To follow or not to follow
The latest clatter over Woody Allen receiving the Lifetime Achievement from the Golden Globes and public reaction of children from his ex-partner, Mia farrow prompted me to examine my reaction to such allegations and feelings toward artists(with similar past).Needless to say there are plenty of names in the box. Should we then abandon all of it all together? I also happened to have come across two well-written articles on the same subject recently where the writers have respectively written for and against endorsing such artists in articles titled "Why its important to keep reading books by people even if they're monsters" and 'No, I wont read your book if I think you are a monster" .(ON the BookRiot website)
What needs to be mentioned first is that I did not find it difficult to reject Roman Polanski's work once I came to know of his conviction as a rapist. On the other hand, I found it rather a 'difficult' question to answer, when the name Woody Allen surfaced in a similar fashion. Decidedly, I am an ardent fan of Allen's and I never really cared too much for Polanski's works. So the definition of morality was really only questioned when it was concerning something I deeply cared for. It was only then I could recognize how hard it is to label something "right" or "wrong".
Now that the disclaimer has been done with, there are several questions (and possibly more but beyond the scope of this article) that need to be addressed; the definition of morality and rigidity of the definition, how doers of immoral/wrong acts ought to be dealt with and finally what of their work.
What must be stressed in connection to the definition of right and moral, is that it is heavily dependent on context. What is right and accepted in Sudan, may seem morbid to a South Asian who in turn may be labeled outdated by a North American. What was wrong in 1970s is an accepted everyday practice now. Customs, culture and law are all time and place dependent variables and even expecting that everything will conform to one unifying framework is but a daydream. This does not mean everything can be let go of on the grounds of relativity because that would amount to chaos and unruliness that will destroy the very core of humanity.
Now to answer the second part of the conundrum, for people who are alleged to have committed heinous acts, acts that are labelled wrong and criminal, justice should take its course. Should Woody Allen or Michael Jackson or any regular Joe be convicted of a crime, no matter how big a fan I am, I am not going to protest and ask them to be freed on grounds that they may produce skilled works of art.
Here another significant question may rise - why does it matter so much when Woody Allen commits a crime and not nearly as much when similar acts are committed everyday by regular people,people who are not celebrities? Does it mean we discriminate against criminals based on their contribution to society? I suppose we do and rightfully so. Curtailing a particularly productive person's work life, is significantly more troublesome not only for the enduring influence it already has but also for the possibilities it holds for shaping society in near future.
The way one perceives the work of people with questionable past though,should not be tainted by their crimes or personal lives. There are several reasons for this. The most important one being, a work of art does not lose its value, its impact and its importance based on who the artist is. My appreciation of Wagner has nothing to do with his being an (alleged) anti-semite.
This can be more clearly explained if we forgo the arts, with something more solid, for example the sciences. Could the world have ignored Newton's Law of Gravity had he been found of a criminal offense? Surely not. Even if he was in jail, Physics could not have gone on to help the world evolve that exists today without it. As a matter of fact Sir Newton was accused of many petty acts(such as trying to erase the name AND face of Robert Hook) which we have blissfully ignored as classrooms remembered and were made to deal with his contributions to mankind.
As Ms Hall, the writer of the article I previously mentioned, has rightly pointed out, one does not read a book because one agrees with the writer completely but because it challenges the reader's worldview, philosophy and makes the reader stretch their minds to ways they may not have done before. To this end, Mr Allen's works have endlessly raised questions about human behavior, psychology, about heartbreaks and about heartaches and have been self deprecating without losing dignity and been a source of great joy and sheer amusement for this writer and her doubtful mind.
What needs to be mentioned first is that I did not find it difficult to reject Roman Polanski's work once I came to know of his conviction as a rapist. On the other hand, I found it rather a 'difficult' question to answer, when the name Woody Allen surfaced in a similar fashion. Decidedly, I am an ardent fan of Allen's and I never really cared too much for Polanski's works. So the definition of morality was really only questioned when it was concerning something I deeply cared for. It was only then I could recognize how hard it is to label something "right" or "wrong".
Now that the disclaimer has been done with, there are several questions (and possibly more but beyond the scope of this article) that need to be addressed; the definition of morality and rigidity of the definition, how doers of immoral/wrong acts ought to be dealt with and finally what of their work.
What must be stressed in connection to the definition of right and moral, is that it is heavily dependent on context. What is right and accepted in Sudan, may seem morbid to a South Asian who in turn may be labeled outdated by a North American. What was wrong in 1970s is an accepted everyday practice now. Customs, culture and law are all time and place dependent variables and even expecting that everything will conform to one unifying framework is but a daydream. This does not mean everything can be let go of on the grounds of relativity because that would amount to chaos and unruliness that will destroy the very core of humanity.
Now to answer the second part of the conundrum, for people who are alleged to have committed heinous acts, acts that are labelled wrong and criminal, justice should take its course. Should Woody Allen or Michael Jackson or any regular Joe be convicted of a crime, no matter how big a fan I am, I am not going to protest and ask them to be freed on grounds that they may produce skilled works of art.
Here another significant question may rise - why does it matter so much when Woody Allen commits a crime and not nearly as much when similar acts are committed everyday by regular people,people who are not celebrities? Does it mean we discriminate against criminals based on their contribution to society? I suppose we do and rightfully so. Curtailing a particularly productive person's work life, is significantly more troublesome not only for the enduring influence it already has but also for the possibilities it holds for shaping society in near future.
The way one perceives the work of people with questionable past though,should not be tainted by their crimes or personal lives. There are several reasons for this. The most important one being, a work of art does not lose its value, its impact and its importance based on who the artist is. My appreciation of Wagner has nothing to do with his being an (alleged) anti-semite.
This can be more clearly explained if we forgo the arts, with something more solid, for example the sciences. Could the world have ignored Newton's Law of Gravity had he been found of a criminal offense? Surely not. Even if he was in jail, Physics could not have gone on to help the world evolve that exists today without it. As a matter of fact Sir Newton was accused of many petty acts(such as trying to erase the name AND face of Robert Hook) which we have blissfully ignored as classrooms remembered and were made to deal with his contributions to mankind.
As Ms Hall, the writer of the article I previously mentioned, has rightly pointed out, one does not read a book because one agrees with the writer completely but because it challenges the reader's worldview, philosophy and makes the reader stretch their minds to ways they may not have done before. To this end, Mr Allen's works have endlessly raised questions about human behavior, psychology, about heartbreaks and about heartaches and have been self deprecating without losing dignity and been a source of great joy and sheer amusement for this writer and her doubtful mind.
(Written in 2015)
