There is always changing appreciation of artists and historical figures. Polarization is affecting not only political figures but the tribal energy of a changed society has brought an unprecedented, unforgiving ferocious quality to re-evaluation of the cultural icons. Not even Shakespeare and Tulsidas are above this. Even the art of Picasso is treated as problematic by some. Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Kevin Spacey, Tarun Tejpal, Bill Crosby, the list is endless. Many classical works are even being re-written to tackle their racial and gender related anomalies that have crept up due to changing values and sensitivities. Spread and importance of social media coupled with the polarization is creating innumerable moments of cancellation and reputational loss, deserved or otherwise. In societal and legal sense these individual artists get what is mandated and are generally finished if they are alive to take the corporal punishment that is there in the rule book (Harvey Weinstein). Some like Polanski, live exiled lives. And many are finished professionally (Kevin Spacey) as due to ethical, moral and above all, commercial / reputational reasons they become untouchable and stop getting work. Where does this leave a fan or admirer who finds art in their work that provides a rare transcendence.
I, for one, am strongly of the view that art should not be expected to carry ideological burden. I respect the idea and right to exist of ideological or even ethical critique of works of art. Ethical and ideological criticism often provides new avenues to absorb the art. But art, for me, is ultimately an intensely personal experience and this aesthetic intimacy of the personal trumps the sociological expanse of the ethical and ideological. So, it is the personal that allows me to resonate with the universal. Only the most personal can resonate with the truly universal. That what is societal or socially constructed is inherently limited. In the ensuing discussion, it will always be I/me as I believe that this discussion of art of discredited artists has to be in first person. Here, I am dissecting ‘my’ relationship with these works of art and impact of the pressure that I feel when the communal aspect of art weighs on my intensely personal space of consuming, living and appreciating art. This personal space is the key arena where this formation of the aesthetic experience is taking place. My argument will eventually underline my distaste for telling others about how to feel for some critical aspect of life which is or, at least, should be personal to that person.
Art is a realm of feeling, even seemingly more cerebral aspects of art are absorbed and situated in a matrix of feeling. Emotions and feelings are about transcendence and not about transection. If an artwork is helping me feel the transcendence of emotions despite knowing the crimes of the artists, I am entitled to that feeling. Undoubtedly, communal and intellectual aspects will weigh in on my feeling realm. If these intellectual ethical considerations are not colouring my feeling to an extent where the piece of art starts losing its transcendence, I am well within my right to enjoy the piece of art. If the impact of the crime is sufficiently powerful to impact the experience of art appreciation and muddle the transcendental experience then it will be me, and me only, who will shun the artists as he or she is not no longer giving me a deep aesthetic feeling. All this is happening in the personal space where I deal with my artistic being.
I am not talking about the rupture between biography and Art of the artist. It is bound to impact my appreciation of art as the knowledge of his crime and misdemeanour has become part of my being and my being is the receptacle and instrument to feel the art. So my experience of the art is bound to change by the biographical details. My point is that it is nobody's business to tell me how this knowledge should impact me. The mixing of biographical perversions and transcendence weight of the art is unique and personal to me and should be protected from outside evaluation to the extent to which it stays personal. Without belittling the experience of the victims of his crime, I need not feel guilty about her experience not significantly mudding my experience of the art of the criminal. This is my intimate personal arena and I am not performing a societal function, my social judgement will occur when I will deal with the criminal, legal aspect of the crime. It is not compartmentalization. It is just preventing a social censorship of guilt to enter in an area that should be autonomously decided by the individual in the feeling realm. I will surely be mindful of this knowledge if I am performing a societal duty like voting or jury duty but in my sanctum of experiencing the art, I retain my paradoxical autonomy of being guided by my own feelings. This cuts both ways, I can't tell someone who is no longer able to enjoy the art about her degree of being repulsed by the biographical detail or the crime is an overreaction. Her experience will be guided by her being, environment, history and civilizational victimization of her as an individual and as a member of social categories like gender, race etc.
If the crimes of Roman Polanski or Woody Allen impact people differently, and I am speaking about the consumption experience of their art, I think this is one area where people should be able to agree to disagree without castigating others. Every crime has a different level of impact for different people. We may not or should not be able to have a graded response for the crimes in law and social settings as there is a need for some predictability of consequences of crimes and having a too graded definition of heinous crimes may slow down the function of law. However, in something as intensely personal as art appreciation, feelings are the best guide and different people can react differently. "How can you watch X while knowing that he is a child molester? '' is a question that impinges upon an area where the person asking the question is asking me to think like him. I have taken an extreme example (child molestation in my case will surely change the experience of the art of the molester) just to prove a point. It is possible that I may be ambivalent about the crime or I may feel culturally and geographically too distant to feel the full immediacy of it or simply I am ignorant. There can be many factors which may keep the revulsion from significantly impacting the aesthetic experience. The above question is the same as asking a person who is deeply disturbed by the biographical details and crime "why can't you see 'Manhattan' for its aesthetics. This is a masterpiece?'. It is no longer a masterpiece for her. If the biography of the director has ruined it for her then we have no business telling her to think otherwise as she has no business to shame me for not abandoning the art work because of the crime. I will not ask for leniency in the court for the crime of the artist, but will surely insist on being allowed to pick my art as per my feeling world.
The person can ask me what if the crime was committed against you or your family. I am sure, the immediacy of the crime would surely ruin my experience and that personal space where I am absorbing and engaging with the work of art will not be a location of transcendence as the force of my hurt,outrage and hatred will outweigh the transcendence. I will shun the art and artist both with maximum prejudice. This is not hypocrisy but perhaps a more honest acceptance of my feelings and autonomy of my internal space to absorb the artwork within the realm of my own experience.
In the factual world of social reaction where thinking and intellect rather than aesthetics and feeling are the governing factors, parameters would be different. Laws and Social reaction have a degree of finality. Whatever you might feel about Polanski bedding a teenager, and Allen marrying the daughter of his partner, law is often fixed and punishments are clear. I do not have the mandate or expertise to debate the legal aspect of these crimes or even the religious social reactions towards them. I am not getting into the nuances of time and culture in evaluation of the severity of the crimes and confine my arguments to the autonomy of my feeling space.
Yes, as I said there is no completely private sphere and like religion, aesthetic tastes too have a social dimension. There, in my opinion, I should be circumspect about the feelings of the victims and those who think differently from me. I will not be signalling about or sharing these things. This does not include spending money to consume the art. I will pay to watch a movie, read a book or visit a gallery. Awards are obviously difficult area as they are very publicly celebratory. This will depend on the appetite of the awarding agency and public protest and debates are totally fair game if a controversial artist is getting the award.
If history has taught us something, it is the fickle nature of the parameters of fame and socially accepted behavior. Things change and they should. Some form of social surveillance and censorship will always be there which may be productive for social reality or may acquire extremely dangerous proportions like inquisition and witch burning. While society will find ways to deal with this, nurturing the autonomy of personal feeling realm remains a valid pursuit, a bastion of preserving truly universal and enduring, and art as the distillation of transcendence, deserves a truly private feeling realm to be judged uniquely by every individual sensitivity.
