Hugh Carr examines what we are willing to ignore when it comes to appreciated great art made by questionable people, including some of our childhood favourites?
ONE of the most common assumptions that we make when it comes to art is that people who create great art are inherently good in themselves. It makes sense on the surface; people who are kind and honest should be the ones who make art that is accepted by society, and terrible people would probably make terrible art. Paul McCartney wants us all to become vegetarian and save the planet, and he’s regarded as one of the greatest songwriters of our times. So this should make sense, right?
Unfortunately, being a good person and making great art are not mutually exclusive. In fact, you can be an objectively horrible human being with no respect for others, and still write a great novel, release a great album, or make a film that will captivate audiences for years.
We have to draw the line somewhere though, right? We, as human beings, don’t particularly like seeing the villain succeed. That is why fairytales always end with the hero saving the day. That is why Toy Story 3 does not end with the incinerator and it is why Scooby Doo and his gang of meddling kids always got in the way of Old Man Winkle.
But where is this line exactly? At what point can we say that this art is not to be appreciated because of the abhorrent actions of the artist? Or should there even be a line in the first place? Should art not be appreciated as just that, and not let the life of the artist get in the way?
Let’s start with one of the most controversial ones: Roald Dahl. You can already hear the mumbling and the confusion at the inclusion of a beloved children’s author into an article about awful people, but that is because a lot of Dahl’s controversial views have been hidden away in favour of the image of a jolly old soul writing delightful stories in his shed. Dahl was unafraid to share these views while he was alive, however.
In a 1983 interview with the New Statesman, Dahl expressed anti-Semitic views, going as far as saying “even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.” He went as far as blaming those murdered during the Holocaust, saying that “they were always submissive.” He even said, “I am anti-Israel and I have become anti-Semitic” in an interview with the Independent months prior to his death. It is hard to believe a man known for writing such beloved novels could have these views, but it is all to be found in his interviews.
Another author that has been the subject of widespread controversy is Orson Scott Card. Card is the author of the sci-fi novel Ender’s Game. This is a novel so widely admired that the US military have it as required reading for soldiers to learn lessons on leadership and decision making.
Card is a well-documented homophobe, penning many essays on “the gay agenda”, and his belief that homosexuality is a choice. One of his most shocking pieces is ‘The Hypocrites of Homosexuality’, published in Sunstone magazine in 1990. In this piece, Card gives strongly homophobic views, including the opinion that LGBTQ people should not be equal citizens in society and that gay people are the product of rape or molestation. These views are objectively wrong, and there is no evidence to support the claims that are made in the article, and this is only the tip of the homophobic iceberg that is Orson Scott Card.
Possibly the most controversial of all of these artists is Roman Polanski. Polanski is renowned for making some of the most well known films of all time, among them the classic noir Chinatown and The Pianist.
However, Polanski committed an incredibly heinous act in 1977 and was never jailed for it. Polanski, after a photoshoot, drugged and raped 13-year-old model Samantha Geimer. Due to the media frenzy and harrowing trial experience for Geimer, Polanski agreed to admit to the crime of sex with a minor, which required him to spend 42 days in a psychiatric facility. Yet Polanski never spent a day behind bars for his crimes.
Knowing what we know now, can we still appreciate the art that these people created? This is for you to decide as a reader. One could argue, however, that there is still a place for art created by bad people. The quality of a piece of art and the quality of character of the artist are not mutually exclusive.
Advertisements