What do you think?
Rate this book
On Series (Little Books, Big Ideas)
On Artists
If we denounce an artist for bad behaviour, what becomes of the work that remains? The #MeToo movement is overturning a cliché that has forgiven bad behaviour for years: to be creative is to be prone to eccentricity, madness, addiction and excess. No longer can artists be excused from the standards of conduct that apply to us all. But if we denounce the artist, then what becomes of the work that remains?
- GenresNonfictionArtEssays
200 pages, Paperback
First published May 6, 2019
66 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
April 25, 2019
A short but excellent book about the inherent challenge of separating a work of art from the bad behaviour of its creator. Takes in Wagner, Hitchcock, Jackson, Weinstein and many more, without attempting to offer any easy answers.
June 16, 2019
Can we separate the art from the artist? Although Wilson cannot answer this difficult question, he presents a reasoned discourse and some insight into this complicated matter of 'cancel culture'. Can I still have P.Y.T in my favourite dance playlists or Ignition (Remix) in my karaoke repertoire or watch Annie Hall without feeling complicit somehow in the despicable behaviour of their creators? I think each person needs to draw their own conclusions, but for me the answer is, sadly, a resopunding no. This art, however brilliant, is tainted.
May 16, 2019
This book raises several important questions without making any real effort to come to grips with them. It is a rather frustrating read; every time you think he might say something interesting he ducks off into another example or anecdote.
May 16, 2019
A very short but a balanced and measured inquiry into the dilemma facing us as moral codes are
strengthened in the #MeToo era and scrutiny on artists' behavior is amped up.
Can we separate the art from the artist, should we, when we discover that they have done something reprehensible, take their art off the walls, out of the gallery, stop playing their music?
I've answered many of the questions for myself. What I like about Wilson's approach is that he knows that the issue is complicated so he doesn't provide any simplistic conclusions. He knows Miles Davis was a wife-beater yet he adores his music. (As do I.) Keith Jarret is a jerk to his audiences and to attend one of his concerts is to be nervous and scared. (Yuck, why bother?) Wagner is not performed in Israel, nor will he be in the foreseeable future.
What a compelling conversation that Wilson creates. Wagner, Hitchcock, Michael Jackson, Louis CK,
Chuck Berry, Geoffrey Rush, Weinstein, Dorothy Hewitt, Cosby, Picasso, Caravaggio, Woody Allen, Miles Davis, Gauguin, Kathleen Battle, I mean, the list is endless. In fact, the question for me is, do you need to be a total arsehole to be an artist?
Hahaha. Maybe.
Wilson, in discussing Hannah Gadsby's Nanette, recognized that as a cis, white male, he brings certain baggage and entitlement to the conversation and that now is the time to recognize that there has been an enormous cost born by the vulnerable and marginalized for the sake of "ART". Also, it is time to listen, to those who have been offended, hurt and used by the artist or to take note when the artist is a predator.
A superb exploration of an important subject.
strengthened in the #MeToo era and scrutiny on artists' behavior is amped up.
Can we separate the art from the artist, should we, when we discover that they have done something reprehensible, take their art off the walls, out of the gallery, stop playing their music?
I've answered many of the questions for myself. What I like about Wilson's approach is that he knows that the issue is complicated so he doesn't provide any simplistic conclusions. He knows Miles Davis was a wife-beater yet he adores his music. (As do I.) Keith Jarret is a jerk to his audiences and to attend one of his concerts is to be nervous and scared. (Yuck, why bother?) Wagner is not performed in Israel, nor will he be in the foreseeable future.
What a compelling conversation that Wilson creates. Wagner, Hitchcock, Michael Jackson, Louis CK,
Chuck Berry, Geoffrey Rush, Weinstein, Dorothy Hewitt, Cosby, Picasso, Caravaggio, Woody Allen, Miles Davis, Gauguin, Kathleen Battle, I mean, the list is endless. In fact, the question for me is, do you need to be a total arsehole to be an artist?
Hahaha. Maybe.
Wilson, in discussing Hannah Gadsby's Nanette, recognized that as a cis, white male, he brings certain baggage and entitlement to the conversation and that now is the time to recognize that there has been an enormous cost born by the vulnerable and marginalized for the sake of "ART". Also, it is time to listen, to those who have been offended, hurt and used by the artist or to take note when the artist is a predator.
A superb exploration of an important subject.
August 14, 2023
“But that was then. The world is now a lot less willing to forgive transgressions from lives devoted to creativity. After a few hundred years of excuses, this is well overdue.
What does this mean for the art? It's one thing to call misbehaving artists to account, but it's quite another to banish their work at the same time. The impulse to boycott artists has much to do with taking a stand, to demonstrate, commercially or otherwise, that such behaviour will not be tolerated. This is especially the case when the artist is still alive to profit from their work, and even more so if they are seen to have escaped legal consequences or failed to appropriately atone.
There's not much point trying to separate the artist from their art, since the two have long been inseparable. But as the spotlight falls on more artists, both living and long dead, we find ourselves at an uneasy juncture: if we denounce the artist, then what do we do with the work? Once we start removing paintings from walls, where do we stop?”
What does this mean for the art? It's one thing to call misbehaving artists to account, but it's quite another to banish their work at the same time. The impulse to boycott artists has much to do with taking a stand, to demonstrate, commercially or otherwise, that such behaviour will not be tolerated. This is especially the case when the artist is still alive to profit from their work, and even more so if they are seen to have escaped legal consequences or failed to appropriately atone.
There's not much point trying to separate the artist from their art, since the two have long been inseparable. But as the spotlight falls on more artists, both living and long dead, we find ourselves at an uneasy juncture: if we denounce the artist, then what do we do with the work? Once we start removing paintings from walls, where do we stop?”
December 4, 2020
This may be the most interesting and thought-provoking of the Little Books on Big Ideas I’ve encountered so far. Ashleigh Wilson examines whether we can separate the artist from their art, whether art is diminished by an artist’s behaviour, whether great art excuses poor behaviour, and whether we should withdraw music, film, or artworks when the artist’s criminal or immoral behaviour comes to light. His many case studies include Kevin Spacey, Picasso, Dali, Woodie Allen, R Kelly, Wagner, and Australia’s own Rolf Harris & Dennis Nona. We are left to form our own views. Although Wilson confines himself to art, there are wider implications for scandals involving political or corporate leaders - do poor personal behaviours impact the ability of someone to perform their job and what message does it send to hire them, stand them down, or keep them in place? 🎧 Ashleigh Wilson narrates this essay himself in a natural and engaging style.
May 18, 2021
Reflections and lessons learned:
“Just as the details of the life can never erase the work the quality of work can never excuse the life...”
An interesting discussion piece on the difficulty of separating the art from the artist - between condoning actions vs whitewashing history - such a moral topic that isn’t new as these examples show, but is still so hard to decide what to do for the best - is the hardest part realising that people are dichotomies that we have to accept but it’s what to do with a relationship, no matter how distant, after that?
“Just as the details of the life can never erase the work the quality of work can never excuse the life...”
An interesting discussion piece on the difficulty of separating the art from the artist - between condoning actions vs whitewashing history - such a moral topic that isn’t new as these examples show, but is still so hard to decide what to do for the best - is the hardest part realising that people are dichotomies that we have to accept but it’s what to do with a relationship, no matter how distant, after that?
November 8, 2022
Short essay, with some interesting references (that I will go and read if I can). I didn't realise about some of the lives of long dead artists (Caravaggio), yet we don't hold them to 'account'. It certainly seems to be more front of mind if the artist is still alive or 'just' dead. He asks lots of questions, but does skirt around the issue, as another reviewer said, just when you think he's going to say something substantive, another example pops up. Although I guess that's the whole problem, isn't it? A good conversation starter.
May 16, 2019
A thought-provoking essay on engaging with art and the artists who create it.
December 23, 2025
For what its worth in my opinion your art, your talent, your creative add to the world does not exempt you from morals.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews