Today’s blog asks one simple question: should a work of
entertainment or art be judged on its own merits or on the morality (or lack of
it) of the work’s creator? Given that it seems as though someone is going
through the people who provided me with many happy memories of the days when I
still longed for a puppy and a bike for my birthday and is sullying them one by
one, I think it’s a fair and timely question.
Bacofoil-suited rocker with high boots, high hair and even
higher eyebrows? Blinged-up cigar-toting yodeller who made people’s dreams come
true? And the latest, infectious laugh-monger who, alongside northern rugby
commentator, presented a totally surreal game show? All once darlings of the
masses, now damned forever and eradicated from our entertainment past.
Before we go any further it’s important to note that some of
these people have never been found guilty of the crimes they’re accused of –
very important. The fact that a man is innocent until proven guilty by a jury
of his peers is one of the immovable foundations of all sane legal systems. Mob
rule and trial by media should have no place in a civilised society.
But then again neither does abuse of any kind. People who
carry out atrocities should be suitably punished, shouldn’t they. But how do
you adjust the punishment to fit the crime? And how is it that we choose to
ignore the misdemeanours of some of our heroes yet turn on and vilify others? Just
how much are we willing to forgive artistic types for actions that would be
unacceptable if they were done by one of our work colleagues?
Many male rock musicians will admit to having used their
fame to ‘get chicks’. Whether these groupies are willing or of legal age sometimes
seems to be inconsequential. Does that affect their ability to create music to
please the masses? The excesses of the Beatles, Stones, Led Zeppelin and the
like have become legendary but it didn’t adversely affect their sales figures.
Just because somebody is seen to be a genius in their particular
artistic field doesn’t mean that they are automatically what we would call
‘good people’, however you choose to define that. Many singers or actors have a
history of substance abuse and/or violence towards their partners. Leonardo da
Vinci was arrested and charged with sodomy, as was Oscar Wilde. Jerry Lee Lewis
married a thirteen year old family member. Pablo Picasso was a member of the
French Communist Party. Chuck Berry did time for armed robbery. Filmmaker Roman
Polanski cannot return to America due to an outstanding statutory rape charge
for sex with a minor. Michael Jackson made tens of millions of dollars in out
of court settlement payments due to allegations of child sex abuse. At the time
of his death, Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols was on bail after being arrested
on suspicion of murdering his girlfriend. Author William Burroughs was
convicted of killing his wife, the artist Caravaggio battered a young man to
death and record producer Phil Spector is currently in jail for murder. Salvador Dali was… unusual. And Lord Byron
was ‘mad, bad and dangerous to know’.
Some of these events may shock us. Some won’t because
they’re not illegal or even seen as wrong in the time and place that we live
but change the century and location of the incident and it looks a whole lot
worse. Or a lot of fuss about nothing.
So is the value of a man’s work lessened if he’s found to be
the kind of person that we, as a society, don’t like? If that’s the case then
have the millions raised by Jimmy Savile and Lance Armstrong suddenly somehow
become less beneficial to the recipients of that money?
It’s difficult. I guess that some things aren’t quite as
black and white as we’d like them to be.
But then again, some things most definitely are.
No comments:
Post a Comment