Artists, Motives, and Morality

After reading an excellent post, at ART and ARCHITECTURE, mainly, about Oscar Wilde's involvement in France's notorious Dreyfus Affair, I decided to re-post this entry from August  2009. I have long been intrigued by our relationship with artists and by our expectations about them as moral (or otherwise) people.

In 1991, when Woody Allen began a relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow (his long-time romantic partner), the media erupted with commentary for and against his morality. Some said that they would never again patronize any of his films; others made a special case for him because "artists are different," and we overlook transgressions because of what their art gives to us.

An even more heated debate about artists, their morality, and their contributions to the world, arose when Roman Polanski was arrested in 2009, decades after fleeing to avoid sentencing in a case of having forced sex with a minor - to which he had pled guilty. The same arguments circulated.

Hels' post about Oscar Wilde discusses two books about Wilde's involvement in the Dreyfus Affair, particularly about his motives, and it reminded me of this question about artists that surfaces again and again.



Here is the original post:



In October 1984, I saw an exhibit of Hitler's watercolours at the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence.

I then knew nothing about Hitler as an artist and was shocked by the fact that he painted anything at all. The paintings were decent, some better than decent, and some were quite pretty, especially those of great architecture in landscape settings.

I would forget for a time that the paintings were done by Hitler and simply appreciate them; then with a mental start, I would remember whose work it was and feel guilty for enjoying it. At times, I was dual-minded, a critic watching myself enjoying the art of an evil madman.

It was one of those odd moments that stay with a person always.

Spiegel Online International has Ulrike Knofel's interview with German art historian Birgit Schwarz: "The Fuhrer's Obsession with Art."

Schwarz is an expert on Hitler's relationship with art and sees Hitler's obsession with art as part of his view of himself as a genius, and vice versa. She further connects his political and racial evils with his belief in himself as a genius - an idea of genius from the 19th century:

We define a genius on the basis of his talent. At the time, talent was not the main focus. A genius had to have a strong personality. He was a larger-than-life talent who was permitted to do anything, including evil things. The genius has outstanding ideas, and they must be implemented, even if they are completely amoral. Hitler admired the work of dour philosophers like Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Unlike many other historians and biographers who see the artist almost as footnote to the monster, Schwarz sees Hitler's ideas about himself as an artist as fundamental to his persona and actions as Der Fuhrer.

Schwarz has written "Geniewahn: Hitler und die Kunst" (Delusions of Genius: Hitler and Art) about these connections.

___________________________________________________

The connections between artists and morality, between what society expects of us mere mortals as differentiated from what it expects, at times, from artists is a complex and fascinating question. Hels' post has added another dimension and another artist to my "collection."

Soiree's Past Week

At My Soiree - January 25 - 31

A typical winter view from our window.

...And Looting Isn't Always Crime - Monday, January 25/10

Art and/or Morality - Tuesday, January 26/10

Your Name is WHAT? - Wednesday, January 27/10

Days of Wine and Yoga - Thursday, January 28/10

Movies for Foodies - Friday, January 29/10

Weird, Wild, Wonderful 4- Jan 24-30  -- January 30/10 

Art and/or Morality

Jeffrey Toobin's article in the December 14/09 issue of The New Yorker is quite a comprehensive discussion of the ongoing legal issues and extradition order for Roman Polanski. The article lays out the timelines of events and the twists and turns of Polanski's long self-exile in Europe.

Called "The Celebrity Defense," Toobin's article traces the influence, for both Polanski's advantage and disadvantage, of his celebrity status.

The arguments put forward in the "for" and "against" Polanski camps remind me of the same arguments raised when Woody Allen was caught having an affair with his, then, step-adopted daughter Soon-Yi in 1992.

Allen, who is 34 years Soon-Yi's senior, eventually married her in 1997, but the scandal raged at the time.

Allen's (it should be noted that he did not commit a crime and faced no charges) and Polanski's cases raise issues about art and morality. Often in Polanski's defense has someone commented on his talent and contribution to the world of film. The same defense was raised concerning Allen.

I remember listening to a call-in show on CBC radio just after the Allen scandal broke. The callers clearly were divided into two camps, fairly evenly split, as follows:

1) Artists are different from us mere mortals and, thus, should be forgiven their sins (or judged by a different standard).

2) Artists have no special relationship to the law, are not above it, and should be held up to the same moral and legal standards as everyone else. Period. No exceptions.

These two positions lead to further questions about what happens when it's concrete, and we are putting our dollars where our morals are.

Are art and the morality of the artist intertwined? Independent? Should one purchase or in any way support the work of someone who is deemed immoral? Or are we merely purchasing something not related to morality at all?

Do we know the moral qualities of all the people who own (and own stock in) the companies (plus all the people who work for them) whose products we purchase? Is not knowing an excuse for going ahead with a purchase? Is that really any different from buying a book or painting created by an individual of whom we disapprove?

I wrote some months ago about seeing Hitler's watercolours in Florence and going through a severe ambivalence because I liked the paintings but had a hard time reconciling that with who had painted them.


These are not easy questions. Jeffrey Toobin does a good job of showing how they play out in the life, crimes and sentencing of Roman Polanski.


(Both paintings shown in this post are by Adolph Hitler.)