Can You Separate the Art From the Artist Weinstein Philosophy

Benvenuto Cellini's bronze sculpture of Perseus, made in 1548, shows the hero trampling nonchalantly over the sprawling corpse of a decapitated Medusa, brandishing a blade in one hand and dangling her head from the other. Women are used to getting a bad deal in Greek mythology, of class—just as they are in life, some might say. The stories recently collated on Twitter under the "MeToo" hashtag attest to a long and collective feel of violence and harassment. For some, the high-profile defenestration of serial abusers and harassers—initiated by the Harvey Weinstein case, and made visible in the all-black dresses and "Time'southward Upwardly" badges worn recently at the Golden Globes—constitutes a turning point in our attitudes to art and male abuse of power. Merely we should recollect that history tells a different story: art endures, while the misdemeanours of men are hands forgotten.

Have Cellini, for case. For over 400 years, his triumphant Perseus with the Head of Medusa has been displayed in all its glory in the Piazza della Signoria, next to the Uffizi gallery in Florence. The sculpture is Cellini's bright expression of a reckless indifference to violence; recklessly indifferent is a skillful way to depict the creative person, too. In 1557, Cellini was found guilty of sodomy, having slept with his immature male assistant, and throughout his life he faced multiple accusations of non-consensual sex—one in relation to a woman and at least three others relating to boys. A notorious brawler with a violent temper, the artist was implicated in three counts of murder, ane of which he recorded with bang-up relish in his much-admired autobiography. All the same posterity has been kind, remembering him every bit a master goldsmith, accomplished musician and an exuberant soldier—the model Renaissance man.

As we agonise over how to judge the terrible men who make cute works of fine art, we should recollect that our collective memories have been selective and our moral judgments muted. Scholars have cheerfully recast Cellini'southward sexual history as the expression of a virile masculinity or an artistically transgressive eroticism, retelling this history of thuggery as a colourful footnote to a creative life. And if Cellini can be then easily immortalised, why should we think that our electric current outrage should have any effect on the long-term life of a work of fine art? Why would we think that the films fabricated by Woody Allen (defendant of child sex abuse), Roman Polanski (convicted of raping a teenager) or Alfred Hitchcock (who tormented the actor Tippi Hedren on the set of The Birds) might non endure?

In recent months, our commonage opposition has forced the institutions that accept harboured at to the lowest degree some of these men into action. The deposition of Harvey Weinstein from his own production visitor, and the dismissal of literary editor and mogul Leon Wieseltier from the New Republic are no small-scale victories—one hopes in that location are many more than to come. Simply it is easier to sack a producer or a journalist than to deny the deep attachments we accept to artists who make the works that matter to united states. How do you reconcile yourself to the films you beloved, the Louis CK sketches that still make y'all laugh, the Casey Affleck functioning you nevertheless believe deserves an Oscar? (Affleck has denied harrassing two female person colleagues while filming 2010's I'thou Still Here.) In other words, how do we square our moral discomfort with our aesthetic judgment?

When Kate Winslet was asked about working with Allen on their 2017 film Wonder Wheel, she replied: "Having thought it all through, you put it to one side and just piece of work with the person. Woody Allen is an incredible manager." In this pragmatism, she isn't alone. According to a YouGov poll, almost 40 per cent of American filmgoers said that an allegation of sexual assault confronting an thespian wouldn't deter them from watching their films. For others, it proves an intractable trouble, with Greta Gerwig and Mira Sorvino both releasing recent statements expressing regret at having worked with Allen, and announcing they wouldn't do and so again. Even so, Gerwig admitted, "I grew upwardly on his movies, and they accept informed me every bit an artist." As Sorvino acknowledged, information technology is "difficult to sever ties and denounce your heroes."

This dilemma reaches beyond decisions about which actors we censure and whose films nosotros defend. It poses deeper questions, inviting us to reflect on our relationship to art and to think harder nearly what we take to be its purpose or responsibilities—if any.

This is function of a much older discussion about the nature of aesthetic judgment. When the High german philosopher Immanuel Kant described the conditions past which we evaluate the beauty of "an object or a kind of representation" in his aesthetic treatise of 1790, The Critique of Sentence, he stipulated the essential quality of "disinterestedness." Equity is the attitude that permits us to assess work without the influence of an internal agenda or external interference—a requirement, in other words, that we understand a work of fine art purely on its own terms, unmarred by historical precedent, biographical detail, political, social or moral implication. If Kant were alive today, he would contend that just the work matters—not the men backside information technology, or their deeds.

Is it ever really possible for objects of beauty non to be spoiled by the dirty easily that made them? The belatedly 19th-century aesthetic movement exalted the exceptionalism of fine art, insisting that paintings, plays and music must non exist bent to the service of Christian moralising, credo or other didactic ends. Simply "art for art'southward sake" often feels as glib as it sounds—equally though it were easy to sympathise an artwork on just its ain terms.

We are not obliged to devalue works of art we once admired

So what should nosotros do? My own sense is that we are not obliged to devalue works of art we one time admired in view of the acts of horror or violence involved in their creation. Often we cannot help our attachment to the paintings we beloved and the films nosotros adore, no thing what we might observe about the people who make them. This is the deep, penetrative power of art that distinguishes it from all other kinds of human production. All of us know the ability of the painting that opens up some hitherto unthought truth, the vocal that pierces, the sculpture in whose presence we feel humbled. That nosotros accept no resistance to these works is in itself a mark of their greatness. But morality is the gadfly that insistently troubles dazzler. It'south what makes this current fence more a tempest in a Hollywood teacup.

Philosophers themselves have been depressingly bad at dealing with their own version of this problem. In the 18th century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the thinker backside the social contract, compelled his mistress to abandon all five of their newborn babies at the Foundling Hospital in Paris. In 1933, the existential philosopher Martin Heidegger joined the Nazi Party, demoting Jewish colleagues and recording anti-Semitic remarks in his Black Notebooks. (Heidegger's thing with his pupil Hannah Arendt has shades of more recent scandals nigh the sexualised relationships between senior academics and their research students.) In 1980, the Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser strangled his wife Hélène in a fit of low, and spent the rest of his life interned in various clinics. Yet would anyone exclude Rousseau, Heidegger or Althusser from the catechism of European philosophy?

Why is it, though, that philosophical ideas tin exist so cleanly extracted from sometimes troubling origins? Rousseau, who both refused to rear his own children and wrote extensively on the education of young people, presents simply as a striking case of logical contradiction: the validity of his views seems unaffected past the fact that he didn't live up to them. But when it comes to art, that feels more than like straightforward hypocrisy. Philosophers often merits for themselves a thoughtful objectivity—merely in culture it is so much harder, as Yeats wrote, "to know the dancer from the dance."

If anything, these examples from philosophy expose the conceit of a discipline that lacks the facility for critical self-reflection. Information technology is surely one merit of art that it gives us break, and asks that we examine the artists who take produced the piece of work. Nosotros question our relationship to both them and it.

How can nosotros, for example, admire Picasso'south delineation of women when we know that he was serially unfaithful, in one case coolly declaring to his mistress, Françoise Gilot, that "women are machines for suffering"? Two former lovers killed themselves and another ii suffered mental breakdowns. And yet isn't it this tangled and complicated sense of women that lies backside his contorted figurations of them? Too, we should surely despise Hitchcock for terrorising Hedren, just it is too the case that an underlying, simmering misogyny is office of what The Birds is about. Nifty fine art permits complexity; it contains contradictions and hypocrisies. This isn't to disqualify our cloy at monstrous artists, just to admit that dissonance is office of our experience of art too.

The most powerful artists, writers, actors, musicians
and filmmakers infiltrate our consciousness

The most powerful artists, writers, actors, musicians and filmmakers infiltrate our consciousness, shaping our minds and our cultures in ways beyond our command. In some cases, they do this against our will; even confronting our knowledge. I think hither of the British sculptor, printmaker and designer Eric Gill, whose work was indelibly blemished by the revelations of sexual abuse, paedophilia and bestiality disclosed in Fiona MacCarthy's 1989 biography. And however Gill's work remains in total view, his manus visible in the distinctive typeface that bears his name, his sculptures emblazoned beyond the BBC's Broadcasting House in primal London.

Simply last twelvemonth, glancing up from a lecture, I all of a sudden recognised Gill's familiar hand in the bas-relief panels wrapped around a academy edifice where I had taught for the concluding 8 years. No matter how much we might despise someone's moral character, nosotros are oft closer to them than we might similar; sometimes their work is hiding in plain sight. Artistic influence is subtle and deep, and we cannot escape unscathed.

In her biography, MacCarthy identifies a continuity between Gill'southward appalling life and the "mankind-and-spirit tensions palpable in his work." It's an uncomfortable proffer; only information technology makes sense that the people that we are should emerge in the ways we live and the work we practise. Last year, the Ditchling Museum of Fine art and Arts and crafts's bear witness near Gill sought to admit this problem, carefully exhibiting drawings of his girl Petra behind a curtain, and pointedly commissioning sculptor Cathie Pilkington's installation, A Doll for Petra, to foreground Petra's experience in the context of her father's work. Neither justification nor apology, the gesture however recognised both those who had suffered at Gill's hands and asserted the bureau of female artists also. Enabling the piece of work of brilliant women might testify to be our most effective rejoinder to this long history of the art of bad men.

Tormenting genius: Alfred Hitchcock and Tippi Hedren at Cannes in 1963 for a screening of The Birds

In his 1908 essay "Creative Writers and Day-Dreaming," Freud speculates that fine art is the outward disclosure of an inward, unconscious life. The allure of the author, he explains, is the expression they give to those desires and fantasies in which nosotros all have a share; in reading them, nosotros notice relief. It is a crude conception, but revealing—nearly the unconscious ways in which art works, the unthinkable secrets it carries. The pleasure of a painting, play or poem can be precisely that it intimates some homo darkness almost which we are necessarily in deprival. Isn't it naive of us to assume that works which venture into that darkness are only imaginative fictions, non built-in of real experiences? Haven't we always known that art is the expression of our darkest souls?

The difficulty with this agreement of the artist is the special status that it grants him, the sleight of hand by which information technology can serve to legitimise—or facilitate—his behaviour. The image of the troubled artist is a seductive trope. Sometimes, being troubled feels like the index of genius, equally though immorality, impropriety, unkindness or even violence, were not acts of grotesque entitlement but the signal of an exceptional artistic character.

Simply confronted by fresh accounts of abuses of power and exploitation, seemingly every solar day, this trope has rarely felt so tired. Nosotros take every right to insist that it is possible to exist a decent person and a bright artist. Last twelvemonth, the 63-year-quondam Zanzibar-born and Preston-based Lubaina Himid unexpectedly won the Turner Prize, after decades of critical neglect. At least function of her £25,000 prize coin, she explained, volition go towards commissioning other underfunded artists. Why be a troubled genius when you can be a kind and generous 1? It may exist that the people best equipped to prove that are those vivid women—unharassed and unabused—refusing to uncouple beauty and morality, and aspiring to brand the kind of art of which we need not be ashamed.

ellsworthfichn1955.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/the-problem-of-loving-art-in-the-age-of-weinstein

Share this post