Separating the art from the artist
I've seen a few Woody Allen movies recently (Annie Hall, Manhattan, and Crimes & Misdemeanors), and I've come to the conclusion that they are all smart, funny, and have a completely unique style. Yes, Woody does suffer a bit from the Pseudo-Intellectual Asshole syndrome, but he constantly makes fun of himself and others for this, so that's enough compensation for me.
So why did I wait so long to watch his movies....I'm sorry, films? Easy answer: Because Woody Allen is the creepy old guy who left Mia Farrow to marry Soon-Yi, who was his 35 year-younger step-daughter at the time. Woody and Soon-Yi then went on to have a child together, making Woody's step-daughter the mother of his child. I'm not sure if this just confuses me or makes me want to puke. maybe both.
But this got me to thinking - are there rules for separating the art from the artist? Up until now, I've been making my separation decisions subconsciously and on a case-by-case basis.
As long as I don't feel like I'm personally funding some horrible cause (e.g., a KKK auto-biography), I think I'm ok with a full separation. This way, I can fully appreciate the art, and give up the futile effort of trying to like someone who I don't actually know, and most likely never will.
So why did I wait so long to watch his movies....I'm sorry, films? Easy answer: Because Woody Allen is the creepy old guy who left Mia Farrow to marry Soon-Yi, who was his 35 year-younger step-daughter at the time. Woody and Soon-Yi then went on to have a child together, making Woody's step-daughter the mother of his child. I'm not sure if this just confuses me or makes me want to puke. maybe both.
But this got me to thinking - are there rules for separating the art from the artist? Up until now, I've been making my separation decisions subconsciously and on a case-by-case basis.
As long as I don't feel like I'm personally funding some horrible cause (e.g., a KKK auto-biography), I think I'm ok with a full separation. This way, I can fully appreciate the art, and give up the futile effort of trying to like someone who I don't actually know, and most likely never will.
If there were no "separation" between the achiever and the achievement, we would have very, very little achievement of any significant value in this world. Art, politics, science - whatever is important. Most geniuses in history has been cursed to some degree or another with a reprehensible personal history. One of the fatal flaws of the philosophy of the so-called Christian-right is that they typically evaluate an achievement by gloming it together with the personal morality of the achiever. If you are "with God", then your achievements are worthy and good; if you are not, your achievements are at best suspect and at worst a clandestine work of the devil. God save us from these short-sighted Pharisees who in the long run probably do more to serve evil (separation, hatred, and pain) than good (love, unity and true joy).
Reply to this
Very true, there is no doubt the Christian-Right do not separate at all. But I'd contend that even the average, moderate person has a difficult time with this. Athletes and politicians are both significantly more successful when they are likable and have publicly clean personal lives. Despite what I said in my post, while it's an admirable goal, it's practically impossible to always separate the art from the artist, or the achievement from the achiever. The difficult question is when is it right or wrong to do so? What are the rules? It's obviously a personal decision, but how do people go about making these decisions?
Reply to this
I believe what you are really asking is: When, as an OBJECTIVE matter, should a person CARE about the personal morals of an achiever? When is it relevant? First, I think we can agree that emotions are (or should be) irrelevant. How you FEEL about the achiever goes to his popularity or fame, not the quality or legitimacy of his achievement. Secondly, I submit that whether objectively we should care depends upon the nature of the achievement and its relation to the immorality. For example, if a convicted, active pedophile were to find a cure for cancer, is the achiever's personal morals relevant? I think not. On the other hand, if the elected President of the United States were found to have previously leaked secret military information to North Korea in exchange for money, or was found to have bribed the Secretary of State of Florida to declare him the winner of the popular vote there if in fact he was not, that would indeed be relevant to the "achievement " of being/becoming the elected leader of the most powerful nation on earth. Perhaps the metaphor is not a perfect one, but you get the idea. Suppose Michelangelo was found to have stolen the paints he used to create the Mona Lisa. Relevant to the achievement? Nope. MLK and JFK were both known adulterers? Relevant to their greatness? Nope. Some past Popes were known fornicators and fathers of illegitimate children. Relevant? You bet! The boomer.
Reply to this