When is it Wrong to Enjoy Art?

Woody Allen’s confusing and highly questionable private life has once again been thrust into the open with Dylan Farrow’s accusation of being molested by him when she was seven. Whilst I was shocked, but not surprised by the recent happenings, I am not going to use this space to pass comment on whether he is guilty or not. I instead will focus on something slightly less controversial (or perhaps more so depending on your position): the publication of the Woody Allen two page praise spread last week in the film section.

To publish such an article at such a time is highly insensitive and I am for the time being going to view it as an unfortunate coincidence. Is it, however, ever appropriate to praise someone for the brilliance of their work even if they have committed truly despicable acts? Woody Allen is not the only person to find themselves in this group, or at least soon may be in this group. An inconvenient truth is that the world of culture is full of arseholes. Wagner, the father of modern classical music, was just as famous for his anti-Semitic views. The author the Lord of the Flies, William Golding, whose most famous work appears at the top of most GCSE reading lists admitted late in life to raping a girl in his youth. And of course Michael Jackson, despite being found innocent, was still convicted in the court of public opinion for his alleged child abuse.

Should society banish the art made by evil beings or can we enjoy it for what it is worth without the burden of a guilty conscience? It is a challenging question and there are several things consider. I am a believer that art doesn’t just happen in a vacuum; you do not just enjoy a piece of work because it is great, there is a reason why you find it great in the same way the artist would take inspiration from somewhere. Obviously the artist’s outlook on life is likely to have a major impact on their inspiration, but it can be possible for there to be a separation. Many a critic will agree that Louis- Ferdinand Céline was perhaps one of the most influential novelists of the twentieth century, yet he was also a prolific anti-Semite and Nazi collaborator; his short comings are acknowledged though don’t seem to get in the way of the praise for his work.

With some artists, even despite their dark side, it is obvious that the acclaimed works are not a tool for it. With others, however, that is much more ambiguous.

Wagner is a particularly interesting case for this as his operas tend to revolve around redemption and triumphant love which are noble notions. Despite this, his work is continuously accused of inspiring Hitler. Hitler was definitely a fan, though it is difficult to categorically prove these allegations.

It does however raise the question that if a particular interpretation is made of a work, even if it by the artist’s view point the wrong interpretation, should the work be condemned for being morally contaminating? That would depend on the piece; as much as it is unlikely, if everyone who saw a painting was then compelled to murder or rape someone the moment they left the gallery even if that wasn’t the intention of the artist, then a strong argument could be made that the work was morally contaminating. If the work however only had a highly negative impact on one individual, which is a more relevant comparison to the Wagner case, then the blame should really be put on the individual as opposed to the artist as it is likely that there is a far greater underlying cause behind their actions.

So how does this relate to the more topical issue at hand? I doubt that Woody Allen’s intentions when directing his films were morally deplorable and at the same time I believe most will agree that watching them will not start you on a slippery slope that leads to sexually assaulting children. Even if he does get convicted, I think people will still continue to enjoy his films because they are, quite frankly, good films.

I in fact feel that if he is guilty and then faces appropriate punishment, then it would be more socially acceptable to proclaim yourself as a fan because then he would have paid his debt and should hopefully be rehabilitated.

Provided you acknowledge the flaws, I see no problem with being a Woody Allen fan in the same way I see no problem with being a fan of Wagner or even Michael Jackson. Now just is not the time to shout it from the rooftops.