Art and its Artist

First, at least in terms of profile, there was Jimmy Saville and I didn't think about it that much. Even as a kid I remember there being something very off-putting about him. There was no cross-over between who Saville was, what he was famous for (before his death) and anything to do with me. As such, his high-profile scandal didn't create much cause or need for self-reflection and examination. But in the same way that the ice-bucket challenge was just some yank fad mere weeks before you found yourself in your pants in your back garden; that wave of cultural reassessment was coming for me. 

Thanks to the efforts of the Times Up and Me Too movements, increasing numbers of men are being held accountable for their behaviour. In many cases, this was behaviour we all either suspected or knew about but remained willing to ignore. Many of us were seemingly happy to airbrush over these character traits as they allowed us to continue to enjoy the work they created. At this point though, if you've any cultural touchstone in your life that hasn't either been affected by this movement or been re-evaluated in the light of this movement, then you either have your head in sand. That, or all the cultural you consume has been created exclusively by Patti Smith.

Leaving Neverland has put the accusations against Michael Jackson in a position within the popular consciousness where they can no longer be ignored. Radio stations are pulling his music and I'd say more than one wedding-DJ has pulled Thriller from their planned playlist. I reached my own need for self-reflection recently when the New York Times published their piece concerning Ryan Adams. It'll come as no surprise to anyone who has spent more than fifteen minutes in my company that I was a Ryan Adams fan. The difficulty for me with addressing Adams' behaviour is a difficulty for Jackson fans too. They aren't some historically troublesome artist, like a Picasso or a Hemingway. The acts they are accused of, happened on our watch. Adams' sexting of his underage victim, his emotional abuse of the women in his life, leveraging his standing and influence for sex; this had all happened whilst I was enjoying his music. I've most of his albums, been to see him at least six times at this stage and Cold Roses was my go-to album for when I'd have a girl back to my room. On the slim chance that any of you are reading this, I am very sorry. 

So an artist that I used to enjoy has, seemingly, committed a sex crime; I'll just stop looking up his back catalogue on Spotify and move on with my life. Except, we all know it's not that easy. Adams' has been a primary contributor to the soundtrack of my life since I was eighteen, I'm thirty-four now. His music has been with me for a lot. Hell, I'm not even a Michael Jackson fan and I'd find it hard to exorcise his music from my life. For one thing the string quartet that played at my wedding cracked out a cover of Man in the Mirror. I can't imagine how a fan would go about cutting his art from their life. We might initially get away with a strategy of simply ignoring an artist but that can't last, for one thing it's not fair on us.

It will be a while before I feel comfortable sticking on Jacksonville City Nights again. I may never feel comfortable listening to it ever again but I'd like to think that at some point in the future I'd be able to enjoy it again. Why should I let the crimes of an artist impinge on the enjoyment I get from their work? A universal truth is a rare thing, but a definite one is that once an artist has put something out into the world it stops belonging to them and belongs to us. Some people will, rightfully, argue that continued consumption of an artist's work acts a financial reward for their bad behaviour. On the other hand, I bought Jacksonville City Nights at some point in 2005, I last saw Adams live in 2010; whatever financial reward he wrought from me has long since become a sunk cost, for both of us. When I get around to listening to him again, whatever emotions are generated in me are mine and mine alone. For those of you who threw out your CD collections once you signed up for Spotify premium, well, maybe you could knock down to your local charity shop, they're probably expecting an increase in donations from certain artists in the coming weeks and months. 

If I decide that I'm going to stop listening to Ryan Adams because of his actions, then I'm pulling on a thread that, once unraveled, will leave me with very little. That said, we can't continue to treat and talk about artists we admire in the manner that we have been. As a society we really need to stop revering the "difficult genius", at the very least we need to stop overusing the word "genius". There are many pieces online, written by better and smarter writers than I on the toxicity created when we allow people to get away with things on account of them being labelled a genius, so I shan't retread that here. 

Instead I just want to sound a warning over the role that the use of that word has played in the football-if-i-cation of modern cultural discussion. Under this parlance, if we accept that someone is a genius, we accept the result of their actions regardless of the means. Therefore a genius cannot become a bad person, because we need to be comfortable enjoying the fruit of their labour. This is, quite frankly, a load of bollocks and attempting to maintain this line will only have us tying ourselves in knots. Let's take the recent fad in Britain of getting politicians to use either the word "hero" or "villain" to describe Winston Churchill. Do any of us really believe that the achievements of a man who lived such a varied life could be surmised by one word? On the one hand, it was the political stance lead by Churchill in 1940 that stopped the UK from entering into an agreement with Nazi Germany that would have seen it become, like Vichy France, a mere satellite state. However, it is also a matter of public record that his actions engineered a mass famine in India. Hero? Villain? The man is both. 

So what next? Well, it's probably in bad taste to crank-out Billie Jean right now and give it a couple of months before you next attempt to moonwalk. But if you're a Michael Jackson fan, don't remove his music from your life. Don't let his private actions taint the memories you have generated listening to his music. Do stop venerating someone just because they've put something out into the world that you consider beautiful. Yes Hemingway's books were exciting and he undoubtedly appeals to some aspect of masculinity that we'd like to emulate but he was also a dick. Also, go back and re-read some of his books, the man was clearly miserable. My favourite painting was, and remains Picasso's Guernica and the day I stood in the Reina Sofia in Madrid and finally got to behold it in the flesh is something that is seared into my memory. I swear I can still smell the room in which it hangs. This is a painting that is considered so powerful in terms of its anti-war sentiment, that a reproduction of it hangs in the Security Council room in the United Nations. The actions of the man who painted it do not change either of those things, the only thing they should change is our perception of the man himself.