Claire Dederer poses an interesting conundrum, how to separate the art from the artist when the artist is known to have been hideous and committed serious offenses. This is a compelling question as one may seek dispensation to appreciate works done by an artist known for committing sexual or physical assault, child endangerment. Or someone who is a womanizer and treats others with cruelty and utter disregard. This prescient topic weighs heavily on us in today's woke world with a continuous list of talented celebrities being outed for their bad behaviors. Dederer narrows her monstrous subjects to males which is one sided but necessary to conform to her thesis. And, further restricts judgements for the rare few where true genius is applicable. Her thesis asks if genius merits accommodations or hall passes for the individual's actions. Dederer seems to waffle rather than commit to a conclusion. She does imply quashing the artist's freedom to act without consequences would inflate artistic freedom and the artist's psyche. The term genius is not a term dispensed without gravitas. The adjective is reserved for an iconoclastic group for whom unequivocal esteem is owed. (Of course, this too can be debated.) Taking examples from the various art forms of music, film, literature and visual arts Dederer honed in on Michael Jackson, Woody Allen, Ernest Hemingway and Pablo Picasso. She further asserts, "We are excited by their ass-hole-ness...We want the asshole to cross the line, to break the rules. We reward that rule-breaking, and then we go a step further, and see it as endemic to art-making itself." This assumption is where I part ways with Dederer's dissertation. But, it's imperative to note there are degrees to which bad-ass behavior is tolerated. In no way is criminal behavior to be exonerated for the sake of great art, rather legal actions would be merited. And, the paradigms for Hemingway and Picasso's womanizing do not do justice to disavowing their contributions. Having read MONSTERS, the issue is not resolved as to how to appreciate great art created by geniuses who nonetheless are mere mortals. Although, it doesn't require an Einstein to solve this enigma. I argue great art stands on its own merits and should be viewed as its own entity. Not, to be diminished. But, the dispensation of negating illicit and degrading behaviors must not be disregarded. Society is too quick to hand out accolades and too quick with its condemnations. For the film that doesn't receive an Acad. Award, does it change the work in any way? Of course not. Music, literature, art doesn't change like Dorian Gray's portrait in the attic but the stains on human nature are notable nonetheless.
No comments:
Post a Comment