Good points about the good/bad art issue. The problem is that, art or no art, people are complex and messy. We all are. Jung wrote about this often with his ‘shadow’ self concept. There’s yin/yang. The best of the us have a little evil and the worst of us have a little good. There’s an irony in the rise of culturally fascistic woke identity politics, the whole cancellation purity culture: Eventually everyone will be exposed, including the leftists, as messy impure hypocrites. And ultimately that’s what we need: For everyone to realize what we already know: Human purity is an illusion.
Artists are often unconventional, weird, different, intense, extreme, etc. It’s in our nature, our blood. Being sober, I’ve met hundreds of sober artists in AA, male and female, who’ve done terrible, even taboo, things in the past. If I’m honest I’m one of ‘em. But so what? That’s life? Most of us had difficult childhoods. We drank to survive. We did stupid shit. We got sober. We changed. We made amends. We moved on. That’s life. We’re going to dig into every single artist’s personal life and dole out moral certifications as to whether they can be treated as worthy artists, worthy human beings? That sounds like Nazi Germany to me.
You nailed it in the dumb hollowness of the good/bad binary. It’s totally absurd and unrealistic and unhelpful. As you pointed out: When it’s someone who benefits the left suddenly they’re silent.
This can’t be taken seriously. Art has never been morally virtuous or safe, from Homer to Dante to Shakespeare to Dostoevsky to Miller etc.
No kidding. I would add to this the q: Should we not read T.S Eliot or listen to Wagner because both had a history of Anti-Semitism? And then there's the knotty question of the fabulous art by Woody Allen--don't shoot me, but I think his films are some of the best ever made. And I'm Jewish and love Eliot and Wagner.
Decision tree that I obey when approaching people i like who feel there is no time to forgive a heterosexual male? I begin by forcibly reminding myself this person decided on one bright day to be hypervigilant. It is the name of a Guerilla Feminist post coincidentally this week. Then following , i proceed in a what if? If asvi think hypocrisy as a visceral reaction remains only as a zoo animal. Then maybe what we share is a resistance to simply deliberate obfuscation. That is where our senses of cognitive dissonance lives now i think? We should be able to talk to people pursuing a political agenda as long as they acknowledge that they are seeking to make a new canon that is thin on art. My rule is often violated (doing Goldings sea series with a headstrong british imperialist for protag. right now, who turns his contempt for the lowly frequently against himself)but usually that "art that confesses too much self loathing is written for one singular unknown lover" "*convinces noone" . What I believe to be the case....
Good points about the good/bad art issue. The problem is that, art or no art, people are complex and messy. We all are. Jung wrote about this often with his ‘shadow’ self concept. There’s yin/yang. The best of the us have a little evil and the worst of us have a little good. There’s an irony in the rise of culturally fascistic woke identity politics, the whole cancellation purity culture: Eventually everyone will be exposed, including the leftists, as messy impure hypocrites. And ultimately that’s what we need: For everyone to realize what we already know: Human purity is an illusion.
Artists are often unconventional, weird, different, intense, extreme, etc. It’s in our nature, our blood. Being sober, I’ve met hundreds of sober artists in AA, male and female, who’ve done terrible, even taboo, things in the past. If I’m honest I’m one of ‘em. But so what? That’s life? Most of us had difficult childhoods. We drank to survive. We did stupid shit. We got sober. We changed. We made amends. We moved on. That’s life. We’re going to dig into every single artist’s personal life and dole out moral certifications as to whether they can be treated as worthy artists, worthy human beings? That sounds like Nazi Germany to me.
You nailed it in the dumb hollowness of the good/bad binary. It’s totally absurd and unrealistic and unhelpful. As you pointed out: When it’s someone who benefits the left suddenly they’re silent.
This can’t be taken seriously. Art has never been morally virtuous or safe, from Homer to Dante to Shakespeare to Dostoevsky to Miller etc.
Wrote a piece on that: https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-henry-miller
Michael Mohr
‘Sincere American Writing’
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
No kidding. I would add to this the q: Should we not read T.S Eliot or listen to Wagner because both had a history of Anti-Semitism? And then there's the knotty question of the fabulous art by Woody Allen--don't shoot me, but I think his films are some of the best ever made. And I'm Jewish and love Eliot and Wagner.
Decision tree that I obey when approaching people i like who feel there is no time to forgive a heterosexual male? I begin by forcibly reminding myself this person decided on one bright day to be hypervigilant. It is the name of a Guerilla Feminist post coincidentally this week. Then following , i proceed in a what if? If asvi think hypocrisy as a visceral reaction remains only as a zoo animal. Then maybe what we share is a resistance to simply deliberate obfuscation. That is where our senses of cognitive dissonance lives now i think? We should be able to talk to people pursuing a political agenda as long as they acknowledge that they are seeking to make a new canon that is thin on art. My rule is often violated (doing Goldings sea series with a headstrong british imperialist for protag. right now, who turns his contempt for the lowly frequently against himself)but usually that "art that confesses too much self loathing is written for one singular unknown lover" "*convinces noone" . What I believe to be the case....