Separating art from the artist

In a truly free society, the artist must be allowed to create whatever he or she wants.  Whether the creation might offend someone is irrelevant.  A person taking offense is not a reason for censorship. In this context I use a broad definition of artist: Someone who creates something to express an opinion, a feeling, an observation, or an interpretation.  This includes painters, sculptors, poets, writers (fiction and nonfiction), speechgivers, actors, comedians, musicians, singers, dancers, and anyone else whose work expresses something from within themselves. 

Is skateboarding an art? This is not a flippant question.

I watched a video about skateboarder Rodney Mullen set to the music of Moby’s “Extreme Ways.”  The video itself is a brilliant creation because it masterfully distills down the physical talents of its subject into a film mere minutes long, in much the same way that an exceptional haiku captures the essence of life in a few words.  The skateboarding skills are transcendent.  Mr. Mullen’s talent left me saying, “This guy is an artist in his own right, the expression being skateboarding.”  It transformed my opinion regarding skateboarding.  This shows the power of both freedom of expression and the freedom to partake of it. Seriously, check out the video: Rodney Mullen video.

Does this mean a skateboarder can use the public sidewalk with impunity?  To answer this question, ask it a different way: Can a painter set up his easel on a sidewalk and block its use by others?         

I like art that is clever, interesting, evocative, or provocative.  Freedom means there is absolutely no requirement it be unoffensive.  Freedom means the artist is not subject to a moral turpitude clause, the violation of which results in suppression of his work or financial ruin.  That the artist, whether living or dead, pass a Woke (or any) ideological purity test contravenes the concept of freedom of speech and expression. 

We must resist direct or indirect efforts to silence others, whether they be living or dead.  We must not accept the balderdash argument that the censors are exercising their “free speech” when they squash someone else’s.  The smug argument that “free speech doesn’t mean free from consequences” is a fascist contrivance because people who spout this platitude fully mean for the consequences to silence or otherwise punish people whose notions they don’t like.  They also intend these consequences make others fearful of speaking out. 

Censorship in any form is evil.  Pressuring a bookseller to stop selling a particular book is an example of this.  Demonetizing YouTube creators is another.  Interrupting a speech or blocking the entrance to an auditorium where a speech is scheduled are attacks on free speech.  These are examples of childish behavior done by immature fascists. Wussy fascists, at that.       

Be a true fighter against fascism: defend free speech.  Defend it whether you find the speech or the person abhorrent.  Defend it especially when you find the person or his notions abhorrent.  This means Tookie Williams, the now-executed inmate formerly on California’s Death Row, could write children’s books and others buy them.  A parent might not buy these books because of the author’s past or the book’s content.  Another parent may choose otherwise.  Both parents must be free to make their choice unmolested by those who would dictate what others think or do. 

No person has a right to interfere with someone’s ideas, opinions, or artistic expression when it’s done on the other person’s own time.  No one has the right to prevent another person from partaking of it.  To do so is fascism.  Keep the qualifiers and caveats to a barest minimum if you want to be free.  I’d allow Robert Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano, and Chris Ofili their say for an adult audience.  You may find their work detestable, and I agree with you.  But I value my freedom far more than my delicate sensibilities, and so should you.  When those we find odious are free, we all are free.  It is only the physical manifestation of ideas that we should concern ourselves with and perhaps take action for or against.

People must be free to partake or not partake of an artist’s work, and others must not interfere with this decision.  Your reaction to their work is up to you and depends on who you are as a person, the mood you’re in when partaking of the work, and the context in which it is presented.  The emotions evoked may be elation, sadness, anger, laughter, or some other.  Inner reflection may be prompted.  You may gain a better understanding of the wider world.   

Those who would take away this freedom always claim they are on the side of the angels.  They aren’t.  If you oppress others, not only are those you lord over not free, but neither are you at that point because you’ve made yourself a camp guard.  The Woke gleefully offer an endless supply of camp guards.  Nasty, petty, sanctimonious ones.  Within prison walls are both prisoners and those who oversee them.  Prisons aren’t pleasant for either party.

Children are often used as pawns in the so-called Culture Wars.  School libraries are a common battleground for those who would dictate what others can (or must) read.  The issue is typically either banning books or the inclusion of age-inappropriate materials which contain adult-themes or language.  The Woke accuse those who want to ban books the Woke like of being Christian zealots (the Woke are cool with gender zealots).  The other side accuses the Woke of being perverts hell-bent on indoctrinating kids and interfering with parental rights. 

There is a critical difference, though: The Woke want the things they want banned, banned forever and not available for anyone of any age.  Those among the non-Woke who value free speech merely want certain materials age-restricted.  Once a person is of an appropriate age, it’s then available—maybe not at a school, but somewhere (e.g., a bookstore, public library).         

Books should not be banned.  Librarians and booksellers must be the last line of defense against censorship and embrace this responsibility as a holy duty.  Yes, it’s that important.  A library or bookseller taking its duty seriously must defend both The Catcher in the Rye and Little Black Sambo.  But books in a school or other library may not be appropriate reading for all ages—and the right of parents to make decisions on behalf of their children is also important.      

Access restrictions based on age-appropriateness are okay because there’s a reasonable end point at which the book becomes available.  The Woke want books related to sexuality and gender confusion available to children as soon as they leave the womb.  This includes extremely graphic ones (Gender Queer for example, which clearly contains adult content) and is a cultish politicization of school libraries in a deliberate attempt to subvert parents and promote an odious gender ideology.  The Woke become giddy when they contravene the wishes of non-Woke parents, no matter how disgusting a book’s content.    

Books involving sex or sexuality or gender confusion are not appropriate for elementary school age children, and it’s reasonable for parents to insist this be the case.  Forcing these books on children is motivated by the Woke’s “I’ll show you how tolerant we are!” spite, rather than any true compassion or enlightenment.  It’s certainly not based on a respect for freedom of speech.  The Woke are big on banning books they don’t like (e.g., When Harry Became Sally) and this includes preventing adults from reading these, so their hypocrisy on this matter is evident. Thanks to the transfascists who badgered Amazon and Barnes & Noble into not selling it, I had a difficult time buying the book When Harry Became Sally, finally finding a Christian bookseller to buy it from. The Woke are the true censors and book burners.  Book burners always claim the fire is purifying and enlightening, but afterwards they’re left only with ashes, Stygian darkness, and ignorance.   

What’s an appropriate age for kids in school to have access to “adult” content?  I think the junior or senior year in high school is a reasonable accommodation for books involving adult content or language, though parental input and possible approval are important.  At some point in our lives Pudd’nhead Wilson and Heather Has Two Mommies and Irreversible Damage must be available to us if we choose to read them.  The same goes for Mein Kampf and the Koran.  Am I saying Adolf Hitler’s book and Heather Has Two Mommies are equivalent?  In regard to free speech: Yes.

A columnist wrote an article about “separating art from the artist.”  She discussed it in the context of several authors whose personal opinions she found troubling, such as Roald Dahl and his alleged antisemitism.  Would she read their works?  Should she read their works?  Could she enjoy these if she did read them, knowing what she knows about the author?

It’s not wrong that she asked these questions.  The choice each of us have is whether to read any book.  There are many reasons why we’d decide one way or the other.  There are books by people whose opinions are so distasteful to me that I’m unable to enjoy their work.  There are other authors (e.g., Stephen King) for whom I’m able to overcome this and still enjoy the book—though Mr. King is making it increasingly difficult with his troubling embracement of censorship.  The same consideration applies to other creative endeavors, including poems, speeches, YouTube videos, movies, and television shows. 

I remind myself that I should not fear the existence of works by people I detest.  Sometimes the study of these is necessary if I am to provide a compelling argument against their notions.  I’m amazed by the writings and interviews of the now-deceased atheist Christopher Hitchens.  He was well-versed on the history, holy texts, and writings of many religions, and this made him a particularly dangerous opponent when debating a member of the faithful who were never as well-prepared as he was to debate their own religion.    

As we go about our lives it’s important to remember that each of us has a past, including artists.  This past includes a mix of good and bad.  The proportions of each and their make-up are what makes us who we are.  Hitler painted.  Roald Dahl wrote.  Stephen King still writes.      

The Woke take not separating art from the artist to extraordinary levels.  Any sin great or small (as wholly defined by them and their holy texts) means the offender must be canceled.  Canceling as intended by the Woke is censorship.  It’s meant to silence.  It’s meant to make people fearful of speaking their minds or otherwise expressing themselves.  It’s meant to keep people from reading the books (or partaking of other forms of expression) the Woke deem unacceptable.  It’s meant for control and retribution.  It’s fascism, pure and simple.   

Decent people deal with this issue in an adult manner: They change the channel or don’t read the book.  They don’t invest calories sticking their noses into what other people decide to do.    

Do artists need to ask themselves about separating art from the artist?  This is a consideration when you’re in a career that requires you to sell your work to the widest audience possible (it would apply to a restaurant owner, as well).  If this is not your goal, that’s one thing; i.e., if you’re a stridently partisan political commentator, you’ve obviously chosen your audience accordingly.  But actors and actresses who publicly opine about matters unrelated to their craft risk alienating potential customers.  They have the right to speak their mind, but these public utterances might not be a good business decision.  

There are actors and actresses whose blatherings I find so loathsome that when I see them on the large or small screen, I immediately think of it, and this distracts from my enjoyment of the movie or television show.  So much for escapism at that point.  I’m generally against organized boycotts, but people are free to make their individual buying choices as they see fit.  Collectively, these may have the impact of a formal boycott.  The Woke have driven the non-Woke into a “fight fire with fire” mentality, hence the organized boycotts against Woke nonsense.       

Here are some quotes that might help put this issue and larger life into perspective:

“In heaven, all the interesting people are missing.”

                        Friedrich Nietzsche

“You think your pain and your heartbreak are unprecedented in the history of the world, but then you read.”

                        James Baldwin

“One should never talk of a moral or an immoral poem: poems are either well written or badly written, that is all.”

                        Oscar Wilde

“There ain’t no sin and there ain’t no virtue.  There’s just stuff people do.  It’s part of the same thing.  And some of the things folks do is nice, and some ain’t nice, but that’s as far as any man got a right to say.”

                        John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath

Amen, brothers.