Great Art and Arseholes
10/04/22 09:19
I played 3 songs as [art of set recently. Two of my own with one so hot of the press I had the words on big sheets of paper on the floor in front of me. I also did a cover version of an old favourite. The song was ‘Couldn’t Love You More’ by John Martyn.
It is a wonderful tune to perform, a lovely love song with lush lyrics. The composer died in 2009 aged 60 with the usual glowing tributes along with other takes on his life from those who really knew him well. The consensus seemed to be that he was a talented arsehole. He was an alcoholic and drug user. He was cruel and abusive to his wife (they divorced) and treated many he encountered very badly. You listen to the song and think – how could this be the same person that wrote such a wonderful listing of reasons for being in love.
This background knowledge did change the way I felt about the song. Should I still play it knowing what he was like or simply accept that creativity can come from many sources and experiences? There is another musician who I had long admired for his talent till it came out about his past sexual offending against children. In this instance the answer was straight forward. I will never purchase another recording or watch a performance clip of that person despite the fact that he was a brilliant musician.
A similar question must arise for many in the art world. Does the fact that an artist was say a Nazi sympathiser, murderer, child molester or beat women mean the visual art, sculpture, literature or music they produced becomes abhorrent when previously it had been adored?
Do we look at the art work or hear the song through other filters that shift our relationship to it and how do we calibrate that reaction alongside the artistic merit of the piece in question. Does it still remain great art if the author was a person who did terrible things? Does it matter if the talented person producing astonishing creative work beats his partner or assaults his children? Yes, it does. These two things are not the same. Violence is not negotiable. Great art is also produced by those who would never do such things. This demolishes the notion that being creative provides some sort of excuse.
The counter to this might be acknowledging there is no limitation on character flaws and nobody is perfect. The trick is then deciding whether great art can allow us to overlook those flaws and see what is in the work. An artist I know thinks you can tell if there is something amiss and that it can be seen in the work. I am not entirely convinced by this as there is so much sublime art by people with documented histories of violence and cruelty which contains much that is wonderful to behold. Should the one be condemned with other?
This question is becoming more pertinent as social media means that the day to day life of artists faces greater public scrutiny than at any time in history. This allows for immediate alert to the transgressions of others, including artists. The public can now react very quickly with the electronic equivalent of being put in the stocks and pelted with insults. While this means violence is not condoned we must be wary in an age when any publicity is seen as good publicity that this does not actually boost rather than limit their audience.
This background knowledge did change the way I felt about the song. Should I still play it knowing what he was like or simply accept that creativity can come from many sources and experiences? There is another musician who I had long admired for his talent till it came out about his past sexual offending against children. In this instance the answer was straight forward. I will never purchase another recording or watch a performance clip of that person despite the fact that he was a brilliant musician.
A similar question must arise for many in the art world. Does the fact that an artist was say a Nazi sympathiser, murderer, child molester or beat women mean the visual art, sculpture, literature or music they produced becomes abhorrent when previously it had been adored?
Do we look at the art work or hear the song through other filters that shift our relationship to it and how do we calibrate that reaction alongside the artistic merit of the piece in question. Does it still remain great art if the author was a person who did terrible things? Does it matter if the talented person producing astonishing creative work beats his partner or assaults his children? Yes, it does. These two things are not the same. Violence is not negotiable. Great art is also produced by those who would never do such things. This demolishes the notion that being creative provides some sort of excuse.
The counter to this might be acknowledging there is no limitation on character flaws and nobody is perfect. The trick is then deciding whether great art can allow us to overlook those flaws and see what is in the work. An artist I know thinks you can tell if there is something amiss and that it can be seen in the work. I am not entirely convinced by this as there is so much sublime art by people with documented histories of violence and cruelty which contains much that is wonderful to behold. Should the one be condemned with other?
This question is becoming more pertinent as social media means that the day to day life of artists faces greater public scrutiny than at any time in history. This allows for immediate alert to the transgressions of others, including artists. The public can now react very quickly with the electronic equivalent of being put in the stocks and pelted with insults. While this means violence is not condoned we must be wary in an age when any publicity is seen as good publicity that this does not actually boost rather than limit their audience.