stats Making the Business of Life Easier

   Finance globeinvestor   Careers globecareers.workopolis Subscribe to The Globe
The Globe and Mail /
Home | Business | National | Int'l | Sports | Columnists | The Arts | Tech | Travel | TV | Wheels


  This site         Tips

  The Web Google


  Where to Find It

Breaking News
  Home Page

  Report on Business



Subscribe to The Globe

Shop at our Globe Store

Print Edition
  Front Page

  Report on Business




  Arts & Entertainment



   Headline Index

 Other Sections

  Births & Deaths






  Facts & Arguments




  Real Estate









  Food & Dining




  Online Personals

  TV Listings/News

 Specials & Series
  All Reports...


   Where to Find It
 A quick guide to what's available on the site



  Customer Service

  Help & Contact Us



 Web Site

  E-Mail Newsletters

  Free Headlines

  Globe Store New

  Help & Contact Us

  Make Us Home

  Mobile New

  Press Room

  Privacy Policy

  Terms & Conditions


Eliminate the bad artists, and you eliminate art itself
Special to The Globe and Mail

Email this article Print this article
Monday, November 20, 2017 – Page L2

The great Renaissance sculptor and goldsmith Benvenuto Cellini, creator of Perseus With the Head of Medusa, was a murderer and a rapist. He killed at least two men and was accused by a model of sexually assaulting her. This does not stop me from looking with great amazement and curiosity at the naked and sexual Perseus With The Head of the Medusa. The knowledge of the immorality of the creator does not distract from my enjoyment of his creation; indeed I am made even more curious to know how beauty is perceived by a violent man. I assume that all art is made by people who are pretty bad in one way or another and that I am going to see the world through the prism of their own particular badness. I assume that any good art will be in part about badness.

And I will eagerly look at the work of any tyrant, rapist or murderer for the same reason. If KimJong Un wrote a novel I would be first in line for a copy.

Nor is my absorption of these things a question of compartmentalizing, of ignoring or suspending my disgust at an artist's personal behaviour so as to concentrate on the art. I'm watching and reading because I expect art to be about moral dangers in a way that is less didactic than essays are. I expect art to be troubling because I expect people to be troubling. I am prepared to like and dislike something in every work. I can also appreciate the aesthetic genius of a moral monster without feeling that I am becoming inured to monstrosity. Just as I can read Heidegger without becoming a Nazi, I can look at one of Hitler's juvenile watercolour paintings and appreciate a bit of pink in the sky there, and understand it as a painting of its era and one by a tyrant at the same time. And if I do this and am judged immoral for it, is it because it is bad for just me or bad for the society at large? A moral question arises, to me, only when money is exchanged. Looking is one thing, but what about buying? If I buy the photo of the work of a babyeater, am I enriching a criminal and therefore perpetuating criminal acts? I really want to roll my eyes at this and say who the hell cares, my essay on it will be more valuable than this indirect complicity - and furthermore, it is easy for me to get a free pirated copy of anything - but okay, I will stop and try to take this scruple seriously.

Here is where we enter the moral quandary that affects the contemporary mass cultural moment. The problem of engaging with art by bad people, it is said, is an economic one. There is Zhu Yu, the Chinese artist who photographed himself eating what was purportedly a human fetus. And then there is Woody Allen. I need to understand the art of both men and so need to look at it. But Zhu Yu and Woody Allen are in fact only distantly analogous because Zhu Yu's art is not commercial. I'm not really supporting Zhu Yu by looking up his pictures on the internet.

But, it is argued, by paying money to see a film by a still-living man accused of raping a child, that we would be rewarding someone who deserves to be shunned. It is also argued that the culture of moviemaking in Hollywood is pervasively sexist and abusive and that contributing to its economic success as a whole is a subtle approval of its tactics. An essayist in The New York Times tweeted "the critical acclaim and economic clout of the art facilitates the abuse."

A writer in Esquire echoed her, taking an even more puritanical stance. We must stop separating artists from art, Tyler Coates argues, and throw out all the movies made by bad men. There is plenty of art in the word and we would not miss the handful of movies by abusers. He does not extend this demand to the other arts created by bad people (novels by fascists, poems by thieves), so I don't know if we are meant to throw those out too. Coates speaks of movies as art to be "enjoyed" (not precisely the role art plays in my own life), and proposes that we deprive ourselves of the presumed pleasure - a simple pleasure, such as ice cream - of the corrupted movies. It will rid ourselves of complicity. It will be as easy as giving up ice cream for lent.

Any Christian will recognize this as a fundamentally religious impulse: The goal is not so much to improve the world as to improve oneself, to keep oneself pure.

I want to take issue with the idea of "enjoying" art as well. Yes, one does enjoy it, sometimes, but that's far from the only reason for art's existence. Art is not ice cream. To consume art is for me as necessary a means of understanding the culture around me as reading the news is: It is necessary and automatic, almost involuntary. It is also frequently unpleasant: Art can be disturbing and noisy and embarrassing and downright awful and I still feel curious about it. I love the movies of Michael Haneke and Lars von Trier, movies very much about moral cesspits, and I can't say I am experiencing pleasure exactly.

Fictional narratives, good or bad, are a kind of oxygen for my brain.

If I were to stop delving into unpleasant, embarrassing or possibly immoral art for any reason I would feel cut off from my own intellect. I would feel stupid.

I am baffled, genuinely baffled, by the idea that by consuming art one is somehow perpetuating the ideas in it. Do I absorb the values of Nazism by looking at Hitler's watercolours? Do I advance Nazism if I reprint Hitler's watercolours in a history book? And should I feel guilt if I find any of Hitler's watercolours pleasant here and there?

Even if I read a book that is explicitly about child abuse and that appears to be non-judgmental about child abuse (Lolita, say), am I perpetuating it or just trying to understand the deeply bad world?

Art can be propagandistic, yes, but I am an adult with a critical faculty, not just a pulsing irrational emotional sensor; I can think and analyze what I read and see.

I get the concern about the financial support of criminals, but that economic question really only applies to living artists and only to certain art forms, and it is such a minor issue to me, such an unavoidable byproduct of the serious and necessary work of understanding the world that I can't really take it seriously. Besides, it is so easily bypassed: If you feel bad about it, just stream a pirated version of the movie for free.

As far as real crime goes, let the police and the courts deal with criminal artists; I have no interest in protecting them. Lock them up as long as you want. I have only a passing interest in the outcomes.

That belongs to a different sphere of activity.

I hardly need to begin the list of great artists who committed serious moral offences. Caravaggio, murderer; Sade, rapist; Egon Schiele, abuser of teenage girls; Ezra Pound, anti-Semite; Jean Genet, thief; Banksy, vandal ... I could go on for pages here, ending the list with me and you, hypocrite lecteur, who may not be ourselves utterly unblemished. Eliminate the bad artists from the canon and you might as well eliminate art itself.

Associated Graphic

Some people argue that by paying money to see a film by Woody Allen, a man accused of raping a child, we would be rewarding someone who deserves to be shunned.


Tuesday, November 21, 2017


A Monday Life & Arts column on bad artists incorrectly said Woody Allen was accused of raping a child. He was accused of sexual abuse, not rape.

Huh? How did I get here?
Return to Main Allan_Maki Page
Subscribe to
The Globe and Mail

Email this article Print this article

space  Advertisement

Need CPR for your RSP? Check your portfolio’s pulse and lower yours by improving the overall health of your investments. Click here.


7-Day Site Search

Breaking News

Today's Weather


Rick Salutin
Merrily marching
off to war
Roy MacGregor
Duct tape might hold
when panic strikes

Where Manley is going with his first budget



For a columnist's most recent stories, click on their name below.


Roy MacGregor arrow
This Country
Jeffrey Simpson arrow
The Nation
Margaret Wente arrow
Hugh Winsor  arrow
The Power Game

Rob Carrick arrow
Personal Finance
Drew Fagan arrow
The Big Picture
Mathew Ingram arrow
Brent Jang arrow
Business West
Brian Milner arrow
Taking Stock
Eric Reguly arrow
To The Point
Andrew Willis arrow

Stephen Brunt arrow
The Game
Eric Duhatschek arrow
Allan Maki arrow
William Houston arrow
Truth & Rumours
Lorne Rubenstein arrow
 The Arts

John Doyle arrow
John MacLachlan Gray arrow
Gray's Anatomy
David Macfarlane arrow
Cheap Seats
Johanna Schneller arrow

Murray Campbell arrow
Ontario Politics
Lysiane Gagnon arrow
Inside Quebec
Marcus Gee arrow
The World
William Johnson arrow
Pit Bill
Paul Knox arrow
Heather Mallick arrow
As If
Leah McLaren arrow
Generation Why
Rex Murphy arrow
Japes of Wrath
Rick Salutin arrow
On The Other Hand
Paul Sullivan arrow
The West
William Thorsell arrow

Home | Business | National | Int'l | Sports | Columnists | The Arts | Tech | Travel | TV | Wheels

© 2003 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Help & Contact Us | Back to the top of this page