You can like art, not the artist
We must separate the man from the works
IF you look to celebrities for moral guidance or political insights then you are a certifiable idiot. Seek help immediately. There are few groups more ignorant, perverse and downright dysfunctional than the celebrity class including actors, directors, painters and musicians.
It’s a world where predators are protected and even celebrated, and though they love to grandstand about ethics, the entertainment industry willingly turns a blind eye to heinous behaviour among their own. It’s like the Catholic Church back in the 1950s.
Of course there are plenty of decent individuals among the flotsam but, as a group, artists are among the most dastardly souls to inhabit the earth. It doesn’t get much more depraved than giving a standing ovation at the Oscars to a convicted pedophile like Roman Polanski or collaborating with an unconvicted pedophile like R. Kelly. Let’s not forget that the conduct of Harvey Weinstein and Jimmy Saville were an open secret for decades before the public exposure.
R & B star Kelly is finally being disowned by those who once ignored his sick predilections and lined up to make sweet music with him.
Everyone, including much of the public, has long known what Kelly is. A sex tape featuring Kelly urinating on the face of an underage girl was leaked more than a decade ago.
In any other industry that would end your career but artists of the calibre of Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber were happy to release songs with Kelly despite his sick antics.
Sure, they’ve all disowned him now that he’s been charged with multiple counts of aggravated sexual abuse but they knew precisely what he was capable of long before the documentary series Surviving R. Kelly was released earlier this year featuring interviews with more than 50 of his victims and former associates.
Last week after an illadvised interview with Gayle King, Kelly was sent back to jail for failing to pay child support but has since been released again.
From Picasso to Elvis the list of legendary artists whose personal behaviour would turn your stomach is as long as it is illustrious.
All of which brings me to Michael Jackson whose sublime talent I witnessed firsthand when he toured Australia back in 1996. It remains one of the top five concerts I’ve seen.
Even back then we knew something was NQR about Michael but most of us preferred to believe he was eccentric rather than Bad, excuse the pun.
From his days as a child genius heading The Jackson 5 to his rise as the King of Pop, he amassed a spectacular catalogue of work.
But now, in light of the accusations contained in the HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, Jackson’s music is being banned by some stations in New Zealand and Canada with calls for more radio networks to remove his songs from their playlist. I’m not passing judgment on Jackson’s guilt or innocence, but merely stating that we must separate the art from the artist.
If we were to stop listening, watching and appreciating the output of artists guilty of reprehensible conduct then we’d be deprived of some of the greatest works ever created.
Polanski may be a confessed rapist who drugged and anally raped a 13-year-old child and then fled the US to avoid jail but what good comes from banning his movies?
Jerry Lee Lewis not only married his cousin but married her when she was a mere child of 13. Woody Allen married the adopted daughter of his former partner, Mia Farrow, which is perfectly legal but morally repugnant.
Allen’s creepy conduct does not end there, according to his children.
Dylan Farrow alleged that Allen sexually abused her when she was seven and though he was never charged, Judge Elliott Wilk, who was presiding over the custody suit Allen brought against Farrow, found that Allen’s actions towards his daughter were “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her”.
Again, you can pass judgment on Allen as a human being without demanding that his works be purged.
If every questionable actor, director and producer’s work was expunged from movie catalogues there’d be little left. Continuing to enjoy the movies that Weinstein helped create is not an endorsement of his behaviour.
In the #MeToo era there have been petitions for museums to remove great works of art which feature “troubling” imagery that sexualise pre-pubescent girls or are “exploitative”.
Where does it stop and how far back do we go? What was once legal is now considered abhorrent.
By any measure Picasso was monstrously awful to many of the women in his life, a fact acknowledged by his granddaughter who wrote of how he would use, abuse and dispose of his lovers, two of whom committed suicide.
But that does not detract from his genius as an artist.
We must separate the man from the work. One can appreciate the work of a talented but deeply flawed artist without condoning their conduct or criminality.