It's always challenging to apply a "purity" test to another human being. In some cases, we'd be applying our standards to the behavior of another that might seem ambiguous. In other, the distinction might be more black and white. In any case, there's nothing to prevent an artist from being a truly miserable human being. Does that render his talent less singular or his work less remarkable? I don't have an answer for that.
Caravaggio was clearly very deeply mentally ill. Today, he'd likely be institutionalized after being convicted of murder by reason of insanity. He'd spend his days painting behind the walls of a mental hospital, where he couldn't do any harm. More than 600 years ago, he was just a very bad boy with some serious anger management issues. It's not surprising that he died under murky circumstances.
It's often been said that genius and madness walk hand in hand. Caravaggio succeeded in obliterating whatever line may have separated the two.
Really well said. And I thought about that--Caravaggio either being committed to an institution or emotionally stunted by anti-psycho medication that might very well have ironed out the spark of genius in him. The people he killed are long gone. His masterpieces live on six hundred years later. But those are only paint on canvas. And those were human lives. It's hard to say what's most important.
1st thing to acknowledge is to thank you for this knowledge of Caravaggio, I knew nothing about his murderous past. That said, I don't think there needs to be any reservation about appreciating his work because he's long since dead. I believe that once artists are dead it effectively resolves any ethical problems they might have had, simply because they're no longer alive to be buoyed by the attention, or to profit from it. This being the case why worry about it? I believe that the constant questioning of whether it's ethical to admire certain artists is overblown. Caravaggio is one example, Picasso another, and many more now deceased artists. Regarding living artists I believe it's entirely up to each person to determine for themselves whether they can enjoy their art. For me, I have and will continue to enjoy Woody Allen's art, even as I acknowledge troubling aspects of his work and life. Nevertheless, these things don't raise to the level of rejecting his work, in my estimation. I take this position because, to date, he has never been charged with any crimes, nor in all the years he has been active has any actress made any complaints about him on the set of any of his movies. None, not even after #metoo became a thing in 2017. Now this doesn't mean that there's nothing questionable about his legacy, case closed. It just means for me he passes my personal muster, but I understand if for others he doesn't. An example of a living artist who doesn't pass my muster is David Chappelle. From my perspective, you can't promote transphobia, ceaselessly and shamelessly, and retain my admiration. If others can somehow rationalize this and continue to enjoy him, okay, but not me. I think the one thing that needs to be established, except for perhaps Hitler, is that in most cases no gets to determine who's, "canceled," for everyone else. I think that too often people get too self-righteous about who offends them to exclusion of any other view. If people could remember this there's be a lot less discord about these things than there is.
As always, you say it perfectly: it's entirely up to each person to determine for themselves whether they can enjoy their art. I'm with you on Chappelle. What he did and said was appalling. After I read Dylan's narrative and her brother's--along with all the gross, casual misogyny of Woody Allen's margin notes on his many screen treatments--that pretty much ruined it for me. BUT...like you say, it's up to the individual.
I also liked your theory about the ethical resolution that comes about naturally once an artist is dead. Picasso was an asshole, but I love his work. He's no longer around to profit from it. Amen.
Thank you Stacey, I try! For what it's worth, I've done lots of research on the Dylan Allen accusations, from multiple sources, and it's convinced me that there's more than enough inconsistencies and questionable circumstances with it such that raises it a level of reasonable doubt, at least in my mind. I don't doubt that Dylan believes it, because quite frankly, based on what I've seen, I think that Farrow coached her. When you look at the situation in context when it supposedly happened, it just doesn't seem credible. I'm not trying to get you to reconsider Allen, there's enough about him to reasonably object to. Anyway, many, many artists have objectionable aspects to them. I think the best course is to acknowledge it and then determine if it crosses your "red line," or not. I think that's the best that any of us can do really.
By the bye, have you read Lisa Jardine's "Worldly Goods"? Pretty sure that's a book you need to add to your list. (Also, if I've only said this 100 or 200 times, you don't really get to complain. When I hit the 1,000's, then you get to say something.)
Time and tide certainly softens the blow, but it was also an insanely violent period. Ewart Oakeshott (the world's leading expert on the history of the sword in his day) that in the 40 years from 1580 to 1620 more men in France died on the point of a rapier in private duels than in the previous 60 years of religious civil wars. Caravaggio stands out for his extremeness, but he wasn't all that unique even among the "gentlemanly" classes.
A more contemporary example: Mel Gibson is an execrable human being, but a much better than merely adequate actor. In the hands of a good director (Shyamalan, "Signs", or Ron Howard, "Ransom") he can deliver some exceptional performances. But as a director? Oh, hell no. Gibson has this torture fetish that is patently pornographic (in the ugly sense of the word, as opposed to pretty people cheerfully fucking). So I will still watch films he *acts* in, because what we are seeing is his ability to be someone he isn't; sometimes even his honesty about who he is. But a director is showing us who s/he *IS*.
Another example: I'm a John Wayne fan. For the record, he said some pretty ugly things, although the "white supremacist" example that is always held up is always taken out of context. (He basically said "*IF* WS is X, then I am X"; this is reduced to "I am a WS." He never demeaned anyone on set the way John Ford did (and, apparently, Joss Whedon, and I'm still a fan of those two), so that while he was a systemic racist, he was not a personal one. And, contrary to popular opinion, he was a capable actor. (John Ford, on coming out of Howard Hawke's movie "Red River", is reputed to have gasped, "I never knew the big Mick could act!")
What comes through Caravaggio's paintings in not the out-of-control murderer, but the tortured soul. What comes through Wayne's performances is not the racist (unless it is supposed to! -- "The Searchers") but the character being performed. What comes through Gibson's directorial efforts is the torture fetishist.
And at the end of the day, Woody Allen (nor Mel Gibson) is anywhere near the same caliber of genius as Caravaggio. I don't even know that Allen is historically interesting for having brought forth a significant innovation, as Caravaggio certainly did. The Marshall McLuhan scene was about the only thing he ever did of enduring interest. Fuck him. (Or, rather, don't. Ew.)
That was NOT rambling! It was scholarship. I love your posts to any thread. You've given me a lot to think about here (feel you on the Joss Whedon thing especially; I had to have my own come to Jesus on that one, which I finally resolved by remembering that more people than Whedon made BTVS, Firefly, and Serenity the masterpieces they are.) Personally, I can't do the whole Mel Gibson thing, but I agree with what you're saying. Caravaggio could indeed wipe his butt with the lot of 'em.
Well written and well researched, as always! I consider myself lucky to have seen a massive exhibit of Caravaggio's work at LACMA a few years ago. Personally, I don't think we can avoid seeing creations by creators who are awful people. We can't possibly know, for example, what the artist at the ad agency who created a billboard we drive by everyday, has done in their lives. I don't know if the architect who build my home was a felon. Things that happened a long time ago don't have any bearing on the art that has lived on long beyond the person who created it. That's like blaming Charles Manson's many offspring for what he did.
GREAT analogy! It's true, it's true, it's true. And may I just say how envious I am that you got to see a massive exhibit of Caravaggio's work? I would have never left. There's a church in Rome that I go to when I get the chance that has a wall-sized Caravaggio. That's the most spiritual experience I've ever had in a church besides Bernini's St. Theresa.
It's always challenging to apply a "purity" test to another human being. In some cases, we'd be applying our standards to the behavior of another that might seem ambiguous. In other, the distinction might be more black and white. In any case, there's nothing to prevent an artist from being a truly miserable human being. Does that render his talent less singular or his work less remarkable? I don't have an answer for that.
Caravaggio was clearly very deeply mentally ill. Today, he'd likely be institutionalized after being convicted of murder by reason of insanity. He'd spend his days painting behind the walls of a mental hospital, where he couldn't do any harm. More than 600 years ago, he was just a very bad boy with some serious anger management issues. It's not surprising that he died under murky circumstances.
It's often been said that genius and madness walk hand in hand. Caravaggio succeeded in obliterating whatever line may have separated the two.
Really well said. And I thought about that--Caravaggio either being committed to an institution or emotionally stunted by anti-psycho medication that might very well have ironed out the spark of genius in him. The people he killed are long gone. His masterpieces live on six hundred years later. But those are only paint on canvas. And those were human lives. It's hard to say what's most important.
1st thing to acknowledge is to thank you for this knowledge of Caravaggio, I knew nothing about his murderous past. That said, I don't think there needs to be any reservation about appreciating his work because he's long since dead. I believe that once artists are dead it effectively resolves any ethical problems they might have had, simply because they're no longer alive to be buoyed by the attention, or to profit from it. This being the case why worry about it? I believe that the constant questioning of whether it's ethical to admire certain artists is overblown. Caravaggio is one example, Picasso another, and many more now deceased artists. Regarding living artists I believe it's entirely up to each person to determine for themselves whether they can enjoy their art. For me, I have and will continue to enjoy Woody Allen's art, even as I acknowledge troubling aspects of his work and life. Nevertheless, these things don't raise to the level of rejecting his work, in my estimation. I take this position because, to date, he has never been charged with any crimes, nor in all the years he has been active has any actress made any complaints about him on the set of any of his movies. None, not even after #metoo became a thing in 2017. Now this doesn't mean that there's nothing questionable about his legacy, case closed. It just means for me he passes my personal muster, but I understand if for others he doesn't. An example of a living artist who doesn't pass my muster is David Chappelle. From my perspective, you can't promote transphobia, ceaselessly and shamelessly, and retain my admiration. If others can somehow rationalize this and continue to enjoy him, okay, but not me. I think the one thing that needs to be established, except for perhaps Hitler, is that in most cases no gets to determine who's, "canceled," for everyone else. I think that too often people get too self-righteous about who offends them to exclusion of any other view. If people could remember this there's be a lot less discord about these things than there is.
As always, you say it perfectly: it's entirely up to each person to determine for themselves whether they can enjoy their art. I'm with you on Chappelle. What he did and said was appalling. After I read Dylan's narrative and her brother's--along with all the gross, casual misogyny of Woody Allen's margin notes on his many screen treatments--that pretty much ruined it for me. BUT...like you say, it's up to the individual.
I also liked your theory about the ethical resolution that comes about naturally once an artist is dead. Picasso was an asshole, but I love his work. He's no longer around to profit from it. Amen.
Thank you Stacey, I try! For what it's worth, I've done lots of research on the Dylan Allen accusations, from multiple sources, and it's convinced me that there's more than enough inconsistencies and questionable circumstances with it such that raises it a level of reasonable doubt, at least in my mind. I don't doubt that Dylan believes it, because quite frankly, based on what I've seen, I think that Farrow coached her. When you look at the situation in context when it supposedly happened, it just doesn't seem credible. I'm not trying to get you to reconsider Allen, there's enough about him to reasonably object to. Anyway, many, many artists have objectionable aspects to them. I think the best course is to acknowledge it and then determine if it crosses your "red line," or not. I think that's the best that any of us can do really.
By the bye, have you read Lisa Jardine's "Worldly Goods"? Pretty sure that's a book you need to add to your list. (Also, if I've only said this 100 or 200 times, you don't really get to complain. When I hit the 1,000's, then you get to say something.)
Time and tide certainly softens the blow, but it was also an insanely violent period. Ewart Oakeshott (the world's leading expert on the history of the sword in his day) that in the 40 years from 1580 to 1620 more men in France died on the point of a rapier in private duels than in the previous 60 years of religious civil wars. Caravaggio stands out for his extremeness, but he wasn't all that unique even among the "gentlemanly" classes.
A more contemporary example: Mel Gibson is an execrable human being, but a much better than merely adequate actor. In the hands of a good director (Shyamalan, "Signs", or Ron Howard, "Ransom") he can deliver some exceptional performances. But as a director? Oh, hell no. Gibson has this torture fetish that is patently pornographic (in the ugly sense of the word, as opposed to pretty people cheerfully fucking). So I will still watch films he *acts* in, because what we are seeing is his ability to be someone he isn't; sometimes even his honesty about who he is. But a director is showing us who s/he *IS*.
Another example: I'm a John Wayne fan. For the record, he said some pretty ugly things, although the "white supremacist" example that is always held up is always taken out of context. (He basically said "*IF* WS is X, then I am X"; this is reduced to "I am a WS." He never demeaned anyone on set the way John Ford did (and, apparently, Joss Whedon, and I'm still a fan of those two), so that while he was a systemic racist, he was not a personal one. And, contrary to popular opinion, he was a capable actor. (John Ford, on coming out of Howard Hawke's movie "Red River", is reputed to have gasped, "I never knew the big Mick could act!")
What comes through Caravaggio's paintings in not the out-of-control murderer, but the tortured soul. What comes through Wayne's performances is not the racist (unless it is supposed to! -- "The Searchers") but the character being performed. What comes through Gibson's directorial efforts is the torture fetishist.
And at the end of the day, Woody Allen (nor Mel Gibson) is anywhere near the same caliber of genius as Caravaggio. I don't even know that Allen is historically interesting for having brought forth a significant innovation, as Caravaggio certainly did. The Marshall McLuhan scene was about the only thing he ever did of enduring interest. Fuck him. (Or, rather, don't. Ew.)
Sorry, I rambled on quite a bit here.
That was NOT rambling! It was scholarship. I love your posts to any thread. You've given me a lot to think about here (feel you on the Joss Whedon thing especially; I had to have my own come to Jesus on that one, which I finally resolved by remembering that more people than Whedon made BTVS, Firefly, and Serenity the masterpieces they are.) Personally, I can't do the whole Mel Gibson thing, but I agree with what you're saying. Caravaggio could indeed wipe his butt with the lot of 'em.
Well written and well researched, as always! I consider myself lucky to have seen a massive exhibit of Caravaggio's work at LACMA a few years ago. Personally, I don't think we can avoid seeing creations by creators who are awful people. We can't possibly know, for example, what the artist at the ad agency who created a billboard we drive by everyday, has done in their lives. I don't know if the architect who build my home was a felon. Things that happened a long time ago don't have any bearing on the art that has lived on long beyond the person who created it. That's like blaming Charles Manson's many offspring for what he did.
GREAT analogy! It's true, it's true, it's true. And may I just say how envious I am that you got to see a massive exhibit of Caravaggio's work? I would have never left. There's a church in Rome that I go to when I get the chance that has a wall-sized Caravaggio. That's the most spiritual experience I've ever had in a church besides Bernini's St. Theresa.