An Essay by Kenneth P. Langer
As the choral conductor of a local UU church I am called upon to pick new and different music for the choir to perform on a weekly basis. The goal is to align the music and text to the topic chosen for that particular week. It is not a simple task. Many of the topics for Sunday mornings are necessarily contemporary while a vast majority of music for four-part amateur choirs is not.
During one of my planning sessions, I was excited to come across a piece of music that was both appropriate for the choir and that engaged the week’s topic with thoughtfulness and aesthetic appeal.
Imagine my dismay when my minister texted me to discuss the piece I had chosen. There was a problem with the composer. He was known to have taken actions that were considered by many to be unethical. We had a dilemma on our hands. Should we continue to program the work or take it out and replace it with another?
I am sure that this situation is neither rare nor unique. It is happening all across the country and to all aspects of the arts and I believe that as members of a faith community it is our responsibility to engage with the issue. We need to find ways to move forward with contemplation and compassion.
The question comes down to whether or not we can separate a work of art from its artist. In the ancient ages when all creations were seen as emanating from God, the human creator of the work was insignificant. The magnificence of the Heavenly Father expressed through the work was more important.
This is not that age.
Though gradual changes in the view of the relationship between art and artist developed as humanity became more enlightened and as information became more easily available, nothing could compare to the current environment of the Me Too movement. We find ourselves in an era of a long overdue social adjustment to the toleration of the harmful activities of people in power. The result is that the art is now intimately connected to the artist who has the power to influence a great many people.
What, then, shall we do? I propose a three question test that can be applied to any art work. But first, we must separate the person from the actions. The purpose here is not to lay blame or demonize an individual but to limit the degree of harm that may be inflicted upon others. It is not our purpose to pass sentence. That is best left to the legal system and governing boards. In short, we cannot delineate the art from the artist but we can separate the artist from their injurious actions. The three questions reflect this idea.
Does the work itself promote injury or harm?
The work of art must be considered on its merits or lack thereof. Are there harmful or negatively suggestive words, images, or actions? Do these things promote further harm?
Does being a consumer of the work enable the creator to promote injury or harm?
The very act of consuming the art may put money into the pocket of the artist. If the artist has a long history of causing harm then buying their work, purchasing tickets to a production, or supporting the work in any other way may help to promote further harm.
Could the presentation of the work itself–especially if the artist’s name is brought forth–promote injury or harm?
This question is, perhaps, the most difficult because it asks us to make an educated guess about the audience and how the presentation of a work may affect them. In many cases, time might be a factor. The works of creators of long ago may be less injurious than those of more contemporary artists.
If all three of these questions are asked and the possible harm caused by a work is deemed minimal then we should consider bringing it forward in the hopes that the piece will elicit a meaningful emotional response. It may be that the strength and power of a work can transcend the transgressions of its creator, if we allow it.
We are members of an ethical institution and I think it is incumbent upon us to consider the values involved in this dilemma. It would be easy to just disregard any troubling work or artist but we need to ask the questions rather than avoid them. We need to consider the balance between protecting our membership and avoiding outright censorship. Blocking works of art from the public for any and every perceived ethical infringement risks eliminating possibly important and time-worthy works. This is no easy task but solving difficult problems is how we grow together and become stronger.
Let us not forget, however, that institutions are made up of individuals and, in the end, it is up to the individual to decide what personally causes harm. An institution can make blanket decisions about artistic presentations but cannot possibly prevent every and all personal initiators of discomfort. Not all art is meant to make us feel comfortable–especially those that may help to expose injustices or promote the social welfare.
Art–at least great art–often touches upon universal ideals or timeless principles while it can also evoke powerful feelings. The purpose of art is to express ideas through the manipulation of symbols and emotions. The very act of participating with an art work requires that the participant be open to the expression of different ideas. An institution can do what it can to warn or prevent participants from possible distress but cannot be expected to understand every individual’s personal challenges.
Furthermore, if an individual is moved by an artwork, it should be acceptable to enjoy that response regardless of the work or its creator’s history. Take Wagner as one of many possible examples. I know that Wagner was a fascist–a political ideal with which I do not wish to associate myself yet I appreciate some of the beautiful timeless music that Wagner brought to the world. I will continue to enjoy his music but I will always carry in my mind knowledge about the person who created the music and an uncomfortable weight on my heart because of the injustices caused in the name of a particular social philosophy to which he ascribed.
It may be true that we cannot separate the art from the artist but we can evaluate each part of the equation separately. In some cases a work of art can serve a greater purpose that transcends its creator. In other cases an artist’s progeny may be too close to its originator’s harmful actions or ideals.