Dialectical Dissonance – Chapter One – Can We Separate the Art from the Artist?
We interrupt your blog series to bring you, ‘Dialectical Dissonance’! What is Dialectical Dissonance you ask? Other than being a bad exhibit of alliteration1, Dialectical Dissonance is a blog series which more or less represents how some arguments and opinions form in my mind. I occasionally find myself not having a strong stance on a subject while arguing compelling opposing viewpoints with myself in my tiny lonely head. Utilising the Socrates' dialectical method2, I’ve decided to provide a thesis, an antithesis and hopefully, a neat synthesis to reach a more nuanced view on some grey topics.
And now, getting to the first chapter of this series, I’ve decided to delve into something that’s big, that’s breaking and that’s now – the Weinstein, and the subsequent Hollywood sex scandals3. The hypocrisies behind the farce that is the choir-preaching, elite, liberal Hollywood have broken. From Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey to George Takei and Louis C.K., the Weinstein effect is the tippling point of a crippling problem plaguing Hollywood, the media industry, and the society as a whole. Sexual misconduct in workplaces isn’t something that’s new, and it’s something that we’ve subconsciously brushed away, but the Weinstein effect have broken the flood gates on the issue. The entire debacle inevitably begs the question – can we separate the art from the artist?
Thesis:
My gut reaction was to say no; and that forms the gist of my thesis. Art itself is something that helps us understand our moral situations better. Let’s take a cue from our ancient Greek buddy, Aristotle himself. Aristotle’s theory of catharsis resolves a little conundrum in aesthetics that’s known as the ‘Problem of Tragedy’. Aristotle argues that art can allow us to express strong negative emotions in a safe context, and the emotional purge that comes with the experience provides us relief4. So in a manner of speaking, all artists are elevated moral agents in our culture.
So when someone like Weinstein or Spacey or C.K. or Salman or Dileep is accused of misconducts and crimes, it hits us hard. We subconsciously emotionally invest in the characters they portray, and for a selected few, the personalities they possess. And this puts their entire work in a new context; Weinstein isn’t just a groundbreaking filmmaker, he’s a groundbreaking filmmaker who uses his authority to prey on his victims. Louis C.K. isn’t just a guy who breaks boundaries in stand-up routines by playing perverts, he is a broken pervert. And what makes this matter even worse is that our emotional investment in them have led to their rise in power, and we’ve collectively played a part in causing the effect. This is not to deny that they are talented; it is undeniable that they are, but does talent really compensate for a lack of morale?
And moreover, additionally investing in them again, after being aware of their crimes is, in a way, pardoning them for their sins. It excuses their abuse of power, and diminishes the harm they’ve caused to the victims. The separation of art and artist will only continue to normalize rape and abuse in all industries. Not to mention, the excuse that celebrities are afraid of hurting their career by speaking out is not valid anymore. So, case in point, art is unabashedly dependent on the artist.
So when someone like Weinstein or Spacey or C.K. or Salman or Dileep is accused of misconducts and crimes, it hits us hard. We subconsciously emotionally invest in the characters they portray, and for a selected few, the personalities they possess. And this puts their entire work in a new context; Weinstein isn’t just a groundbreaking filmmaker, he’s a groundbreaking filmmaker who uses his authority to prey on his victims. Louis C.K. isn’t just a guy who breaks boundaries in stand-up routines by playing perverts, he is a broken pervert. And what makes this matter even worse is that our emotional investment in them have led to their rise in power, and we’ve collectively played a part in causing the effect. This is not to deny that they are talented; it is undeniable that they are, but does talent really compensate for a lack of morale?
And moreover, additionally investing in them again, after being aware of their crimes is, in a way, pardoning them for their sins. It excuses their abuse of power, and diminishes the harm they’ve caused to the victims. The separation of art and artist will only continue to normalize rape and abuse in all industries. Not to mention, the excuse that celebrities are afraid of hurting their career by speaking out is not valid anymore. So, case in point, art is unabashedly dependent on the artist.
Antithesis:
I have no intentions to normalize or pardon sexual predators or shame the victims. But the entire idea of separating the art from the artist hinges on the assumption that the artist in question is the sole owner of the art piece, and in most cases, it is not.
Most art pieces are not the effort of a single actor, producer or a director. They’re the collective product of hundreds of decent, hard-working people. And these people were oblivious to the fact that one of their own was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. So is it justified that the entire team takes a huge blow due to the crimes of another, and one which they weren’t even aware of? Apart from the moral and aesthetic aspects of an art piece, the economics behind it is important as well. Now, reparations can be made, like in the Spacey scandal5, but that evidently was a big budgeted project backed by Netflix, a multi-billion-dollar entertainment company. The economics of re-shoots and cancellations are a heavy burden for many small producers. In Kerala, a small state in the southern part of India, Dileep, one of the most popular actors in the Malayalam industry, was arrested for orchestrating a molestation attempt on a fellow actress, and his film Ramaleela was a few months from releasing.6 The film was also the directorial debutante of Arun Gopy. Malayalam films do not have the financial backing of Bollywood, and is no way near Hollywood. Separating the art from the artist was a move that the producers had to play. The film was, ultimately a success.
This reasoning, however, undeniably breaks down when the art is a direct reflection of the artist or when the artist is the sole proprietor of the art. In stand-up routines, the comedian inevitably presents a part of himself on stage, and is in a way, unadulterated catharsis. When Louis C.K. or Bill Cosby do stand-up bits, they’re essentially presenting themselves onstage, and the separation here is takes more nuance and difficulty than films or music.
And finally, is the art itself really all that tainted by the artist? If other properties of the artist don’t really matter in the outcome of his art, why are their faults unlike the rest? If Rowan Atkinson’s electrical engineering degree don’t really add more humour or depth to Mr. Bean, how does Woody Allen’s misconducts add anything to Annie Hall? This isn’t to say that morality has nothing to do with art, but the question is, where do we draw the lines? The anti-thesis thus provides, at the least, a consideration to separate to the art from the artist.
This reasoning, however, undeniably breaks down when the art is a direct reflection of the artist or when the artist is the sole proprietor of the art. In stand-up routines, the comedian inevitably presents a part of himself on stage, and is in a way, unadulterated catharsis. When Louis C.K. or Bill Cosby do stand-up bits, they’re essentially presenting themselves onstage, and the separation here is takes more nuance and difficulty than films or music.
And finally, is the art itself really all that tainted by the artist? If other properties of the artist don’t really matter in the outcome of his art, why are their faults unlike the rest? If Rowan Atkinson’s electrical engineering degree don’t really add more humour or depth to Mr. Bean, how does Woody Allen’s misconducts add anything to Annie Hall? This isn’t to say that morality has nothing to do with art, but the question is, where do we draw the lines? The anti-thesis thus provides, at the least, a consideration to separate to the art from the artist.
Synthesis:
I still think art is somehow hinged on the artist. Personally, I don’t feel that my antithesis is strong, but it does provide a new context for the thesis to work in. Even if the art is a collective effort, the accused often play an integral role in the art piece. If they didn’t, the art is easily corrected. Moreover, pardoning them leads to more cases of abuse on our collective conscience. Ergo, even if the art is a collective effort, we can reasonably subject the art, or at least a large chunk of it, to scrutiny.Perhaps the entire question is subjective, or more weakly, the answers to the question hinge not only on the artist, but on the starting point of the respondent. Thought experiments are always helpful to hone our opinions, so consider this case; at a museum in Denmark in 2000, artist Marco Evaristti debuted his piece ‘Helena’ that involved live goldfish in electric blenders. On the basis of one’s decision to press the button, Evaristti divides people into sadists, moralists, and voyeurs. The museum was subsequently charged with animal cruelty.7 Is Evaristti an artist, or an animal abuser? The opposing answers to that question can be divided into broad schools of thought; autonomists, who think art operates in an isolated bubble and aesthetic moralists, who claim weak morale can taint art. So who are you in this vast multi-views, Mr. Strangely-fictional-reader?
The question also follows into another similar question – if the abuser truly repents for his sins, and his reformation is evident, should we as a society, take them back? I think we all do believe that reformation is a possibility. Heck, the entire justice system hinges on the idea that criminals can be reformed. The Christian in me wants to say yes. Perhaps the answer is beyond our understanding. The answer to this question depends again, on other questions. How evident is evident? And how far down the rabbit hole is the point of no return?
And finally, even if we agree that some art can be systematically separated from the artist, this ignores the larger question in context - if we can separate the art from the artist, should we? The problem goes beyond preserving the art and the artist. When we allow rapists and pedophiles to become glorified idols and who spite their victims, we plant seeds for the next generation of artists to abuse without consequences. Instead, society should focus its’ creative energy on art that does not serve abuse and finally allow artists to create art without paying a price for their dignity.
I know my synthesis raises more questions than it answers, and that’s because my goal with the synthesis is to show that the case is not a slam dunk case for the thesis. To hold a nuanced view on the case, we first have to realize what our fundamental beliefs on aesthetics and morality are before we split the art from the artist.
And finally, even if we agree that some art can be systematically separated from the artist, this ignores the larger question in context - if we can separate the art from the artist, should we? The problem goes beyond preserving the art and the artist. When we allow rapists and pedophiles to become glorified idols and who spite their victims, we plant seeds for the next generation of artists to abuse without consequences. Instead, society should focus its’ creative energy on art that does not serve abuse and finally allow artists to create art without paying a price for their dignity.
I know my synthesis raises more questions than it answers, and that’s because my goal with the synthesis is to show that the case is not a slam dunk case for the thesis. To hold a nuanced view on the case, we first have to realize what our fundamental beliefs on aesthetics and morality are before we split the art from the artist.
Fin.
P.S. This was somewhat of an experiment in writing for me. If you think you do exist, please leave some feedback in the comments below.
1 Wren and Martin.↩
2 Hegel's dialetics↩
3 The Weinstein effect list.↩
4 Aristotle's theory of catharsis↩
5 Netflix fires Kevin Spacey↩
6 The boycott against Ramaleela↩
7 Helena by Marco Evaristti↩
Comments
Post a Comment