How to Love the Art While Loathing the Artist

I have been giving some thought over the past few months about the relationship the artist has to his/her art. Or more specifically, can we look at the art of people who have abhorrent views or have done abhorrent things with any sort of critical eye? In light of the myriad of sexual abuse allegations that have flooded forward lately from all walks of life and from all sides of the ideological spectrum, I have been asking myself if it is possible to love the art while loathing the artist.

When I was a kid, our family car was a Ford LTD station wagon. You know the type? Cream-coloured with faux paneling on the doors. A truly iconic '70s suburbia ride. While my grandfather was extraordinarily vocal in his opposition to ever purchasing a German-made automobile, there was never any resistance to the very American-made Ford my dad bought. There is no doubt in my mind that zero heeds were given by my family to founder Henry Ford's well-documented and prolific anti-semitic views that informed many of Hitler's own writings and still resonate with many hate-filled and bigoted people today. That Ford station wagon was simply the right car at the right time for our family and the disturbing history of its founding father never entered into the decision making.

In high school, I fell in love with the writings of T.S. Eliot. I still think that The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock is one of the most beautiful poems ever written. It wasn't until many years later that I was exposed to his rampant anti-Semitism and his unrepentant Holocaust affections. I am stuck in a quandary. Must I now view Prufrock through a different and far uglier lens? Does the same hold for The Merchant of Venice or anything Roald Dahl ever wrote? Will I be able to read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to my grandchild knowing that its author probably would have hated the child it was being read to?

I offered this question on my Facebook page yesterday and the discussion was challenging and fascinating. I hope that my friends won't mind if I use a few of their thoughts.

One friend offered the following:

"Art is an extension of the artist-a magnifying glass put to some aspect of their interior world. We can't create in a vacuum - experiences colour every aspect of our lives. the positives and the negatives are inseparable parts of a whole. It is an uncomfortable experience - it creates dissonance. And it certainly makes us think about the work. It is provoking --- not a bad result for an artist."

I happen to agree with her point that art is often about making us uncomfortable. Moving past our comfort zones is what allows us to accept differing points of view and new experiences. It is the artist's job to make us think and to make us feel. Those feelings aren't always fluffy and happy. Sometimes they are ugly and challenging. But what happens when we discover an aspect of the artist that is continually reflected in the art? Woody Allen's seminal film Manhattan comes to mind.

Manhattan was the very first R-rated film I saw. My cousin who was already eighteen bought the tickets for us and I quietly snuck into the theatre. I remember thinking at the time that Mariel Hemingway's teenage Tracy was probably younger than I was and here was a forty-something and more-than lecherous Woody getting it on with a kid. It bothered me then and I was perplexed at the accolades that rained down on the movie. Neither Soon-Yi Previn nor Dylan Farrow was even a part of the conversation about Allen then, but I cannot look at this film using the same gravitas scale knowing now what I do about its director. And don't even get me started about Roman Polanski.

Another friend said this:

"I do believe that it is sometimes impossible to separate the artist from the art, depending on what the intention of the art is. E.g. Richard Wagner, the 19th century composer and consummate anti-Semite, deliberately used some of his music as anti-Jewish polemic. I do not listen to his music." 

She continued.

"On the other hand, it may be somewhat less problematic to enjoy art (visual, musical, etc.) that is not imbued with the ugliness of its creator's hateful behaviours. Woody Allen's movies come to mind, but I don't particularly want to put one cent into the pocket of haters or depraved people. I think we struggle so much with this because, over the centuries, some truly horrible people have created some truly remarkable art." 

The financial argument is an intriguing one. Enriching people who have knowingly and openly engaged in disgusting behaviour should be anathema. Has Mel Gibson ever done proper tshuvah (penance) for his anti-Semitism and his ugly treatment of women? And yet, time seems to have healed Hollywood's disdain for him. He was nominated for several Oscars last year and is currently starring in one of the hits of the holiday season. His reclamation seems complete, but what of his victims? I don't see million dollar paydays coming their way. Does the answer lie in the distance we have from the misdeeds? Will Kevin Spacey or Louis C.K. lay low enough for a few years and bounce back like Mel? Will Hollywood or the entertainment consumer afford them the opportunity because of their gifts? Can I look at a Picasso painting today with a different eye, even knowing what a shit he was to women because it all happened outside my gaze and I can in no way enrich him?

We are witnessing a revolution and in my view, it is long overdue. No longer are victims of abuse remaining silent and abusers are being called out for their behaviour. Powerful people in powerful places who have violated their positions for far too long are experiencing a reckoning. But as my lovely young cousin pointed out, what is happening now "feels weirdly specific who and what the outrage machine decides is ok or not ok." Bill Cosby will die a broken man but Johnny Depp is still out there grinding. But their art remains as tangible evidence of their talent and gifts and it cannot and should not vanish. Caravaggio was a miserable human being but his works are on display at the Louvre. Perhaps the answers to these complicated questions lie within what each of us is willing to tolerate. Where is my breaking point and how does it affect me in the here and now? Only each of us individually can answer that.

I believe that I need to hear a measure of true apology and true retribution. It can't be enough to simply say "I'm sorry without hesitation or reservation" but it is a good start. Has Woody or Roman or Mel ever tried even that much? Not to my recollection. But there needs to be more. Much more. There needs to be tangible action taken to alleviate the hurt and suffering and pain. I'm not certain what form that might take, but it certainly isn't shuffling off to rehab for a week and then back to business as usual. Maybe it comes in the form of mentoring programs for young victims who have been damaged by these people. Maybe it comes in other ways of giving back to the community. Maybe it comes with just staying out of the public eye.

I know that for me personally, there are certain individuals who will never be able to be redeemed. Their abusive behaviour is baked into their DNA and their art is forever lost to me. Some have been caught up in the tidal wave of shit hitting the fan and were negligent and behaved poorly once or twice. They may be worthy of salvaging if their future actions earn them that right and my trust.

Until then, as another friend said, "we struggle."

Ready For My Close-Up Mr. DeMille

I haven't written for awhile mostly because I have been fully and completely blocked. You, my single digits of readers, have certainly not needed me to comment on how massive the shitstorm is this fall. There are indeed crappy things going on in the world, but far better pundits than I have been far more eloquent in opining on such matters, so I have digitally kept to myself.

Until yesterday, that is.

Yesterday, my online presence ran smack dab into my real life world and it's all because of a pilot project that Toronto City Council decided to initiate right outside of my living room window.

Ready for my close up Mr. DeMille.

A bit of history and a quick primer on Toronto transit politics is in order to fully understand why a  tsunami of press people (ok. Only 4 so far.)  have filled my inbox since early Sunday morning.

King Street is a major east/west artery that runs through Downtown Toronto. The busiest three-kilometre stretch of King is home to the financial district, the entertainment district, restaurants, clubs, bars, banks, theatres, and thousands of condos. The public transportation for most commuters is the streetcar run by our transit commision the TTC. According to the TTC's own figures, upwards of 65,000 commuters use the King streetcar every day, making it the busiest transit route in the city. The TTC contrasts that with the approximately 20,000 drivers who traverse the same corridor daily. The numbers and the fact that streetcars are stationary vehicles that must remain on their tracks, often translate to traffic gridlock across King even at the best of daily travel times. Anecdotally speaking as one who uses this mode of public transport on a regular basis, it isn't unusual for this trip of three kilometres to take close to a half hour to forty-five minutes at rush hour. Most of these delays are caused by streetcars, who are carrying over one hundred passengers, having to wait for single passenger cars to turn left at various intersections. The city and the TTC realized long ago that transit on King was broken and needed to be fixed.

In the Rob Ford era of a few years ago, the "war on car" faction in the city desperately wanted to get rid of the streetcars. They viewed these people movers as anachronisms and the source of all their traffic ills that won't let them Fast and Furious their way across King Street. Financial considerations and a sane person in the mayor's office has at the very least demanded study of the route.

So, that is what Toronto City Council and the TTC initiated yesterday. Dubbed the King Street Pilot Project, the goal is to study the effects of traffic curbing measures on that very same three-kilometre stretch. The idea is that from Bathurst east through Jarvis, all cars MUST make right-hand turns at the next intersection and they CANNOT go through.

There are clearly marked and designated yellow streetcar lanes at each intersection that drivers are not permitted to use. There are also clearly marked new right-hand turn lanes at each intersection as well as signage and new right-hand turn signals at each block. A driver might miss it the first time out of habit, but only willful ignorance and arrogance or piss poor driving would cause a driver to miss all of the markers. Taxis must also adhere to the new traffic laws, but they are exempt between the hours of 10pm and 5am. Police and transit authorities will be out in force for the first week of the project in an attempt to educate drivers and by the second week they will be handing out tickets and demerit points. It's $110 and 2 points if you don't follow the law.

Drivers are understandably upset. They often feel as though their commutes should take precedence over those lowly pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. They are not happy about being diverted to streets north and south of King and many are vociferously trying to make their case to council about the possibility of simply circling for hours in the downtown core. They may have a case, but as with all things requiring study, we simply won't know until the pilot project is completed a year from now.

Which finally brings me to our Andy Warhol moment. We live at the corner of one of the intersections of the project and it just so happens that we have a bird's eye perspective of King Street from our living room. Knowing that the project was beginning yesterday, The Husband and I decided to spend a bit of time watching the new traffic patterns. Remember. It was Sunday morning and a fairly light traffic time for the downtown core. There were transit officials and Toronto Police Service personnel at the intersection as promised. What we saw were hundreds of cars flouting the new laws. Some were obviously oblivious to the new norm. Others were wilfull in their disobedience. Many were driving dangerously and many more were just plain angry. We saw one officer almost plowed over and just throw his hands up in disgust. Most cabs were in "fuck you" mode and pedestrians were caught up in a game of Frogger as they attempted to cross with their legs and arms still intact. It was mayhem.

So what would you do if you witnessed such a thing? Why start tweeting of course. I began snapping pictures of cars, cops, and people trying to make sense of the new project. You can follow along here but here are a few samples.

The best and the worst of social media started barraging my mentions. People thanked me for helping educate the public. Others told me I was stupid and had no idea what it was like to drive in the city. One genius decided to show off his masterful intelligence by quoting Henry David Thoreau at me about the art of civil disobedience. Just to be clear. I am not an advocate for nor a dissenter against this project. I was simply reporting what I was seeing. Unlike many, I am willing to give the project a chance and see how it develops.

Well...I suppose my tweets caught the attention of CBC News and one of their reporters direct messaged me asking if she could speak with us and come over to see what we were seeing. After a brief phone conversation, she and her cameraman made their way up to our place and we chatted for about a half an hour. The story led last night's local newscast. You can watch it here or read it here if your day is really boring.

I wish I could tell you that our fifteen minutes of fame is over, but it isn't. Given that today is a work day, the press and the social media trolls are working overtime. I have been quoted and featured in BlogTO this morning and The Husband is going down to do another interview this afternoon with GlobalTV. I am begging off of this one. Frankly, I am exhausted from the frenzy. 😂

People have been asking me what my opinion is on this new project. As a driver, pedestrian, and transit user I am willing to give it a try. Let's give it a shot and see what happens. King Street is a broken transit hub and I give credit to planners and politicians for at least trying to repair it. The project may very well fall flat on its ass, but we won't know that until the data comes back. That's the thing about science. It is rarely just anecdotal. Where I hope our media star-turn will help is in the education of the bastards who are so obviously flouting the law in the name of "civil disobedience." (I'm looking at you Toronto taxi drivers.) Let's at least be honest. Civil disobedience can really only be a thing when one group is being oppressed by another. Are you really going to whine about drivers being oppressed by right-hand turns? Talk about exercising one's privilege. Your "civil disobedience" might actually get some innocent person injured or killed. Is your "right" to drive through unimpeded on King really worth that hell? Follow the law until it isn't the law any longer.

I had a conversation with a friend yesterday about how this mess will make his drive into the city, which he deems already a nightmare, even worse. He is probably right, but he is exactly the problem that the city is trying to address. It is better and more efficient to move a hundred people at a time at the inconvenience of one. In order for Toronto to flourish and grow as a cosmopolitan centre, we need to become more reliant on other forms of transportation and yes, that will come at the expenses of the lone driver. We need to get people out of their cars and move them in a different manner. My career as a traffic reporter for the city is thankfully and rapidly drawing to a close, but I hope that this little episode will at the very least, make somebody think twice about arrogantly and wilfully flouting traffic calming measures that are there for the collective good. We are all in this together, Toronto.