Philosophy Across the Ages: Should Artists’ Ethics Affect Our Artistic Judgements?
Debi Talukdar is PLATO’s Program Director and an adjunct lecturer for online courses at the University of Washington School of Educational Studies.
A few months ago, PLATO hosted its first online Philosophy Across the Ages event. It invited high school students and adults to engage in a discussion on the relationship, if any, of an artist’s ethics and our perception of their art. The session explored some complex, timeless questions: Is it possible to separate art from its creator? How should we respond to art that challenges our values?How do we balance appreciation with accountability?
The Tension Between Beauty and Morality
The conversation started off with a discussion on whether it is possible to separate a work of art from its creator. One participant talked about his love for both Michael Jackson’s and Bach’s music while acknowledging that both artists engaged in problematic behavior during their lifetimes. He said that when artists make serious contributions to shaping society, it is easy to forget that they too are flawed humans. A high school student pushed back claiming that it is still important to contextualize art because who the artists are influences what they create, and context allows us to see their intention more clearly.
As the discussion progressed, it became clear that many participants found it difficult to square an artist’s achievements with the knowledge of their flaws. A question arose about offensive art, and whether we can find something beautiful even if we don’t like the artist’s intention. For example, Vladimir Nabokov’s novel Lolita is considered a masterpiece even though its main character indulges in sexual perversion. Can we appreciate the novel’s redeeming qualities without endorsing its controversial elements? Or do we validate an artist’s behavior when we appreciate their art?
Many in the group agreed that art is meant to challenge norms and push boundaries. As one participant said, “Art should disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed,” a line famously re-quoted by Banksy, and an idea that is very present in his art. Disturbing content helps us engage with complex emotions and social issues.
A student pointed out that society would be a lot less diverse if we only consumed art by artists who conformed to our personal and collective values. It’s important, he said, to give space to artists who stir things up. This student said that he once intentionally picked up a book by Jordan Peterson—a celebrity psychologist with controversial views on women, masculinity, and climate change—even though the student didn’t agree with the author’s views. Someone might think that he supported Peterson’s ideas, the student went on to say, but someone else might understand that his intention was to better understand how his beliefs differed from Peterson’s, and to challenge his own thinking. Another participant responded by saying that the discomfort art evokes can be thought of as an invitation to question our own values and beliefs. If art is meant to challenge and provoke us, can we still appreciate it even if it is troubling? Can it still be beautiful?
A student emphasized that this question feels different today than a hundred years ago because the distance between artists and the public has changed. Today we are so connected to the lives of artists—through social media, biographies, or news reports—that the boundary between the art and the artist feels increasingly blurred.
Artist accountability and the Goal of Art
As the group grappled with these complicated ideas, the question of accountability emerged. Is it our responsibility to hold artists accountable for their personal actions? How should we express this responsibility? Is it right to cancel them or boycott an artist’s work? One student suggested that our need to hold artists accountable is not simply about condemning the art or the artist. It stems from our desire to distance ourselves from their problematic behavior. It’s not about them, it’s about us. If that’s the case, what can we do?
Assuming censorship is not the goal, one solution might be for museums and educational institutions to provide context for controversial works—explaining the artist’s background and the problematic aspects of their life and choices—while still allowing the work to be appreciated for its artistic value. This idea met with mixed reactions. Although some agreed that it was important to contextualize the art in a way that helped audiences understand the full picture, others believed that the art should be evaluated on its own merits, independent of the artist’s personal history.
This raised the question about the goal of art. Why do we expect artistic creations to be morally good? If the goal of art is not to make us better people, why do we object to art that is offensive? On the other hand, if we normalize offensive art and refrain from critically examining it, are we running the risk of having these creations influence how we act in our daily live?
By the end of the evening, the group had not arrived at a clear answer to many of the questions raised. Perhaps this was the point. By engaging in a community of inquiry, we were all challenged to hold conflicting ideas in our minds at the same time—appreciating beauty even when it’s difficult.
Philosophy Across the Ages was a wonderful event. The fact that people of different ages participated enriched the conversation. Scott MacLeod, a PLATO board member, remarked that discussions like these reminded him of what he missed most about teaching. As for me, I was pushed to reconsider my own ideas about art and morality. The event reminded me yet again why I love doing this work.
PLATO regularly hosts free intergenerational discussions. Stay updated by subscribing to PLATO News, our monthly publication, and spread the word widely in your communities and schools.
