Perfect art from imperfect artists
in Purgatory
Recently, one third of the Haas-Haugen-Joncas triumvirate of Vatican II liturgical music has confessed to sexual misconduct. Earlier this year, advocacy group IntoAccount wrote: “Haas has allegedly targeted multiple women using techniques that abuse prevention experts identify as grooming, to create conditions in which women felt obligated to perform sexual favors in exchange for professional opportunities. His generosity, we are told, often came with a sexual price tag.” After denying all allegations for a period of time, Haas has posted a broad but nonspecific apology for past harms on his web site.
History is replete with composers, playwrights, visual artists, musicians, writers, and other luminaries who were complete assholes, either contemporaneously with the creation of their seminal works or in subsequent life. Richard Wagner, the 19th century composer and conductor of operas, published his antisemetic screed long after achieving fame and fortune. Similarly, the allegations regarding Haas' bad behavior postdate the publication of his most influential works.
John Bull (1562-1628), a major composer of church music in his lifetime, was credibly accused of various sexual indiscretions and abuses of authority.
I understand that Haas' compositions are being scrubbed from Catholic hymnody. I am not certain whether any of John Bull's works yet remain.
The questions then, purgatorially speaking, are:
1) What to do with art from imperfect artists, recognizing that all artists are imperfect but some are more imperfect than others (with apologies to George Orwell)
2) Whether it makes a difference when the artists' indiscretions of record occurred contemporaneously with their important work vs. long before or after.
History is replete with composers, playwrights, visual artists, musicians, writers, and other luminaries who were complete assholes, either contemporaneously with the creation of their seminal works or in subsequent life. Richard Wagner, the 19th century composer and conductor of operas, published his antisemetic screed long after achieving fame and fortune. Similarly, the allegations regarding Haas' bad behavior postdate the publication of his most influential works.
John Bull (1562-1628), a major composer of church music in his lifetime, was credibly accused of various sexual indiscretions and abuses of authority.
I understand that Haas' compositions are being scrubbed from Catholic hymnody. I am not certain whether any of John Bull's works yet remain.
The questions then, purgatorially speaking, are:
1) What to do with art from imperfect artists, recognizing that all artists are imperfect but some are more imperfect than others (with apologies to George Orwell)
2) Whether it makes a difference when the artists' indiscretions of record occurred contemporaneously with their important work vs. long before or after.
Comments
Imperfect is an adjective better applied to someone like Jimmy Carr than it is someone like David Haas.
Tricky question ...
St. Paul described himself as "the least of the Apostles, unfit to be called as an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church ..." ... yet his writings are in the Canon ...
and of course, St. Peter ("the Rock"), the first Pope, denied three times that he even knew who The Lord Jesus of Nazareth was ...
Then, there was King David ... adulterer, murderer ... (but we still ALL of us use the Psalms attributed to him ....)
et al. ...
Of course I watched the film.
Unless the work in question appears to be promoting in some way whatever misdeeds earned the artist our disapproval I'm fine with it. So the Gill Sans typeface is fine. A portrait by Eric Gill of his daughter, not so much. Same with, for example, a Kevin Spacey film. Watching him play a character isn't an endorsement of his behaviour and why punish the rest of the cast and the writer and director because of Spacey's behaviour?
The OP mentioned Orwell, who I had reason to look up recently. Did you know he was a homophobe? Did you know that by today's standards he too might have been a bit of a Weinstein?
Referring to Wagner, it is harder to admire him knowing he is an anti-Semite and especially because of his views on Felix Mendelssohn. But the tunes are still great tunes and whatever moral concerns I have over Wagner they don't affect my appreciation of aesthetics.
Sometimes it seems the more tortured the soul, the better and deeper the art, an observation I ultimately find more troubling.
There are plenty of artists who produced great work who do not appear to have any substantial crimes to their name. Perfect, in either art or human behaviour, is obviously hyperbole, but I think we can consider great artists who at least kept their tortured soul (if such it be) from hurting others.
Professor Tolkien could, I think, be considered a great artist. His flaws have been discussed at length on the ship in the past but he was by all accounts a devoted husband, loving father, and a man of serious and thoughtful morality. I'm unaware of any claim of sexual impropriety, gross racial hatred, or other sin of great secular import. He could be somewhat cantankerous, I understand, and his religious commitment occasionally shaded into an intolerance that ultimately harmed his friendship with C S Lewis.
I'm afraid authors, rather than composers, are more where my knowledge lies, so I wonder if there are significant strikes against Jane Austen (I think for these purposes we have to consider only those flaws which make them worse than average among their peers).
I do feel for his former band mates but I can’t comfortably listen to their music anymore.
I wonder if there is a difference between holding challenging/abhorrent views and performing abhorrent & damaging acts? & where do we draw the line?
This idea really troubles me. As a kid, I was a good little art major with major depressive episodes, and a trusted doctor blew off a lot of symptoms because "artists are troubled". What a load of bunk. It took me a few more years to get the anti-depressants that help me stay alive. The 4 years of suicidal ideation at art school really did not help my art.
*Often incorrectly, but still...
That's the catch, isn't it? Take, for example, Woody Allen's 1979 film Manhattan, where Allen plays a twice divorced 42 year old (himself in 1979, essentially) dating a 17 year old (played by Mariel Hemmingway, herself 16 or 17 at the time of shooting). Is it possible to watch this film and not think about the later accusations against Allen? Does the fact that Allen allegedly tried to seduce Hemingway in real life have any influence on how we view this film today? Should it?
There was an excellent three part BBC documentary on Rembrandt's life. It was quite a bit more remarkable than one might suppose.
I didn't solely mean money. I think the artists's life story affects how the work is valued artistically as well.
In that specific instance I suppose the only person who can answer is Mariel Hemingway.
Reportedly, Woody Allen had problems finding a publisher for his new memoir, exactly because of the "eeeuuuwww" factor ... Personally, I no longer find his films interesting or entertaining precisely because they now come across to me as TOO autobiographical ...
St. Paul persecuted the Church, had his Damascene conversion, and spent the rest of his life in Christ's service. Or consider, for example, Psalm 51, attributed to King David after he was discovered with Bathsheba. Could someone who hadn't committed such a sin write that Psalm?
We had a similar discussion quite recently, in which I mentioned that I didn't have trouble reading the works of author and convicted murderer Anne Perry. (She committed the crime, was tried and imprisoned, and began her writing career after her release.) Not every shipmate agreed - I remember someone (perhaps @lilbuddha?) saying that they couldn't read her because crime fiction was too close to her crime.
But I contrast Ms Perry with someone like Ian Watkins or Gary Glitter, or Rolf Harris, who were using their fame and celebrity to aid them in committing their crimes.
And what about Harvey Weinstein? We all know his crimes, and we know that they were woven throughout and enabled by his career as a film producer. Do they taint the films he has produced? He's worked on quite a number of big-name films. Or can people separate him from the films in their minds because they don't know he produced / directed / whatever them, or they just don't see him on the screen so don't have to think about it?
Or do we accept that Weinstein was by no means unique in his behaviour, and if we have to eradicate films tainted by sexual quid-pro-quo and sex where consent was at best marginal, we'd have nothing left?
But the church is so embroiled in sexual scandal in the public mind today, that it is probably inevitable that all works by offenders will be expunged. I don't see much point in discussing whether that's a good thing - it's something which just is.
"All (of us) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God ... " ... But, no ... I would have no interest in reading, say, "The Collected Ramblings of Charles Manson" (except as clinical research) ...
That’s rubbish. If someone writes beautiful songs I can appreciate the songs for that beauty without it implying anything whatsoever about anything else that person may have done.
We also don’t say stockbrokers who have commited unrelated crimes should never be allowed to work as stockbrokers again, or expect a plumber to provide a full enhanced criminal record check before letting them fix our sink.
But if you pay money for or help promote a song that gives royalties to someone who maybe has not adequately been investigated for, owned up to if they are guilty, faced consequences for, or attempted to make amends for their misdeeds, aren’t you continuing the cycle that enables influential people to misbehave in this way?
But is there any difference between that and, say, buying produce that may have been grown by exploited workers or a shirt for £12.00 that cannot possibly have been made by anyone earning what we would call a decent wage?
He said in his Primark underwear and shirt from Aldi.
No.
If I pay money to listen to a song then it’s no different to paying money for someone to fix my sink. What they choose to do with that money once it’s changed hands is a completely separate matter. Maybe that plumber will go straight to the pub, spend the lot on lager, try to drive home drunk and kill someone. Am I somehow culpable for that because I was the one who paid him the money? Does that fact make me complicit in his crime, or imply that I support it in any way?
Should it mean that I should never hire him to fix my sink again, even if he’s the best damn plumber in the city?
This is just the Burn your house down thread all over again. There’s this ridiculous belief that if a person has done something evil then everything they have ever done or will ever do is also evil. But I refuse to subscribe to that belief. I can like Wagner’s music without agreeing with his politics. I can appreciate Hitler’s paintings for their artistic merits (though those merits are somewhat limited in my view). I can watch a movie produced by Weinstein or directed by Polanski without endorsing sexual assault and rape.
But would you be reading Mr Manson's outpourings because of their literary merit, or because of his notoriety? I wouldn't read it either, but I wouldn't read a book "written" by a Kardashian either, because the quality of the art wouldn't be its selling point.
So you’re basically saying that a boycott may sometimes be a useful tactic Depending on the circumstances but it is never a moral necessity. Am I right?
I not only disagree, but I don’t even understand the difference you’re claiming exists. Plumbing is something a person does. Writing songs is something a person does.
If I understand what you mean, you mean that the plumbing that a plumber does doesn't retain any of their character or attributes - plumbing done by a nice plumber looks the same as plumbing done by a nasty plumber.
Whereas an actor, singer, or other entertainer is the product.
If that's what you mean, then I think I agree, and also think that Mr. Haas is far more like the plumber than the singer or actor in relation to his work.
I tend to agree, I think. Haas has written some, in my opinion, very good hymns and songs for worship, and the primary question should be whether use of them enables worship. If the hymns are being sung out of a hymnal, there’s no issue of royalties—the royalties are tied to the purchase of the hymnal, not to the singing of the hymn. The use of hymns should be based on the hymn’s merits (or lack thereof), not on opinions concerning the author or composer, unless we’re going to start doing background checks on the authors and composers of all hymns.
That said—and with the caveat that in my experience, the average worshipper pays no attention to who wrote the hymns being sung—if I were aware that singing one of Haas’s hymns was problematic for anyone in a congregation I had responsibility for, I would probably look for a different hymn. I would do that not because hymns by Haas should be shelved as a matter of course, but because I’m aware that use of his hymns in the particular context where I am is impedes rather than enriches worship, at least for some.
And while I’m willing to keep singing Haas’s hymns, I likely wouldn’t go to one of his concerts.
Now I'm imagining a bunch of teenage plumbing geeks arguing over whether Joe from Joe's Local Plumbing or Bob from Speedy Plumbers has the best soldering technique.
IF I were to read (the hypothetical) "Collected Ramblings of Charles Manson" it would be only out of clinical interest (chaplain/mental health professional here) ...
MORE to the point is the widely acknowledged BEST ever Atlas of Human Anatomy, by Dr. Eduard Pernkopf ... EVERY surgeon in the world knows that is a potentially life-staving set of several volumes ... of dissections of hundreds of persons murdered by the Nazis in The Holocaust ...
I suppose to err is human to forgive is divine isn't your style
I would quite explicitly hire a plumber who has been to jail, although I wouldn't hire a plumber who I knew to be a convicted rapist to work in my home when my family was home. I'd hire him at a commercial site, or a construction site, though.
The former, because I absolutely believe that re-integrating criminals into society on their release from incarceration is a necessary part of helping them not re-offend, and that includes employing ex-criminals.
The latter, for the same reason as I wouldn't hire someone with a conviction for embezzlement to do my accounts, or a reformed alcoholic to be a barman.
So what? Just because someone is or isn’t famous shouldn’t change how I treat them or their work.
Besides, I very much doubt that anyone has ever had a poster of David Haas on their wall. Does that mean it’s ok to keep singing the hymns he wrote, on the grounds that he’s not famous enough for us to need to utterly destroy everything he has wrought because of what he did?
We're normal people here. This is a Purgatory not Ecclesiantics!
Why? What does sexual misconduct have to do with how well someone can fix a sink? Is this some kind of weird “thou shalt not touch or in any way engage with anything unclean, lest you also become unclean” purity thing?
I know. Even so I think forgiveness is a good thing and it's easier to see what she's against than what she favours.
More I think the pragmatic approach that as Leorning Cniht stated, having a plumber with a record for such behaviour in one's house, especially if one is female and on one's own, is taking a risk, and would make one uncomfortable at best. I know of people whose medical records are flagged as 'do not see on your own' because of a history of violence, sexual or otherwise.
I don't want a "plumber" (or electrician or realtor or painter) who committed sex crime in the past coming into my house where my spouse, children, grandchildren may be present ... nor would I feel comfortable having a (former) bank robber/embezzler handle the finances for my grandmother or a local charity organization ... It's not a question of "forgiveness," but rather of trust ...
Just so, e.g., I never supported William Jefferson "Slick Willie" Clinton for POTUS, and chose instead to vote "third party" in '92 and '96 ... His well known horrid behavior toward women, his use of power to abuse them, his relentless unfaithfulness to his spouse all indicated serious character flaws that would hamper his ability to serve effectively in office ... None of my well-founded misgivings about him had anything to do with "forgiveness" or prudishness or any such things ... but only about his ability to do the job -- or not ...
Ok, I can understand that pragmatic approach. So let’s change it up and talk about buying a widget online, which is far more analogous to listening to music or watching a movie anyway. Would any sexual misconduct on behalf of the seller affect that transaction? If so, why?
I love the music of Guns N Roses. I think Axl Rose is a total dick who I’d probably detest if I ever met him in person. I see absolutely no contradiction between those two comments, because the person is not the music and the music is not the person.
Ok, but my whole argument is that when someone’s job is to write/play music their sexual (mis)adventures have no bearing on their ability to do it. A good song is just a collection of notes in a pleasing order, and those notes are exactly the same whether the writer is Zeke Demonsborne or Alice Puresoul.