Dear Readers, I bought this book while I was in Canada, because I’ve always been interested in how and why we decide what it’s acceptable to enjoy, and how far we are able to separate the artist from the work. This is particularly current when someone was recently arrested for attacking the Eric Gill sculpture outside the BBC with a chisel only last week – Gill, who was instrumental in the design of the typeface for the London Underground, and who was lauded for his artistic works, is also notorious for his sexual abuse of his daughters, and his dog. Dederer doesn’t actually discuss Gill, but she does talk about some of our more recent ‘monsters’ – Michael Jackson, Roman Polanski, Miles Davies etc.
In The Guardian, Rachel Cooke gave the book a truly terrible review, while Kathryn Hughes kind of liked it. And so, as you might expect, the book turns out to be just as polarising as the question. ‘Should’ we still enjoy the paintings of Picasso, even though he was a serial abuser of women? ‘Should’ we still enjoy the music of Miles Davies, who openly discussed slapping women around? How far does the ‘stain’ of knowing about an artist’s life contaminate the things that they created?
Well it’s a vexed subject and there are no easy answers. One point that is well-made, though, is that this, like so many things, has been turned into an individual decision. If we refuse to listen to the music of Michael Jackson, who are we benefitting (apart from making ourselves feel good?) And how about the fact that Jackson was probably a victim of child abuse himself? We get ourselves tied up in knots, and I can’t help thinking that, compared to the problems that the world is facing, worrying about such things is a luxury. Just imagine if we took all that energy and argument and turned it towards actually changing things that are wrong.
The ‘monsters’ in Dederer’s book are overwhelmingly men, but she has some interesting things to say about what makes a woman artist a ‘monster’. Largely this involves abandoning their children – Doris Lessing took one of her children with her when she left what was then Rhodesia, but left the other two behind. For me, the difference between what Lessing does, and what the male ‘monsters’ do is that Lessing left in order to do her artistic work. I’m not sure that beating up your partner adds anything to your ability to make jazz, or that abusing children makes you a better sculptor. We seem to cut male artists more slack when it comes to terrible behaviour, which comes as no big surprise to me.
Ach, I don’t know. I don’t think that there are any easy answers about what we should and shouldn’t like, and how far we should stop enjoying the art of those who are execrable human beings. The paradox of seeing that something is beautiful, and moving, and true, and that the person who created it is a terrible human being, is one that I don’t think that anyone has ultimately cracked. But I would love to know what you think, Readers. Is there something that you no longer feel comfortable about enjoying, now that you know about the artist’s life? Or are you able to separate the two?
I should say that I found Dederer’s book thought-provoking, frustrating and a little confusing, but then that’s pretty much what the whole subject is like.
I think most people have a line that can be crossed. They might be okay liking the art of a person who abuses their wife, but not be okay with the art of someone who rapes small children. Some might be fine liking the art of a child rapist if the artist is now dead, but wouldn’t want to support a living rapist.
I myself find that I just start to dislike the work of a person whom I’ve found out to be a “monster.” It isn’t really a choice for me; it’s just that when I hear the music, read the writing, or see the movie or art, I can’t help envisioning the monstrous behavior. It ruins it for me.
I can’t separate the art from the artist. Once I know the facts, I can’t “unknow” them.
And I would never want to financially support a living artist who is doing something I consider monstrous. There is so much art out there that I’d prefer to follow and support people I think are a force for good.
Yes to that last paragraph. I wouldn’t want to support someone whose behaviour I found abhorrent either.
And I think this is the ‘stain’ that Dederer talks about – how once known, we can’t ‘unknow’ the facts about someone’s behaviour, and it seeps into our understanding of the work.
Dederer is from my home town and I long followed her work in The Stranger newspaper. I had no idea she wrote books!
She’s an interesting writer, and one that I hadn’t come across before…
I agree that it’s not straightforward. Personally I’ve gone off the Smiths since Morrisey’s recent proclamations, but I’m not going to stop loving the work of David Bowie because he slept with some under-age girls.
If you read a lot of biogs of artists you can’t help noticing that most of them have behaved in deeply horrible ways to some of the people in their lives, even if only a small minority were actual child abusers.
We seem to equate liking the work of an artist with endorsing their behaviour, political views and general morality. This doesn’t make sense either. And why should we expect artists to be admirable people?
It’s uncomfortable, but I think eventually we’ll have to admit that transcendent art can be produced by complete ****holes, and it doesn’t stop being transcendent because of where it came from.
I really like that last paragraph, Mary. It seems to sum the situation up perfectly.
Also, times and values change. Something which is considered abhorrent now, might have been considered acceptable or even normal in the past.
Eric Gill is a example because we know a lot about him. If we didn’t separate the work from the artist then what would there be to respond to. Picasso was pretty monstrous. Rembrandt’s self portraits are merciless and not morally flattering. What do we know about Vermeer. Would his paintings be less luminous if it turned out his behaviour was unacceptable. Should we lock these great works away or accept that artists are as flawed as anyone else. I think it is possible to condemn behaviour while accepting the art they produce in all its forms including literature or music.
Once again bug woman, thank you for an interesting and rich topic of discussion.
Thanks Christine! I think this topic is interesting because it’s so slippery – I no sooner think that I’ve come to a conclusion than someone else raises a fascinating point.
Thanks for your review of this book. Not an easy subject and you have done it with an admirably open mind. I have been looking out for it, but in the meantime I read an essay by Claire Dederer and didn’t really like what she had to say. So maybe I’ll just make do with your analysis and the excellent discussion that follows.
Perhaps artists are often narcissistic and feel above the rules that apply to the rest of society?
I think the point about narcissism is well made, Gert – and I do wonder how many artists who don’t have that overwhelming ego go unseen, because they aren’t prepared to become ‘monsters’ for whom their art is more important than anything else, including the people who support them.