About ten years ago, a Romanian painter asked me if I’d seen the latest movie of a certain filmmaker. I told him that I’m not interested in that guy’s movies because he was a piece of shit human being and I don’t care about his work.
“What’s that have to do with anything?” he asked indignantly.
“What do you mean?” I said.
“What does it matter that if he’s a piece of shit in his personal life. His work of art is a completely different thing. You can’t judge his art through his personal choices!”
“I don’t know, I just despise him and don’t care about his work. It’s my personal choice, made without even blinking,” I replied.
“Do you like Picasso?” he asked me.
“I do,” I said.
“Well, he was a piece of shit human being, damaging lots of lives around him, and he’s still the darling of museums and exhibitions. And you haven’t heard anyone saying they’re not interested in his work of art because of his shitty personality and choices.”
That was a new perspective for me. I hadn’t given much thought to that aspect before. For me, it had been an instinctive choice—I knew of certain bad things that director had done and just lost my interest in him. No thought process, just instinct. But the problem was definitely more complex than that. There were probably hundreds of shitty people, yet extraordinary artists, who have remained in history because of their genius. Did they deserve the attention? Or did they deserve to be forgotten?
That was just an interesting aspect for me back then. As years passed, there were other tangent aspects that I bumped into. Like the case of “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” by Mark Twain, when people who didn’t understand it and thought it does not conform to their values, created a cleansed version of it, that no longer contained the ‘n’-word. For me, that was inconceivable—that anyone in the future could alter your work to fit their beliefs!
Fortunately, that aroused indignation among some literary critics and a debate followed. Fortunately, that hasn’t been shrugged off like so many other things. Because that’s what makes our society so interesting—we live in the extremes. We seem to be dormant in confronting so many unjust social issues and yet, when something sticks, we take it all the way to its intended resolution, and many times some unintended ones.
Because last year has seen the revival of the #MeToo movement. Which was SO good. Until several instances when people joined the movement just to damage other people for different reasons than those supported by the #MeToo rationale. Innocent people. And the nature of the movement, is social justice and not part of the legal system, the justice system, allowed them to do it. Some were proven as frauds afterward, some were not. The important part was that those actions made people question the movement. Which was bad. Because the movement is good and it should endure. It should have lasting effects and eradicate once and for all sexual harassment, it should eradicate for good those XIX-th century traits of some people in power, that they can bully and dominate their employees, or coerce into shameful acts the people who need them.
Anyway, because the majority of the people accused in the first wave of the #MeToo revival were from the entertainment industry, actors, directors, producers, comedians, singers, and so on, that raised some interesting questions that brought me back ten years—do these artists still deserve the attention? Or do they deserve to be forgotten?
And lo and behold, last week, the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) held a panel on the “#MeToo & the Arts”. The reason is that they have the “Modernism on the Ganges” exhibition, celebrating the work of the famous photographer Raghubir Singh. An artist who although celebrated for his genius had just been accused posthumously of sexual harassment. The reaction of some other museums and galleries has been to go on and to keep quiet or directly shut down his exhibition.
ROM has chosen to keep the exhibition open, but speak up about the issue. The moderator has been Sara Angel, in discussion with Josh Basseches (Director and CEO of the ROM), Sara Diamond (the president of the Ontario College of Art and Design University—OCADU), Stephen Jost (the CEO of the Art Gallery of Ontario—AGO), and Heidi Reitmaier (the CEO of the Museum of Contemporary Art—MOCA). Important people in the fields of art. Important people because they get to decide what is publicly shown and promoted, as well as what the future artists learn about. In some ways, they are responsible for the public’s education in arts. They can illuminate, revive, or kill an artist’s career.
Their discussion was interesting in many ways. First, because they touched on various important aspects at the core of the #MeToo issue in the arts. Secondly, because once again I witnessed how this difficult and bloody subject can be discussed with finesse and in several instances addressed without actually addressing it. And no, if you think the solution of not addressing something that you’d prefer not to talk about is to ignore it and talk about something else, you’re wrong. The solution as so cleverly was used by Mr. Jost was to turn the unwanted subject into a different one in such a logical way, that effortlessly it seemed everyone was talking about that last thing and not about… anyway, you get the drift. And thirdly, because they actually came up with some good ideas and solution to this thorny problem—what should we do about brilliant past and present artists who have become socially undesirable because of their ugly character?
And weirdly enough one of the examples given was that of Picasso. Not only because he was an example of an artist who could easily be accused of sexual harassment and other nasty stuff, but also because he raised an adjacent problem—what to do with art that is questionable for its subtext and meaning. Recently, the “Fillette a la corbeille fleurie” painting has been sold for $102 million at Christie’s. The painting has raised controversy over the artist’s sexualized depiction of a young girl (around 12, 13 years of age). Many critics claim she was one of Picasso’s lovers although she was a minor. Others add that “yes, but she was a prostitute, so it doesn’t count”. What to do with such a piece of art? Do we display it, or do we hide it? Do we teach students about it, or do we hide it?
Well, one interesting fact of life was presented by the CEO of the AGO — the market still imposes what art stays and what art goes. And for instance, the market has decided that “Fillette a la corbeille fleurie” stays as an important and very valuable painting when it was sold for such a record amount of money.
Eventually, they all agreed that one has to expose the art students to ALL art, good or evil, as long as one offers a context and brings up debate around any piece of art, especially in opposition to other pieces of art relevant for that specific discussion. That way, students could be aware of all the relevant social and cultural issues. In the same manner, if a museum creates the relevant context and sparks the necessary discussions, it can present to the public any controversial artist or any controversial piece of art. The way they’re doing with Raghubir Singh. This way they can celebrate his art and at the same time discuss his life choices in the larger context of the #MeToo movement.
It seems to me a fair solution. I don’t know if this will be the definitive guide for dealing with this kind of situations, but for now, I’m content.
In retrospective, seeing that filmmaker’s movies remains a personal choice for me. But his movies should be presented to the public nonetheless. History will decide if they’re as good as some say they are. And maybe, one day in the future, the film festivals organizers will raise the social issues as well, offering open public discussion about that filmmaker’s personality.