Moral Dilemma
"Moral Dilemma"
or
"The Hypocrite"
I am a person that surrounds herself with
music. At work we have a playlist of jazz, classical, new age, classical
crossover, which plays random tracks of music throughout the day.
In my car, I listen to playlists that I have
made-songs from the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 200s, 2010s, The Beatles, Phil Collins, The
Monkees, James Taylor, Billy Joel, George Michael, and more.
Two weeks ago, while driving to work, I
had my 1980s songs playlist playing in my car. All of a sudden, the song
“Thriller”, by Michael Jackson, came on the playlist.
“Ugh,
I am such a hypocrite!” I thought to myself.
*
Michael Jackson has been under scrutiny
for years now, for his alleged sexual assault of minors. When “Leaving Neverland” aired, a documentary about two of Jackson's alleged victims, radio
stations around the world began to pull his music from their catalog.
There was a similar reaction after
“Surviving R. Kelly” aired, a documentary revealing all of the alleged sexual
misconduct of singer R. Kelly. Radio stations and streaming music entities
removed his music from their catalog of music. The Sony record label then
took it a step further, dropping R. Kelly as an artist.
For years there has been a discussion in
modern society on this issue. Can we separate the art from the misdeeds of the artist?
Harvey Weinstein. Kevin Spacey. Jeffrey
Tambor. Bill Cosby. Scott Baio. David Copperfield.
This list of artists can go on ad
infinitum, of those accused breaking the law, or those who are on trial now or have been convicted of wrongdoing. According to the website Vox.com, there have been 263 celebrities accused of wrongdoing since April 2017.
Still, the question persists. Can we enjoy
an artist’s work while maintaining a condemnation of their alleged-or convicted-wrongdoing?
*
I could not believe I had a Michael
Jackson song in my playlist. I like some of his music, but have never been a
fan of his.
I had previously thought about deleting his music from my library, and
I had thought I had already done so. Once home
I went into my music library and
pulled up the Michael Jackson songs. There I found six song
titles:
-Black or White
-Thriller
-Human
Nature
-Billy
Jean
-The
Girl is Mine
-Say
Say Say
I will confess
I do like more of his music than is listed here. I have been known to rock out
to “Smooth Criminal.” And as
I have a friend named Annie, that song is my jam. One of many, in fact.
*
As someone who loves movie musicals, I
can tell you that the music is exponentially better on a Blu Ray, compared to
the music on a DVD. I had recently undergone a project of upgrading all of my
musicals from DVD to Blu Ray.
There was one musical I would not buy on
Blu Ray-“The Wiz.” Michael Jackson plays the scarecrow in the film. I could not
buy the movie. I did not want to be in any way supportive of someone who was
accused of such wrongdoing.
At that time, Michael Jackson owned a
large portion of the rights to the Beatles catalog of music. I did not buy
any Beatle albums, in CD or download either. I did not want Michael Jackson to have
any of my money.
Of course, shortly after Michael Jackson
died, I then purchased “The Wiz” on Blu Ray, and updated by Beatles catalog.
I thought to myself: “He’s gone now; his
children can have my money.”
*
This is a modern happenstance, in which
many people are questioning things they once held dear. What does one do now?
How does one enjoy art without any sense of culpability for the wrongdoing the
artist has done, or has been accused of? Is that even possible?
While I didn’t like the majority of his
music, I can chart my childhood to Michael Jackson albums. I was a kid when he
was in the Jackson 5. I was in middle school when “Thriller” came out. I was in high school when "Bad" came out. I was in college when “Dangerous”
came out.
Bill Cosby was an ever-present part of my childhood. I
first watched him on “The Electric Company” when I was 3 , on “Picture Pages”
as part of the “Captain Kangaroo” show as a 7 year old, and I watched “The
Cosby Show” in my high school days, ages 14 to 18.
I watched Scott Baio on TV as a child, on "Happy Days", and again on "Charles in Charge." The entire premise of that show is that Charles is a college kid who earns his tuition money by working as a nanny. That's all. Period. End of sentence. There is no innuendo; nothing is inappropriate or untoward. It's even in the words of the theme song of the show:
"New boy in the neighborhood
lives downstairs and it's understood...."
We all can cite examples of this in our own lives. What happens to those memories? Do you
stop watching their shows, listening to their music, singing their songs,
watching their films, loving their art?
Comedienne Hannah Gadsby, in her
groundbreaking special, “Nanette”, discusses the dilemma in supporting the
artistic contributions of those who have done wrong. She cites the example of Pablo Picasso for the
invention of cubism, and discusses his sexual misconduct.
Sebastian Smee wrote about Gadsby’s discussion of Picasso:
“At
the outset, she damns Picasso for his well-known misogyny (‘I hate him,’ she
spits, and you believe her) and in particular for his affair with Marie-Thérèse
Walter, who was 17 when they met. (He was 45). Gadsby herself was sexually
assaulted when she was 17, one of several traumas she suffered at the hands of
men…It’s a mistake, Gadsby argues, to insist that we should keep art and the
lives of the flawed people who make it separate. Doing so simply plays into the
hands of the powerful men who elevate their own reputations above the lives of
the less powerful …”
Writer Caitlin Flanagan wrote about this moral
dilemma an article in The Atlantic:
“The
ancient question: What moral stain awaits us if we cannot abandon the art of a
monster?… Art isn’t something mere; it doesn’t
exist as the moral bona fides of the person who made it. That person is a
supernumerary. Separate yourself from any art—even popular art; even art
created simply as entertainment—and you separate yourself from all of it.”
Author Siobhan Hegarty wrote about these
moral dilemmas, and our three choices as audience members and consumers:
“…there
are essentially three options:
1.
Keep consuming their works with a clear conscience, after all the art and
artist’s wrongdoings are separate;
2.
Remove the artist’s work from your life;
3.
Continue consuming, albeit with mixed emotions."
For me, I choose option number 2. I deleted
every Michael Jackson song in my music library. I got them for free from a music download
service that I no longer use; as such, I have no qualms with deleting this
music.
For now, I’m keeping “The Wiz” on Blu
Ray. I love the movie, I purchased it after Michael Jackson's death, and I am fine with his
children receiving the proceeds from my purchase. Does that make me a
hypocrite? Perhaps.
*
I drove home last night, having written
the majority of this piece, listening to the radio instead of the music on my playlist.
One song ended, and Michael Jackson’s “Billy Jean” began playing.
The irony of
the moment did not escape me. I had no control over the radio station choosing
to play the song; I will confess that I wondered why the radio station chose to play
his music in the first place, when countless other radio stations are not.
Still, I did have a choice in that moment. I could listen to the song, or I could change to another radio station. I chose to change the
channel.
*
These decisions are a true moral dilemmas,
and are not easy topics to tackle. At what point to we stop becoming fans and
start becoming culpable for tolerating wrongdoing? Do we bear any culpability
in supporting an artist that has committed a crime, or has been accused of
wrongdoing?
I have posted some articles below that discuss these topics. The decisions you come up with are your choice to make, yours and yours alone. You have to decide for yourself what you're comfortable with, and what you're not.
No one is going
to judge you or call you a hypocrite if you listen to a Michael Jackson song,
an R. Kelly song, or watch an episode of “The Cosby Show” or “Charles in
Charge", look at a Picasso painting, or any other piece of art from the hundreds of accused.
Not unless you go on your blog and publicly call yourself a hypocrite.
*
"There's No Severing Michael Jackson's Art from His Obsession With Children":
"Michael Jackson Memorabilia Pulled from Children's Museum":
'R. Kelly is Proof There's No Such Thing As Separating the Art from the Artist":
"Re-watching 'the Cosby Show': Cliff Huxtable's Affable Obstetrician Masked a Predator":
"Scott Baio Accused of Harassment by Another 'Charles in Charge' Costar":
© Esperanza Habla All Rights Reserved
Comments
Post a Comment