This guest post is written by Kate Harveston, a writer and political activist from Pennsylvania. She blogs about culture and politics, and the various ways that those elements act upon each other. For more of her work, you can follow her on Twitter or subscribe to her blog, Only Slightly Biased.
If evolution is a theoretical end-goal of successful art — a.k.a. “it makes you think” — then what about the evolution of the artist behind the art? Do you excuse the artist their personal failings, especially crimes, for contributions of great art to society?
It’s been a big question in recent months as society exposes popular movie makers, comedians and other artists for years of horrible abuse. Do you turn on yourself and society, shifting or not shifting beliefs, as a result of such dialogue? Do you, or does society, change? Can you simply sit back and enjoy the art?
Bill Cosby
Many grew up watching the lovable Huxtable family on TV, where Bill Cosby played Dr. Cliff Huxtable on The Cosby Show. His character always had something to say with the proper mix of humour, wisdom and love. Aside from being America’s Dad, Cosby’s character also represented a vital presence on screen and in society for people of colour.
In recent years, many women came forward to reveal the actor as a sexual predator. Cosby claimed that everything was consensual, but more and more women stood up to call out Cosby as a predator and rapist.
You try to go back to Dr. Huxtable, to separate the artist from his art, the proclaimed predator from who you see on screen. You laugh at some of the funny parts, until Cosby stares at his young TV daughter’s tight pants — and you cringe. You try to reason it out: “That’s not Cosby. That’s Dr. Huxtable!” Something is still off, and there is only grief. Many lost their childhood to this knowledge, along with the women who lost so much.
Harvey Weinstein
The allegations of sexual assault against Harvey Weinstein made many fans rethink their love of Miramax Films. Weinstein’s abuse also extended to his staff who claimed the cult of Miramax protected him from the ramifications of his behaviours.
Decades of allegations of mental, emotional and sexual abuse by staff and dozens of women must be considered, but what of those who made the art, too? What of the women who made art associated with Miramax?
Is it ever appropriate to enjoy the art without condemning the artist?
Whether the history books will remember celebrities like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby most prominently for their art or for their wrongdoings is unclear. The actions of the artists lead to the question of how society “should” perceive their art, but abuse often occurs in parallel time without public knowledge.
Is it still appropriate to enjoy the art after you’ve innocently viewed it and had no knowledge of an artist’s reprehensible behaviour? What narrative conflicts do you and society face?
If an intrinsic end point of art is evolution, separating the art from the artist fails to engage people in the vital conversation aesthetically and humanely needed. The art and the artist fail the audience, and at some point, you must stop being the audience and remember your humanity. It’s important to understand that for the abused, the art isn’t always separate. It’ a part of what happened as the art was made, never lessening that horrible personal experience.
So while we can give the artist credit for what they were able to create, that’s about as far as it goes. We can’t excuse their actions because of their talent. It is not wrong to view the art and appreciate it for what it’s worth, but it cannot be denied that there is some worth lost when we find out that all along, our onscreen heroes were never heroes to begin with, but instead the bad guys.
