Can We Separate the Artist from the Man?

For a record number of Americans in this ever more secular era, their real religion is politics, their faith is their political ideology, and their church is their political party. This seems especially so in the most secular professions like entertainment where an unprecedented number of actors, singers, writers, comics, and athletes now routinely use their fame to push their political agendas.

Way back in 1972, Americans were shocked when, during the Vietnam War, the actress Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam to propagandize for our communist enemy. Similarly, people were stunned in 1973 when Marlon Brando refused to accept his Godfather Oscar because of Hollywood’s portrayal of American Indians. But when was the last time you saw an awards show without many performers interjecting their political views, and often with the ugliest obscenities?

No wonder ever more Americans refuse to “separate the artist from the man,” choosing instead to boycott entertainers who use their bullhorn to promote public policies they dislike. In fact, the ratings for awards shows has plummeted in recent years, and Hollywood has long been in a terrible financial slump.

As a libertarian, I totally support everyone’s God-given, constitutionally-protected right to express whatever opinions you please. Furthermore, if you are not free to say what I least want to hear, then you are not really free.

But I enjoy an equal right to avoid movies, TV shows, novels, records, games, and other works of performers who use their platform to push grossly irresponsible government actions, dangerous drug use, public profanity and coarseness, promiscuity, and out-of-wedlock births, all of which have wreaked substantial damage on our culture. Why should I subsidize folks assaulting the religious values, norms, and way of life I cherish?

However, as a Christian libertarian southerner, if I let artists or athletes’ pronouncements or decadent lifestyles dictate whose performances I patronize, I would likely see very little art or entertainment — and my life would be significantly poorer.

One of my favorite novelists, Harry Crews, wrote that “What the artist owes the world is his work, not a model for living.” Basketball superstar Charles Barkley bluntly declared, “I’m not paid to be a role model…. Parents should be role models.”

Yes, I think Pablo Picasso was an egregious egomaniac and a complete narcissist who abused a slew of women, wrecked many lives (especially his family’s), and was a communist to boot (even during Stalin’s reign!). But I also believe he was the greatest artist of the 20th century, and I appreciate a lot of his paintings. To let what I judge to be his private and political wrongs prevent me from enjoying his public work would be my loss.

My favorite filmmaker is Woody Allen. Not only are we politically far apart, but I cannot condone his dating an ex-girlfriend’s daughter who was 21 when he was 56. But he committed no crime and they have remained a couple since 1991 and reared children together. Is Allen’s off-camera life any of my business anyway? Plus, I adore his movies. Indeed, how many fewer laughs my film-going life would have suffered without seeing them.

I don’t like the politics, alcoholism, or sordid private lives of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, and John Steinbeck. But their writings are magnificent, and how all the more impressive that they transformed painful personal strife into compelling literature that still inspires.

Try finding a major writer, composer, or artist whose biography has no appalling chapters. The only ones I know are Johann Sebastian Bach, Emily Dickinson, and Eudora Welty.

If I need surgery, I want the best surgeon. While I would ideally prefer a strait-laced, good Christian or Jew, I still want the finest doctor for the operation — even if he’s an atheist communist and serial adulterer. Some of the most obnoxious students I ever taught nevertheless got A’s in my classes — because their work earned them.

Should it matter if a performer might not qualify to join our own political or private club?

With the exception of Jesus Christ, who is without sin or living in a glass house?

So should we still buy art we like provided it is not distasteful propaganda? Or so long as the artist is not too aggressively inflicting obnoxious views or misbehavior in public?

I remain ambivalent. While I generally do not mind seeing a film on TV starring someone whose politics or personal life I deplore, I am less inclined to pay for one at a cinema. I’ll purchase a singer’s records I like but avoid his concerts if I learn he insults my beliefs between songs. Nor will I buy a ticket to any benefit show whose proceeds further a cause I oppose.

Frankly, I would just rather not know the politics or lifestyles of entertainers. But I do know that this political science professor emeritus will be politically influenced by what some ill-informed, narcissistic, virtue-signaling actor, singer, or athlete says about politics when he cares what I say about acting, singing, or sports. Indeed, when playing with balls confers moral or intellectual authority, I’ll consult the neighbor’s dog.