Art v Artist

Art v Artist

From a reader of our Facebook page:

Article request.
A look at Michael Jackson’s pornography, his court cases, his obvious pedofilia (sic) and how still playing his music is acceptance of his behavior.
Why wasn’t he arrested for possession of some serious hardcore child pornography?”

The question of how we are to judge an artist and the art they produce is a topic that goes beyond the immediate issue of Mr. Jackson. As I address it, let’s first review a few facts that are easily confirmed from his trial on child molestation charges.

In the course of both the 1993 and the 2005 investigations, there were extensive searches of Jackson’s multiple homes and the FBI was extensively involved in forensic investigation of vhs tapes and computers. No child pornography was ever found. Indeed, no gay porn was found either. Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler magazines were found and I will leave it to each person’s own opinion on whether or not they are appropriate material to possess. They are legal publications.

Jackson was found not guilty at trial. This was not a surprising verdict for any person who followed the proceedings as the prosecution’s case was so weak as to be cringe-worthy. There was no circumstantial evidence (e.g. lack of any child porn) and the credibility of the complaining witnesses was so compromised as to make many observers question why the case was allowed to go forward.

Whether or not Jackson was, indeed, a pedophile is still little more than rumor and conjecture. That he was an eccentric and troubled man is not in dispute.

So let’s deal with his music. Does playing it or performing rise to being an endorsement of Jackson’s personal behavior? Even if you believe he was a pedophile, does that mean all the music he wrote should be shunned or even legally banned?

How much does a piece of art stand on its own merits and to what extent are we to judge it based on the artist?

I would propose that we keep the art and artist separate.

Yet, I realize this is difficult as we tend to judge the artist by their art. It is the curse of our celebrity-as-hero culture where the political or social opinions of people who are famous for what they do as a profession are eagerly accepted as authoritative.

However, this double-edged sword has come to mean that a work of art is to be judged by the artist’s personal beliefs or behavior.

Or, even more radical, we are now seeing that an artist’s “identity” as the measure of their artwork’s acceptability. From removing a portrait of Shakespeare because “white, heteronormative, cis-male” to male-shaming books, we are being lectured that we must look first at what identity groups the artist belongs to in order assess if they are socially acceptable before we even get to look at their novel, music, painting or sculpture.

Source: Heat Street
For those of us who came of age during the Cold War, this smacks of the USSR’s school of Socialist Realism and its government control of the arts.

Ironically, contemporary Hollywood still has a black-list – during the McCarthy era it was against Communists, now it’s against Conservatives.

My advice is to enjoy the music you like, read the stories that appeal to you, hang whatever painting you want in your living room and look at the art separated from the artist.

Don’t judge a work of art based on the identity of the artist and stop making artists “heroes” based merely on their art.

Written by

5 Comments
  • Scott says:

    Darleen,

    With all due respect, i’m going to disagree with you a bit. You ask if the music / art should be shunned, or legally banned, and I think these two options are worlds apart. By no means should any of the things mentioned be legally banned, in our great country, everyone is free to produce whatever they feel is art, and to live their lives as they please ( yes, i know govt has unfortunately placed many restrictions on this, and of course it does not apply when criminal behavior is involved)
    The second part though is should it be shunned. this is where we disagree, good people of conscience ( in my opinion) should associate ” art” with the person producing it , and shun that which they feel is inappropriate. This is also a fundamental right, and in addition, the means by which social norms are formed. To quote someone far more intelligent than I, ” all that is necessary for evil to flourish, is for good men to do nothing”

    Just my 2 cents

  • GWB says:

    serious hardcore child pornography

    I’m guessing this person has absolutely no idea what “hardcore” means. Very little of the “kiddie porn” that authorities find in investigations is “hardcore” (at least among photographs – drawings and 3d animation are a different story).

  • Jennifer says:

    I’m with Darleen in this one. I don’t believe in banning art that people feel is offensive. It does smack of the USSR to me. As to whether it should be shunned-I leave that up the individual. One thing though-just because YOU choose to shun it should not mean that you can harrass me into shunning it. To each their own.

  • Scott says:

    Well said Jennifer, to each his/ her own. I didn’t mean to imply that anyone should be harassed into going against what they believe, just that they should be follow their own conscience, and not be pressured into doing anything just to be nice..

  • Darleen Click says:

    Scott,

    I used “or” specifically because while we all have the right to choose what we want to patronize, there are mob actions against an artist that approaches banning. The blacklist of the McCarthy era was NOT a legal requirement. It was voluntary action on the part of studios to not employ in any capacity actors, directors, screenwriters, etc, based on perceived, or even real, ties to communism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead