Two thoughts: If a work is not a polemic, if there is no taint in the work, then read on; children can learn to deal with the challenge when they're old enough to think critically about it.
You write "people are neither wholly good, nor wholly bad" -- just so. It would serve for us all to remember that. Would that G.K. Chesterton was here to comment. But as Frederick Beuchner says, "We have all cut ourselves shaving." That's a critical starting point to avoiding a self-righteousness, of which there's an awful lot these days. That is not an endorsement of or excuse for any of the rogues mentioned here, but an important starting point nevertheless.
When I was an ideologically awakening but cautious, very devout evangelical literature major at a rigorous evangelical college (I'm still a lot of those things, but maybe less cautious and definitely no longer a college student), I was frequently troubled to learn about the shenanigans of some of the authors and poets whose works we studied. Coleridge was an addict. Dostoevsky had alcohol and relationship issues. Byron was, well...byronic. I found myself very conflicted when I discovered these realities but also found myself moved or delighted or otherwise impacted by the literary works...even when the works themselves sometimes reflected the lifestyle or the belief system I found objectionable.
But wrestling through that knowledge and those impressions and the way the art and I interacted with each other was an important part of my intellectual, emotional, psychological, and even spiritual growth. I still find some of the things objectionable now that I did then, but I'm not afraid to read and engage the works anymore. I think ultimately it makes me better.
Right! I think we short-change children and youth when we try to spoon-feed them what we want them to believe and think, rather than making what we want them to believe and think inviting and compelling (partly by living it) and then offering them counter-perspectives to learn discernment. (Which, as a side note, I guess explains a heck of a lot of what's going on in the American church right now.)
I’m also Jewish, but I fall more in line with Matthes on this one. I once heard someone say that if we got rid of all the antisemitic books/authors, there’d be nothing left to read. It’s an exaggeration, of course, but the point stands. If we eliminate every problematic artist, we get rid of a lot of great art.
It’s an ugly reality of 17–20th century Europe that intellectuals and statesmen publicly debated the so-called Jewish Question. People had opinions, many of them wrongheaded. I wouldn’t be surprised to find misguided views on the subject held by many—including artists, authors, and others. Dahl represents a lingering example of that toxic worldview.
"What goes into a book is the author’s" - we assume here that a work of art is a form of self-expression, and the artist/author puts nothing but themselves in the piece of art in question - which is highly debatable, and most certainly is not always the case. I think Pasolini is an interesting case here - he lived his entire life completely in opposition to how the Catholic church believes one should live his life, and yet, for example, his Gospel According to St. Matthew made it to the Vatican list of "Some Important Films".
How much of a book, painting, movie reflects the genuine beliefs of the artist probably depends project to project, patron to patron. But the product can be judged independently of those beliefs.
An excellent review of this problem. I like that line about the difference between aesthetics and ethics. What do you think if the book is a book of theology? Does that make a difference?
Maybe, maybe not. Origen’s reputation has, for instance, waxed and waned over the centuries, but he can always be read profitably. I think that’s true for all sorts of authorities. There’s been a lot of conversation in the last few years about Jonathan Edward’s slaveholding and more recently Karl Barth’s infidelity. Both are black marks. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t value to be had in their work. Where it gets more complicated is if their immorality ends up directly compromising their work—which is certainly possible; in fact, the Christian theological tradition has stressed moral purity as prerequisite for spiritual understanding. I just don’t feel confident in determining that beyond evaluating the work itself, and since I don’t really have access to anything else, that’ll have to be enough.
Thank you so much for this. I’ve been thinking about this conflict a lot (more related to music / bands) and I didn’t know there’s an actual book about it. Can’t wait to get me a copy!
Very interesting, accessible treatment of a difficult question here. I could never decide what to do with the music of Richard Wagner, asking 'How can I separate the music from the man?' and having no good answer. You have helped me think more clearly on this issue. Thank you
Wagner is a great example of the problem. If a person can appreciate his music without celebrating his views, I don’t see any reason to avoid playing it.
Good article. I find the all-encompassing aspect of cancel culture troubling. If you don’t want to support an artist's work for a given reason, don’t hesitate to express that view. Why do we all have to have the same view? Take Woody Allen. I do not know him, and what I know about him is secondhand. This is not inherently bad, but it is a limited perspective, something we seem to have lost track of. As a movie viewer, I can choose whether I support his art. I can even share my perspective, and I do think it should be a point of discussion, but everyone does not have to agree with me. If artists in his sphere choose not to work with him, that is their decision. If the lack of willingness to work with him in his artistic community and a lack of bankability from a vocal critical public limits his career opportunities, so be it. It does not require collective agreement; it can be the simple cause and effect of multiple individual choices. It does not require us to all agree he is a villain. Society is too often insistent on making someone a villain. Why can’t you personally choose to work with that person or not? You should not even have to say why. You can if you want to. We should focus more on individual decisions and less on group thinking. We can discuss it. Disagree. Even agree to disagree. I recognize that sometimes it is more complex than agreeing to disagree. Often, though, it is not crucial to agree. Make your own decision and stand by it well, being flexible enough to discuss it with those who disagree.
Good points. I am not interested enough in Woody Allen to dig into the history of and make judgments about his personal life; same for Roald Dahl. “Judge not, lest you be judged” is a statement of fact about human nature. That we have seemingly lost most of our religious and moral bearings, through decay or through active undermining, is an unrelated catastrophe and simply means that everyone stands equal in squalidity (a new word!) For me, the rigid cancellers of all political stripes can fuck right off. I will still read Dostoyevsky novels and listen to the Ring cycle even if I know their author or composer hated people like me. The art can speak truth even when the artist behaves like a vile liar. You might say, the art and the artist are different people.
I’m Jewish. Dostoyevsky was a far, far worse antisemite than Dahl. He thought Jews weren’t even human. So, should we stop reading his work? Heidegger, was probably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century and a member of the Nazi Party during Hitler’s reign. Sartre thought that Stalin was god (he changed his very late in life). “Nobody’s perfect” (Some Like It Hot”). As long as those monster-authors don’t proselytise their monstrous ideas in their art, I will continue enjoying their work. But I won’t ask for their autograph or invite them to my house for dinner.
I had a street artist friend in college whose philosophy was that once an artist completes a work, it no longer belongs to the artist but to the world. I always held onto that philosophy and never had any qualms about reading, looking at, or being inspired by any work created by any human in all of history. Reading a book is absolutely not equivalent to endorsing every belief its author ever held.
I just finished Joan Aiken's "Dido and Pa," one of the Wolves Chronicles which is just an incredible series, a must -read. Dido spends much of the book pondering this question, as her Pa is a horrible person, and also a musical genius who composes beautiful music. She wonders how anyone as bad as he can produce such beauty.
Once someone is dead I have no problem enjoying their art. A large percentage of artists have been awful people and none of us can claim to be 100% pure. While they're still alive....well, I don't watch Woody Allen movies. But probably plenty of artists I enjoy have private sins I don't know about....sigh.
I try to make a point of wrangling such issues when I write about writers. As adults we need to understand the writer if we are studying the work. Kids? Well, that’s such a vexed question.
When we were but 10, my best friend and I read Dahl’s 1960 collection of short stories called Kiss, Kiss (hijacked from her parents collection who were quite literary). Distinctly remember the one Genesis and Catastrophe: a True Story, involving Hitler’s mother at childbirth. Others now seem very cringeworthy (like Royal Jelly). But the point being it enriched our imagination, did not harm, and we did not need curated children’s stories. We got the humor despite some being over our heads.
Concerning a work of art, the moral standing of the creator seems to me to be of no import, except to the extent that it bears on the art itself. OTOH, whether to support the creator financially or otherwise, strikes me as a YMMV situation.
Two thoughts: If a work is not a polemic, if there is no taint in the work, then read on; children can learn to deal with the challenge when they're old enough to think critically about it.
You write "people are neither wholly good, nor wholly bad" -- just so. It would serve for us all to remember that. Would that G.K. Chesterton was here to comment. But as Frederick Beuchner says, "We have all cut ourselves shaving." That's a critical starting point to avoiding a self-righteousness, of which there's an awful lot these days. That is not an endorsement of or excuse for any of the rogues mentioned here, but an important starting point nevertheless.
You’re right about the self-righteousness. We’re living through a period of secular puritanism. It’s graceless, ugly, and ultimately self-defeating.
"Secular puritanism" -- well put!
When I was an ideologically awakening but cautious, very devout evangelical literature major at a rigorous evangelical college (I'm still a lot of those things, but maybe less cautious and definitely no longer a college student), I was frequently troubled to learn about the shenanigans of some of the authors and poets whose works we studied. Coleridge was an addict. Dostoevsky had alcohol and relationship issues. Byron was, well...byronic. I found myself very conflicted when I discovered these realities but also found myself moved or delighted or otherwise impacted by the literary works...even when the works themselves sometimes reflected the lifestyle or the belief system I found objectionable.
But wrestling through that knowledge and those impressions and the way the art and I interacted with each other was an important part of my intellectual, emotional, psychological, and even spiritual growth. I still find some of the things objectionable now that I did then, but I'm not afraid to read and engage the works anymore. I think ultimately it makes me better.
I totally agree. Wrestling through the disreputable bits is part of the experience.
Right! I think we short-change children and youth when we try to spoon-feed them what we want them to believe and think, rather than making what we want them to believe and think inviting and compelling (partly by living it) and then offering them counter-perspectives to learn discernment. (Which, as a side note, I guess explains a heck of a lot of what's going on in the American church right now.)
I’m also Jewish, but I fall more in line with Matthes on this one. I once heard someone say that if we got rid of all the antisemitic books/authors, there’d be nothing left to read. It’s an exaggeration, of course, but the point stands. If we eliminate every problematic artist, we get rid of a lot of great art.
It’s an ugly reality of 17–20th century Europe that intellectuals and statesmen publicly debated the so-called Jewish Question. People had opinions, many of them wrongheaded. I wouldn’t be surprised to find misguided views on the subject held by many—including artists, authors, and others. Dahl represents a lingering example of that toxic worldview.
"What goes into a book is the author’s" - we assume here that a work of art is a form of self-expression, and the artist/author puts nothing but themselves in the piece of art in question - which is highly debatable, and most certainly is not always the case. I think Pasolini is an interesting case here - he lived his entire life completely in opposition to how the Catholic church believes one should live his life, and yet, for example, his Gospel According to St. Matthew made it to the Vatican list of "Some Important Films".
How much of a book, painting, movie reflects the genuine beliefs of the artist probably depends project to project, patron to patron. But the product can be judged independently of those beliefs.
An excellent review of this problem. I like that line about the difference between aesthetics and ethics. What do you think if the book is a book of theology? Does that make a difference?
Maybe, maybe not. Origen’s reputation has, for instance, waxed and waned over the centuries, but he can always be read profitably. I think that’s true for all sorts of authorities. There’s been a lot of conversation in the last few years about Jonathan Edward’s slaveholding and more recently Karl Barth’s infidelity. Both are black marks. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t value to be had in their work. Where it gets more complicated is if their immorality ends up directly compromising their work—which is certainly possible; in fact, the Christian theological tradition has stressed moral purity as prerequisite for spiritual understanding. I just don’t feel confident in determining that beyond evaluating the work itself, and since I don’t really have access to anything else, that’ll have to be enough.
Thank you so much for this. I’ve been thinking about this conflict a lot (more related to music / bands) and I didn’t know there’s an actual book about it. Can’t wait to get me a copy!
You’re welcome! There’s another book recently published that you might like as well, Claire Dederer’s Monsters: A Fan’s Dilemma. I haven’t read it yet, but Judith Shulevitz recently reviewed it in the Atlantic. Here’s a link: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/separate-art-from-artist-cancel-culture-monsters-book/673497/
Thank you for mentioning Claire Dederer. I was about to. Monsters is a good read. 📚
thanks for the hint!
Excellent reflection and helpful principles for considering this question.
Very interesting, accessible treatment of a difficult question here. I could never decide what to do with the music of Richard Wagner, asking 'How can I separate the music from the man?' and having no good answer. You have helped me think more clearly on this issue. Thank you
Wagner is a great example of the problem. If a person can appreciate his music without celebrating his views, I don’t see any reason to avoid playing it.
Good article. I find the all-encompassing aspect of cancel culture troubling. If you don’t want to support an artist's work for a given reason, don’t hesitate to express that view. Why do we all have to have the same view? Take Woody Allen. I do not know him, and what I know about him is secondhand. This is not inherently bad, but it is a limited perspective, something we seem to have lost track of. As a movie viewer, I can choose whether I support his art. I can even share my perspective, and I do think it should be a point of discussion, but everyone does not have to agree with me. If artists in his sphere choose not to work with him, that is their decision. If the lack of willingness to work with him in his artistic community and a lack of bankability from a vocal critical public limits his career opportunities, so be it. It does not require collective agreement; it can be the simple cause and effect of multiple individual choices. It does not require us to all agree he is a villain. Society is too often insistent on making someone a villain. Why can’t you personally choose to work with that person or not? You should not even have to say why. You can if you want to. We should focus more on individual decisions and less on group thinking. We can discuss it. Disagree. Even agree to disagree. I recognize that sometimes it is more complex than agreeing to disagree. Often, though, it is not crucial to agree. Make your own decision and stand by it well, being flexible enough to discuss it with those who disagree.
Good points. I am not interested enough in Woody Allen to dig into the history of and make judgments about his personal life; same for Roald Dahl. “Judge not, lest you be judged” is a statement of fact about human nature. That we have seemingly lost most of our religious and moral bearings, through decay or through active undermining, is an unrelated catastrophe and simply means that everyone stands equal in squalidity (a new word!) For me, the rigid cancellers of all political stripes can fuck right off. I will still read Dostoyevsky novels and listen to the Ring cycle even if I know their author or composer hated people like me. The art can speak truth even when the artist behaves like a vile liar. You might say, the art and the artist are different people.
I’m Jewish. Dostoyevsky was a far, far worse antisemite than Dahl. He thought Jews weren’t even human. So, should we stop reading his work? Heidegger, was probably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century and a member of the Nazi Party during Hitler’s reign. Sartre thought that Stalin was god (he changed his very late in life). “Nobody’s perfect” (Some Like It Hot”). As long as those monster-authors don’t proselytise their monstrous ideas in their art, I will continue enjoying their work. But I won’t ask for their autograph or invite them to my house for dinner.
I had a street artist friend in college whose philosophy was that once an artist completes a work, it no longer belongs to the artist but to the world. I always held onto that philosophy and never had any qualms about reading, looking at, or being inspired by any work created by any human in all of history. Reading a book is absolutely not equivalent to endorsing every belief its author ever held.
Beautifully said! I’m with you one hundred percent!!!
I just finished Joan Aiken's "Dido and Pa," one of the Wolves Chronicles which is just an incredible series, a must -read. Dido spends much of the book pondering this question, as her Pa is a horrible person, and also a musical genius who composes beautiful music. She wonders how anyone as bad as he can produce such beauty.
Once someone is dead I have no problem enjoying their art. A large percentage of artists have been awful people and none of us can claim to be 100% pure. While they're still alive....well, I don't watch Woody Allen movies. But probably plenty of artists I enjoy have private sins I don't know about....sigh.
I try to make a point of wrangling such issues when I write about writers. As adults we need to understand the writer if we are studying the work. Kids? Well, that’s such a vexed question.
When we were but 10, my best friend and I read Dahl’s 1960 collection of short stories called Kiss, Kiss (hijacked from her parents collection who were quite literary). Distinctly remember the one Genesis and Catastrophe: a True Story, involving Hitler’s mother at childbirth. Others now seem very cringeworthy (like Royal Jelly). But the point being it enriched our imagination, did not harm, and we did not need curated children’s stories. We got the humor despite some being over our heads.
Concerning a work of art, the moral standing of the creator seems to me to be of no import, except to the extent that it bears on the art itself. OTOH, whether to support the creator financially or otherwise, strikes me as a YMMV situation.
The problem is we know too much about people at times, for better or worse.