Questioning whether an artist’s character affects his art creds stems from news that the late Ernest C. Withers, famed for photographs of the Civil Rights movement - the Little Rock integration battle, the Emmett Till murder trial - was a longtime FBI informer, who spied on his subjects.
Putting aside this betrayal by a man whose great-great-grandfather was lynched, even putting aside the revelation that the government put the Civil Rights movement under surveillance, does Withers’ undercover activity change the way we view his work? Should it? For that matter, should any artist’s private life hold sway over the way we view his work?
This question comes up periodically, even here in St. Pete. It's hard to overlook Salvador Dali, who cheated his collectors by signing thousands of blank pieces of print paper, reportedly earning some $12 million annually from the sales of fake prints.
Dali is but one of many offenders in art history. Some years ago, an art show was cancelled because the artist was a prison inmate who killed a state trooper 25 years earlier and saw himself as a political prisoner. Richard L. Pattenaude, president of the University of Southern Maine, cancelled the display and gave his reasons in a public letter.
First noting the school's "longstanding commitment to free speech," he excused his decision by saying that the inmate's crime "overshadowed" the show, which was to examine the nature of political dissent.
The question that keeps on keeping on – should an artist’s shady past cast a shadow on his work? - popped up again when New York Times art critic John Russell's praised a Degas show at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, saying that Degas' "reserves of human sympathy grow stronger and more pertinent the older we get."
It’s hard to reconcile Degas’ “human sympathy” with his known anti-Semitism, particularly his fierce defense of the anti-Semitic French military court that falsely charged, convicted and sentenced to life on Devil's Island an army captain, Alfred Dreyfus, who was an Alsatian Jew.
Even when the actual traitor was identified and the French army suppressed the evidence and refusing to free Dreyfus, Degas continued to rail publicly against Dreyfus. When one of his models told him that she believed in Dreyfus' innocence, Degas reportedly yelled at her, "You are Jewish, you are Jewish," and ordered her out of his studio. (The model was Protestant, by the way).
But then again, so what? Did Degas' bigotry have anything to do with his superb draftsmanship or his ability to capture the transitory and the momentary?
Degas wasn't the only painter who hated Jews. Cezanne, Rodin and Renoir also did – Renoir being the most openly anti-Semitic, next to Degas. Renoir refused to have his work exhibited in the same show with the Jewish artist and fellow Impressionist Camille Pissarro.
If we decide that an artist’s behavior should affect our view of his work, there’s an awful lot of art history that would need to be re-written. At the moment, the art of painters and sculptors through the ages caught in objectionable acts, remains as popular as ever - Dali, included.
Fra Filippo Lippi, a monk and master Renaissance painter of sacred images, stole a fully pledged nun away from a church where he was chaplain and impregnated her. He lost his clerical office, but not his standing as an artist.
Caravaggio, the celebrated 17th-century painter of religious works, had an uninterrupted record of crimes, including murder, but never lacked patrons, including churchmen. In fact, the man nearest the papal throne, Cardinal Scipione Borghese, was Caravaggio's most enthusiastic sponsor.
Then there was the Renaissance painter Giovantonio Bazzi, who bore the nickname "Sodoma" for – well, you know. But Sodoma enjoyed great renown because of the excellence of his art.
There’s not enough space to list all the scoundrels. Adding them up, artists in history have been charged with rape, incest, murder and larceny – offenses that would land people in jail today. Yet, none suffered loss of patrons.
Maybe the way to figure this is, either you're an art lover or you're not.
Note: My new book "Sculpture Off The Pedestal" - a behind-the-scenes look at 25 sculptors - is available at Amazon.com, where you can also post a review.
Comments
I do think it is very possible to separate the artist from their past, and to appreciate art for arts sake. However, their are certain moral imperatives that people should be held to (artists included). And if that's the case, then I can chose to not look at their art; not go to galleries where their art is exhibited; not visit websites that contain their images; and shut of the TV.
It is easier to focus on the art and not the artist with the distance of time. We are more willing to rationalize that we don't know ( or care to believe) the facts or circumstances. The artist can suffer the consequences of their actions in their own time, but history can judge their art when they are gone. I avoid Mel Gibson movies, and I hope producers and directors feel the pressure to close him out, but Mad Max will stand the test of time, I would venture...
Agreed, Ed. It's hard to separate out, say, Renoir's pretty pictures with his disdain for Pissarro just because he was a Jew; although I confess that I never liked Renoir's pictures to begin with.
Dear Joan,
I don't want to judge a creator's art by his life or beliefs. Let's face, Wagner was one bad dude, but what sublime music did he write. And Ezra Pound was a Fascist apologist and supporter, but what marvelous poetry did he write.
Pray tell, was Dante a Ghibeline or a Guelph ? And does it in any way affect our appreciation of his sublime poetry and vision? No, of course it doesn't.
All I can say is: give me their art but tell Wagner, Dégas, Pound and Eliot that they are NOT welcome at my dinner table.
Thanks for bringing it up. A worthy theme to be discussed.
As ever, ALONSO
Well said, Alonso. - j.
I consider myself an art lover, but try to distinguish from what I consider real art and fake art..... and that is why I have never been able to visit the Dali Museum. I feel that you can go a long way in understanding how a person could have certain views, be it religion or politics etc., but to me, when you knowingly lie abut your work just for the money..... then you don't deserve to have your work shown. But we will always have that,..... but we have have freedom of choice.
Loved this article btw...... and also loved your new book!
Hey, thanks to the staunch art lover that you are, Julie.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!