2017 saw many once powerful men brought down by accusations of sexual harassment or assault. Among these men are Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein was fired from his company and Netflix has announced that it will not continue the wildly successful Netflix series House of Cards with Spacey. While the misdeeds of these men raise many issues relevant to philosophy, one interesting subject is the impact of the misdeeds of those involved in the arts on their works. This is, of course, an old topic—philosophers have been discussing the relevance of the ethics of the artist to the aesthetics of their works. However, it is still worth discussing and is obviously relevant today. I will begin by getting some easy matters out of the way.
One area of concern that is more a matter of psychology than philosophy is the impact of the artist’s behavior on the audience. To be specific, the experience of the consumer of the art can be affected by what they believe about the ethics of the artist. It is certainly possible that an audience member will find that their aesthetic experience is diminished or even destroyed by what they believe about the artist. For example, someone watching a Kevin Spacey movie or show might find that they can only think of the allegations against Spacey and thus cannot enjoy the work. It is equally possible that the audience member will be unaffected by what they think of the ethics of the artist. For example, someone who enjoys The Usual Suspects might find their enjoyment undiminished by the allegations against Spacey.
While considerations of how people might react are relevant to discussing the aesthetic issues, they do not settle these issues. For example, how people might react to an artist’s misdeeds does not settle whether the ethics of an artist is relevant to the aesthetic merit of their work. To use an analogy, how fans feel about a professional athlete’s moral misdeeds does not settle the issue about whether they are a skilled player or not.
Another area of concern is the ethics of supporting an artist who has engaged in moral misdeeds. This is, of course, part of the broader issue of whether one should support any worker whose has engaged in moral misdeeds. As such, it is a moral issue rather than a specifically aesthetic issue. However, it is worth addressing.
While a customer has every right to patronize as they wish, what is under consideration is whether one should support an artist one regards as a bad person. On the one hand, a moral case can be made that by supporting such an artist by buying their work, purchasing tickets to their movies or subscribing to a service that streams their shows one is supporting their misdeeds. Naturally, as the degree of financial support diminishes, so too does the support of their misdeeds. To illustrate, if I think a painter is evil, but pay them $10,000 for a painting then I am obviously providing more support than a situation in which I think Kevin Spacey is evil, yet keep paying my subscription to Netflix.
It is also worth considering that unless the artist is operating alone (such as a lone painter) the decision to not support their art does not just impact the artist. So, for example, if someone decides to not buy any Kevin Spacey movies because of what Spacey is accused of doing, they might cost Spacey some microscopic bit of revenue, but they are also punishing everyone else who might get money from the sale of those movies, such as everyone else involved in making the movie as well as the retailer selling it. While people have every right to make their purchasing decisions on what they regard as ethical grounds, it is also important to consider that the target of their ire might not be the only one impacted.
On the other hand, it can be argued that supporting an artist one regards as morally bad is not supporting their misdeeds. After all, one is paying for the art (or experience of the art) and not paying them to commit misdeeds. The purchasing of the art is not an endorsement of the misdeeds but a financial transaction and what matters are the aspects that are relevant to the transaction. To use an analogy, one does not need to inquire whether a mechanic has engaged in misdeeds that have nothing to do with their job before deciding to use their services or not. One also does not feel obligated to investigate what the mechanic might use the money for. What matters is the quality and cost of the work. Naturally, a person might prefer a nice person as a mechanic or be upset if the mechanic used the money to pay prostitutes, but that is a matter of preference.
It can be argued that patronizing a bad person who is an artist does support their misdeeds. After all, it is the wealth and power of people like Spacey and Weinstein that enabled them to get away with their misdeeds for so long. On this view, once a person knows about the misdeeds they would be morally accountable for continuing to provide support for the artist. Naturally, they can plead ignorance regarding past support. This is analogous to patronizing a company that is accused of doing terrible things—on the one hand, one can claim to be just buying their product or service without endorsing their misdeeds. On the other hand, without customers they would be far less able to do their misdeeds.
This seems to be a re-framing of the categorical imperative vs the greater good – can we overlook at the sins of artists and leaders because of the benefit their work provides us, or do we require them to face a higher moral authority, or face censure and punishment? Leonardo was actually arrested on charges of sodomy; he was later acquitted, but that was before Facebook and 24-hour news.
In either case, we ought to be a bit careful, as what is considered to be moral tends to ebb and flow over the decades. Had the law been followed to the letter, Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci would have been executed for their homosexuality. Billions of dollars might never have made it to West Virginia to fight persistent poverty, and we may still be fighting for Family and Medical Leave in this country.
Sticking to the topic of art for now, I have to say, I don’t really care. Nor do I think that Netflix, NBC or NPR really care that much either – to them the decisions regarding Spacey, Lauer, and Keillor were strictly business. All were in a no-win situation, but all had to stick their moist digits into the air and test the moral winds of our current mob-rule; each in turn decided that they would attract less scrutiny and preserve what ratings they had for other shows if they just cut and run. Who knows? Perhaps there are other “incidents” they all knew about in their respective lairs, and they believed a sincere apology and a sacrificial lamb might redirect the gaze of the pitchfork-wielders elsewhere.
On the other hand – as long as you bring it up, if we are to censure artists, how far should we go? Should they never be allowed to work again? Should they be mocked and jeered in public, or merely shunned, in true Amish fashion. If they don’t work, and exhaust all their financial resources, should they be denied unemployment or welfare?
I bristle when I am asked to stand in solidarity in moral judgement of another – I do have my own views, of course, but if we begin to take a moral stand against sin as a population, where might that lead? A few short decades ago, the “Moral Majority” stood solidly against such sins as abortion, homosexuality, drug use, premarital sex – and today those who continue to stand against any or all of those are the true sinners.
Personally, at least on the art side, I don’t really care that much. I’m very disappointed that House of Cards is not going to be continued, but I guess I’ll live. I am a big believer in free enterprise and personal choice, and I will consume whatever products I wish (including art & media) based on the merits of those products; rarely do I make those decisions based on politics or behavior – although (I seem to remember having said this before …) as a football fan, I do have a tough time watching the rapist Ben Roethlisberger play; I feel the same about the animal abuser Michael Vick. I guess the mood of the public was different for the NFL and the owners’ utilitarian decisions.
I also really appreciate the work of Picasso, who was about as abusive to women as a man can get. Is it my obligation, then, to ensure that the art and the man are one in the same, and to refuse to look at another Picasso? Do you think we should require that the Met, the Louvre, the National Gallery and others remove their Picassos from the walls? Do you think they ought to do that on their own, a la Netflix et al, or face the wrath of a non-attending public?
I would much rather see this topic discussed in terms of politics. With art, we have a choice – we don’t have to watch or support even if public opinion is in support of the offenders. With politics, we seem to be stuck with them. And it’s a huge double standard. Garrison Keillor is fired, but *maybe* Al Franken will be the subject of an ethics committee investigation? What’s that all about? Being in the House or Senate, the Cabinet, the Supreme Court or even the White House does not change the definition of a crime, or lessen the impact of these accusations – but we aren’t talking about clicking the remote in our living rooms, going to the movies or to an art gallery – we’re talking about the men and women who make our laws, whom we have trusted with the leadership of this country. I would think that the moral outrage would lead to far greater consequence in this instance, not the slap on the wrist of a committee of our drinking pals.
In another post, I suggested that by throwing a few of their own to the dogs and offering some form of contrition, the Democrats might be positioning themselves for a big moral victory in 2020 against Trump, who faces some charges of his own. I listened to a radio show this morning wherein the discussion largely agreed with the premise that this has all been planned, but the finger was pointed at Trump himself – cleaning house, ridding himself of those who oppose him. The question was raised, “Why now? Why is this suddenly the narrative that leads the news? Who stands to gain or lose?” As an example, the host directed us to Google, to look up “Black men killed by white cops”. That issue has not gone away – it’s still going on – but six months ago it was all we heard about. Today, not a peep. At the same time, all of this harassment was happening last year, five years ago, ten years ago, even decades ago. Why now?
can we overlook at the sins of artists and leaders because of the benefit their work provides us,
Perhaps it’s not so much the “sins” but the character. Not character in the Boy Scout sense, but character in a kind of asynchronous type casting. Many perfectly good actors have their careers reach a stasis because they become so identified with a character that they become famous for playing such that audiences cannot later see that actor in a different, or different kind of role. Some great actors can overcome this. But when an actor becomes very closely identified with a kind of behavior, be it a fictional oddball character or a buffoonish cartoon of human weakness in the real world, audiences will at some point not be able to see the character the production is trying to present. They will fixate on the latest info on that personality. With Picasso, you don’t have this problem because it is not necessary to see him to observe his work. I do feel that what I have learned about the sociopathic nature of William Golding that as much as I value the lessons from Lord of the Flies, I find the story disturbing in many other ways.
It comes down to a business decision. Is it worth the risk of hiring an actor with perception baggage when there are other fresh faces available? Is it worth rerunning, rereleasing a recorded production while people have the buffon in their minds? Over time and generations, these recent manifestations of character will fade. Maybe not until the actor has died or been dead a while, depending on the degree of the transgression. But so long as the audiences see the actor so readily identified with the sins, the damage will remain.
Chinatown is one of my all-time favorite movies, and I don’t feel the slightest bit guilty about that.
Hmmm…somebody seems to be missing from that Harassholes sign. Which could arguably be part of the problem.