Why It's OK to Enjoy the Work of Immoral Artists

Why It's OK: The Ethics and Aesthetics of How We Live

by Mary Beth Willard

The #metoo movement has forced many fans to consider what they should do when they learn that a beloved artist has acted immorally. One natural thought is that fans ought to give up the artworks of immoral artists. In Why It’s OK to Enjoy the Work of Immoral Artists, Mary Beth Willard argues for a more nuanced view. Enjoying art is part of a well-lived life, so we need good reasons to give it up.

And it turns out good reasons are hard to find. Willard shows that it’s reasonable to believe that most boycotts of artists won’t succeed, so most of the time there’s no ethical reason to join in. Someone who manages to separate the art from the artist isn’t making an ethical mistake by buying and enjoying their art. She then considers the ethical dimensions of canceling artists and the so-called "cancel culture," arguing that canceling is ethically risky because it encourages moral grandstanding. Willard concludes by arguing that the popular debate has overlooked the power of art to change our lives for the good.

It’s of course OK to decide to give up the artwork of immoral artists, but – as Willard shows in this provocative little volume – it’s OK to continue to enjoy their art as well.

Key Features



Offers accessible discussions of complicated philosophical topics like aesthetic value, collective action problems, and epistemic justice

Provides a unique perspective and underexplored argument on the popular issue of cancellation

Explores the role of aesthetic value in our lives, including its relation to our ethical decisions and our well being

Genres: Philosophy

192 pages, Kindle Edition

Published March 1, 2021

Reviews

[Julie Bozza]

A very interesting and very relevant look into... Well, it does what it says on the tin! I am sure that most of us have been faced with disappointments and disillusionments over the years. Creators of our beloved books, music, tv shows, films, etc turn out to not only have feet of clay and human foibles, but can be outright villainous. Does that mean we can / should no longer enjoy their work?

Willard considers this in some detail from the point of view of philosophy and ethics. Every now and then I was just itching to add considerations drawing on media studies and creativity itself. But the volume (like its series companions) is designed to be brief and focussed.

One aspect I particularly enjoyed was Willard's democratic consideration of "aesthetic projects". We all have them, and they're a significant part of our life, whether it's a playlist of our favourite songs, the colours and imagery we surround ourselves with in our home, our love of a particular genre or artist in any creative field, our fannish passions, our collections, and so on. It's terrific to read about how vital and necessary these projects are to anyone's life. Very validating!

Ultimately, though, I'm still pondering. My enjoyment of certain things remains tarnished, even if I have the permission of an ethicist to still love them. I'm not sure if that will ever change for me.

TBC (to be confirmed).

[Hayden Berg]

This book tackled some very prescient cultural questions that have been on my mind a lot as someone who watches a lot of movies and reads a lot of books written by problematic dead folks who occupy the "western canon". Rather than brashly proclaiming a correct answer to this complicated moral issue, Willard suggests that there aren't easy answers, and engages in a critical questioning of those who immediately dismiss works by immoral artists as well as those who ignore fully the immoral actions of artists and continue enjoying the work.

These are topics that are talked and written about often, but rarely with so much clarity and good-faith questioning (sans any kind of grandstanding moralism).

It's a great read!

[Neal Tognazzini]

Read this book with the rest of the philosophy department faculty this quarter, and it produced some fun conversations. It’s written in an accessible way, with lots of good examples, and the author makes a lot of good points throughout. I think I was already on board with the conclusion, though, so I think as a result I found it less intellectually engaging than I had hoped. Seems like a great teaching resource, though.

[Sarah Peszka Walton]

Interesting read! Did I agree with every point the author made? No, but it’s intentionally not giving a “both sides” argument, so that’s to be expected. It just gave me something to grab onto when thinking about this ethical dilemma where I feel I could make a much more educated argument in both directions. Plus, I like when a nonfiction book has some humor and lightness from the author, it’s not a dry, overly-academic read

[Mary Rose]

I found the exploration of different aspects of ethics interesting, but the overall argument of the book disempowering and unconvincing. ‘Just do whatever you think is best because no ethical stance you can take matters anyway.’ Is that really the world you want to live in?

[Julien L]

A deceptively more complex argument than the title lets on. Gets at a thing that annoys me about social media: the parasocial relationships people have with celebrity and the need to act as judge, jury and executioner.