Discussion about this post

User's avatar
MD's avatar

I really agree with the notion that you both cannot separate art from the artist and that you shouldn't guilt yourself into being unable to appreciate art by "bad" people. I remember when David Bowie died and some people on twitter that I follow voiced some opinions along the lines of "good riddance to pedophiles", referencing his encounter with an underage groupie. But glam rock seems like it specifically aims to create an iconography around excess and stardom, with teenage appeal. That Bowie himself participated in these excesses is of course unfortunate, and I would also agree that framing it as an excess is really giving predators way too much credit since it obscures both their agency and the particular stories victims might have to tell. Maybe that's all true, but the point of art is that it privileges the artist. They're the ones that get to tell the stories and that get to foreground their mental landscape. And as an audience you cannot really get around this.

So maybe John Lennon was a bad person. But he certainly was sincere when writing a song like Imagine, because like any artist he had a complex inner life and had contradictory impulses. And perhaps his invocations of peace could ring rather hollow given that he himself engaged in violent acts in the past, but again, he is the artist, he can foreground his own contradictions and rework these experiences in compelling art. His victims can't, but then they were not artists.

I'm not trying to go too far with this theory of course, but I don't see how one can get around the fact that art is some sort of charismatic force which to some extent absolves artists of their sins.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts