toss out the work they did because they have been monsters? I have been thinking about this question lately. What do you think?
5 comments:
I would posit a middle position. Their work is not ipso facto guilty or innocent, but as those reviewing Matt Lauer's work found, a lot of it may take on a very dark shade when you know about their personal lives. For example, the creation of the NC-17 rating a few months after two of Weinstein's films were given an "X" rating in 1989 takes on a darker hue when you know about his habits.
The answer for me is pretty clear: the work stands alone. From a theological point of view, all our work/art has been touched by the sin of the man who creates it (not least our children!) If we want to be purists, we must destroy ourselves. Suicide is the only answer to this graceless Puritanism.
If, on the other hand, we understand that God works through sinful creatures and imbues even imperfect things with beauty and meaning, then there is no art/work that is out of bounds based on the sinfulness of its creator. There is only art that should be shunned for its own lack of merit, its own inability to say something meaningful and true.
How about artists that create "art" so patently offensive that it should be destroyed, even though the artist may have lived an exemplary life?
of course, the question is who gets to do the judging, and by what standard?
There is an interesting meme about the differences between conservatives and liberals that goes along the lines of "if a conservative doesn't like a gun they don't buy one - if a liberal doesn't like a gun they want all guns banned..."
The premise of this question seems to fall along those lines. How much of the actual history of all the great artists do we really know, or do we really need to know to make our personal choices? As horrid details of their lives come out must we rethink our position on their art? If so, does that rethinking take place at a personal level or must it be as an entire society?
I would ask your question in a slightly different time frame. Should all history of the Keystone Cops be destroyed because Fatty Arbuckle was accused of manslaughter in the scandalous death of a young starlet? I think it took three trials for a final resolution, and by that time his career was over.
It appears to me that today's society accepts a changing and relative morality. I would prefer that history note the scandal and not change the art, allowing the individual to make their own decision.
Glad you brought up Fatty Arbuckle, John. The Arbuckle case is fascinating and completely on point, because he went from being a beloved figure of fun to being universally hated immediately, for no reason at all, as it turned out. I don’t know that any of the current miscreants are actually innocent, but the dynamic hasn’t changed in the least.
And your larger point about whether we should make decisions individually versus as a society is spot-on. I’m willing to accept the idea that Bill Cosby did monstrous things, but I don’t want to give up the joy he provided to me, which dates all the way back to when I listened to my dad’s comedy albums when I was a kid.
Post a Comment