Tangentially prompted by a recent posting in the R&B Q&A section (specifically about Van Morrison and his lack of presence in the Primer section of this website), I have somewhat precariously decided to place an R&B music derived article into the main musings section – although, in my defence, this is fundamentally about more than one artist’s simple inclusion in a fan’s on-line tribute to a musical genre…it goes beyond the specifics of Larry’s question and debates the merits of valuing an artist’s work, irrespective or in spite of the individual’s own personal characteristics. As such, it has a far broader reach than Van The Man and yet he remains very much at its core. A complicated and divisive topic, but I’ve started now…..
Essentially, acceptance or otherwise of a particular art form, body of work or even one individual object could be as equally indebted to the predilections of the recipient as it is to the artist’s own world view. Just a couple of examples to illustrate the point.
He cheated endlessly on his wives, and physically, verbally and emotionally abused each one of his romantic partners. Yet we ignore Picasso’s misogyny towards those models who are pictured in his paintings by conveniently divorcing the artist from his broader context. Yet he is regarded as an icon of his movement and displayed everywhere.
Hailed as a genius for his theatrical masterpieces, which bring religious stories to life through dramatic lighting. Many of his paintings are however tense with violence, hinting at the character of the man who created them. Caravaggio was notoriously aggressive, and it’s known that he was involved in numerous assaults, for which he spent time in prison. Then, in 1606, the artist went a step further: he stabbed and killed a well-known Roman pimp named Ranuccio Tomassoni. Again, his own significant character flaws are no impediment to his canon of work.
There are many, many other examples that extend the evidence for this contextual separation of art form and creator. I’ll give one more, but this one has a somewhat murkier outcome. A weak illustration I admit (as he wasn’t ‘cancelled’ as such), but pertinent nonetheless.
The Irish sage responsible for some of the most exciting, spiritual, transcendental music of the last sixty years. Structured around the conventions of soul music and early rhythm and blues, an equal part of his catalogue consisted of lengthy, spiritually inspired musical journeys that show the influence of Celtic tradition, jazz and stream of consciousness narrative, best illustrated by the precocious early brilliance of the album “Astral Weeks”. The two strains together are sometimes referred to as “Celtic soul”, and his music has been described as attaining “a kind of violent transcendence“. Prolific and latterly maybe a little formulaic, he was in many media outlets suddenly a pariah. Oh, and for the sake of all doubt, I should at this stage out myself as most certainly in the pro Morrison camp. What drove this media transition from veneration to vilification? Well, according to the Guardian it was “a man as implacably opposed to lockdown as Van Morrison – who spent 2020 releasing songs rubbishing science as “crooked facts”, mocking people for wearing masks and describing the government as fascist bullies“. That of course is probably nominally correct and not, I hasten to add, a Van position to which I subscribe. Then again, I wouldn’t have necessarily put up the dreaded deed alongside murder, misogyny and incest, but there you go (sorry, didn’t I mention Eric Gill, English sculptor and artist but also serial sexual abuser of his daughters and incestuous relationship with his sister).
People talk about context when it positions them appropriately and, critically for mainstream opinion in particular, when it suits the narrative and it can be seen conclusively that they are safely on the right side of history. My view is that the “art and the artist” can always be separated but only with appropriate context. I repeat there are numerous examples of ‘brilliant work / horrible person’ littering the famous doorways of music, sculpture, art and literature etc. Contextualising and explaining the character and/or actions of the artist is therefore right and proper, indeed essential, but cancelling the art as well is simply erasing their (and our) history.
I can and do appreciate the work of the infamous originator whilst also acknowledging the crimes (downright evil in some cases) of the creator. And as for Van Morrison, I don’t think a gigging artist’s curmudgeonly swipe at lockdown is placed significantly high enough in the crime canon to justify the rubbishing of his work. Criticise the man if you wish, but let the music speak without recourse to selective prejudices. I remember Van when we saw him at Leeds Castle and passed him in the bar of the hotel the evening before. I ventured a timid hello as I walked by and got what I will always consider to be a reasonably civil ‘grrrrr’ in return. According to the mainstream media (or Johnny Rogan, look him up), I could have been lamped!
So, even if you are one of the card carrying social media warriors with an opinion about everything, a commitment to cancel even the mildly injudicious and an intellectual grounding in absolutely nothing, maybe you should all just take a step back, have a breather and criticise the creator, not what was created. Context is king, always referenced and explained but never hopefully eradicating the artistic endeavour 🙂