Rita's POV on Art vs Artist: Should We Judge a Person's Work Through the Lens of Their Character Flaws and Bad Behavior?

/
I've been getting a lot of questions about my position on the subject of Jim Morris's guest post sent out last week and that's fair. I didn't want to include it until I heard from you all and it was a lively series of comments indeed. In thinking this through, I got a little carried away given the complexity of the Art vs Artist debate. I hope you'll find it provocative as we all struggle with this tricky issue. Let me know what you think.
Rita's Photo Snapseed Edit.jpg

Many of you have asked my “stand” on this fraught issue. So here I am weighing in and wanting, really wanting, to purely say that the Art should be above the behavior of the Artist. But is that an absolute? I find censorship anathema and have always felt that people who reject the pleasure of Wagner’s music (or Cate Blanchett’s sublime performance in Blue Jasmine — it's worth it, Frank) are being way too rigid in a world that requires more flexibility. But then, does that very flexibility give permission beyond what our viewing or listening, or overall enjoying of the art, intends? Are we, God forbid, enabling?

I don’t believe this going backwards in history. We don’t have the ability, as Jim indicates, to résumé check those from the past against the norms of the present. While not necessarily “excusing” past behavior, there’s no question that some things considered beyond the pale today had a different moral ranking in the past, and it’s asking a great deal for otherwise notable people to have had the insight and courage to have behaved above their era. History is something to learn from and build upon. To reject it is like ISIS blowing up the incredible monuments of their own heritage for a short-lived (hopefully) religiously un-PC moment.

The current case under the biggest microscope appears to be the nine lives of Woody Allen, who may be finally facing his moral comeuppance. Is it a cop out for me to say that he’s never been a fav (not being from NYC, Jewish or in therapy, his humor often escapes me), so it’s easy to turn against him? I think so. Though I shudder at the prospect of re-watching Manhattan, which, though it had a subplot creepy even at the time, I remember thinking was one of his best. It’s a puzzle, but I can I really choose with a clear conscience?

I also must say I have a tremendous sympathy for collateral damage. As soon as Kevin Spacey was booted from House of Cards, I immediately thought of Robin Wright, poised at last for her character’s blow-out year (and I’m thrilled that she’s going to get it.) And, I really feel for Allen’s actors, out of which he’s brought remarkable performances, seeing them struggle to make amends within the shifting sands of acceptability.

So if I hate censorship and equally abhor harassment where am I? In the end I’m with Jim, and Sandy, with an extra “layer,” I’d say. I’d love the Venus de Milo if it were sculpted by Vlad the Impaler. But today, for the first time, I’d be curious about the model and if she posed willingly. I won’t give up the pleasure of Shakespeare in Love because it was produced by a pig. But on next viewing, I hope I won’t wonder at what point in production Harvey Weinstein tried to assault Gwyneth Paltrow. Will this backstage knowledge ruin my appreciation moving forward? I really hope not.

That said, in this seminal #MeToo moment we know there will be casualties and we’ll go too far (Franken?) before we swing back, so we need to agree on fundamentals, yet make sure we don’t end up with some sort of litmus test a genius needs to pass to be appreciated.

So, I guess I say, let’s not throw the art out with the bathwater of what’s been done to date. As Jim says, we don’t know enough of the backstory to be fair. Let’s continue to enjoy, laugh, listen and view. Let’s let all of it enrich our lives. Moving forward, let’s use this moment to “upgrade” the broad-strokes of what we consider acceptable behavior for humans so that producer, process and product are equally admirable. Brilliant ideas are vital. Art is joy. May we never cut them out of our lives.

And now, this very prickly ball is back in your court. What do you think?

 
 
 
 

Art vs Artist: Should We Judge a Person’s Work Through the Lens of Their Character Flaws and Bad Behavior?

/

By Jim Morris

This month I’ve invited my first Guest Blogger, advertising veteran Jim Morris aka Tagline Jim (whose brilliant tagline for his own business is “long story, short”) to share his POV on a difficult subject. Jim is a radical thought leader in his industry, per his bio below. As an engaging and opinionated author, speaker, teacher and blogger, he often branches out into topics with ramifications for us all. His recent white paper on “Art Versus Artist” caught my eye as a subject that’s been around as long as Hitler and Wagner, and is as blazingly current as the behavior of Woody’s Allen’s actors. It’s a tough issue. Please read and weigh in, even if the answer remains “It depends.”

The question of whether we can separate the art from the artist has been much discussed for centuries. This current sexual harassment brouhaha that seems to preoccupy our news media compels us to visit, (or, for some of you, revisit) this question. Of course, character flaws and bad behavior extend far beyond sexual predation. They include, among other things, bigotry, various addictions and compulsions, non-sexual violent behavior like assault, mental torment and murder, as well as a host of other bad acts from embezzlement and thievery to bribery, plagiarism and combinations of deplorable behavior of which, one could argue, Hemingway and Picasso are prime examples.

There is a long list of elected officials, up to and including U.S. presidents and prime ministers, who were philanderers, bigots, misogynists, anti-Semites, homophobes, and on and on. Jefferson, Jackson, both Johnsons, Buchanan, Monroe, Polk, Wilson, Coolidge, FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Bush, (the younger)—all of these presidents committed heinous acts during their terms in office. Many of our other most celebrated leaders and statesmen were guilty of these attitudes and behaviors. So, should we stop crediting such people for their accomplishments? Or at least reduce the amount of credit we give them? Should we delete mentions of these people and their contributions from our consciousnesses and history books because they were flawed in some of the ways I’ve just mentioned?

Similarly, there are many, many great artists in all corners of the creative arts world who were/are guilty of such bad behaviors and beliefs. T.S. Eliot, Edith Wharton, Richard Wagner, Roald Dahl, Renoir and Degas are just a few on a long list of anti-Semitic artists. Dr. Seuss was quite the bigot. If you widen the aperture to famous anti-Semitic people who made great contributions, the list includes Winston Churchill, Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford and Walt Disney. And if you widen the aperture further, to include misogynists, racists, sexual predators and other deviants, well, forget about it.

The thing about rattling off a litany of bad people who have done great things is that, surely, this is just the tiny tip of a colossal iceberg much, or most, of which we will never glimpse. I have this argument often enough, usually triggered by the case of Mel Gibson. The consensus is that he’s anti-Semitic. I’ve never had this conversation with a Jewish person who didn’t express a commitment to boycotting his work. My point to them is that it seems a little disingenuous to advocate boycotting Mel Gibson movies, while unqualifiedly embracing the art produced by countless other people, some, (many), of whom are no doubt raging bigots or anti-Semitic or wife beaters, just because we don’t have specific knowledge about these flaws. If we’re not going to separate the art from the artist, doesn’t it then behoove us to devote ourselves to determining the moral character of every artist or politician before we can justifiably judge, or even just experience, their work? And in the absence of such knowledge, aren’t we obliged to withhold any judgment about their work?

Call me misanthropic, but I’m going to wager a guess that most people possess some degree of one of these character flaws, or have displayed the kind of bad behavior we’re talking about, somewhere on the bigotry continuum or the anti-Semitic continuum or the misogynistic continuum or some other bad behavior continuum. Am I obliged to cease enjoying art, or appreciating the achievements of politicians, business people, scientists and other accomplished public figures, simply because there could be a good chance that they are bigots or in some other way have behaved very badly toward others?

Take Roy Moore versus Al Franken. Assuming all of the accusations against these two men are true, does the fact that they’ve committed these acts, ranging from naughty to unconscionable, preclude them from serving effectively in the Senate, from authoring or at least supporting legislation that makes our country better? Does this question exist on a continuum? Perhaps, because Al Franken is funny, and we might like his politics, and his sins are less egregious than Roy Moore’s, we give ourselves permission to go a little easier on him than on Moore, who is apparently a pedophile, not merely a butt-grabber, and whose views and political positions are repugnant to us, regardless of his bad sexual behavior.

Or consider a more complicated situation than that of Roy Moore. Woody Allen has been recognized as one of the great writers and filmmakers of the last half century, right up until the controversy about his relationship with Dylan Farrow arose. Now much of the world assumes he’s a child molester. He categorically denies it. Dylan Farrow seems credible. Meanwhile, the list grows of those who are publicly distancing themselves from Allen, expressing guilt and regret about working on his films. I find it curious that many of these people are just now speaking up, since the controversy over Woody Allen’s relationships is not new, but that’s another issue. The most recent of these celebrities to speak up is young Timothee Chalamet, who says he’ll donate to some appropriate organizations, his pay from an upcoming Woody Allen movie, A Rainy Day in New York. He claims he doesn’t want to profit from that film. Of course, a cynic might think this is disingenuous since Timothee has already profited in less directly monetary ways from his work on the film. And one can’t help but wonder whether no one in his life mentioned Woody Allen’s presumed sordid past to Timothee before he accepted the role. But, again, that’s another discussion.

Not that you asked, but for me, a work of art is great or not, the political achievement or technological innovation or scientific discovery is great or not, entirely separate of whether it was produced by a saint, a despicable human being, a robot or a hippo. I don’t need to know anything about the creator of the work to be affected by that work and make my own judgment of its value or worth.

Going down the other path either immerses you in hypocrisy or impoverishes the world you allow yourself to experience. Or does it? To those of you who boycott Woody Allen and Mel Gibson movies, or refuse to listen to Wagner, laugh at Cosby, buy a Ford, or exclude from your life the work of some other person whose views or actions you despise, can you make a compelling argument for judging the talents’ work, whatever their field, through the lens of their character flaw, be it anti-Semitism, racial bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, whatever? 

 

Jim Morris, Tagline Jim, speaks truth to power, burning bridges at will as he delivers his radical message to advertising’s insiders and consumers: it’s time to lay waste to the intellectual laziness, wrongheadedness and addiction to shiny objects that plague the business, and create advertising that’s more credible, more likable and more like humans talking to humans. During his 37 years in advertising, at dozens of ad agencies from DDB and FCB on down, he’s been a Copywriter, Creative Director, Purveyor of The Good, CCO, Screen (and, occasionally, Adweek/Brandweek) columnist and Columbia College instructor. He’s authored dozens of potent taglines, including We are Flintstones Kids, Ten Million Strong and Growing, the cornerstone of one of the longest-running ad campaigns of the last half century. Jim maintains an active blog on his website, speaks at colleges and universities, marketing agencies and MENSA conferences, while shopping his next book, "Agents of Stupidity: Why Advertising is Even Stupider Than You Think, if That’s Even Possible."