With the current cultural narrative normalizing cancel culture, re-evaluations, and reckonings, it is safe to say that no one goes unnoticed. From musicians to writers to filmmakers and everyone else in between, we are constantly exposed to a wide array of artists, who, in one way or another influence our daily lives to the point where we subconsciously incorporate threads of their ideas into the fabric of our living.

Morally questionable figures with problematic lifestyles have made major contributions to art, shaping and sculpting the scene with their nuanced visions. But should an artist's works have value on their own no matter what the artist has done or is the art always in tangles with the artist and supporting it means providing a platform for these artists to thrive?

Complexities of Supporting Problematic Artists

Some might believe that art stands a separate stance on its own. It is a different domain and an artistic expression in itself and should not be related to the artist or external factors that might have contributed to its creation. But this notion is immediately contradicted when we realize an artist is essentially baked into his work, and a problematic one only seems to leave us in a dilemma with our opinion towards the work.

But this varies from person to person as moral standards and the criteria for greatness are rather constructed and specific to the art consumer. This leads us to the question, where do we draw the line when we affirm such art?

From the violence of Quentin Tarantino's films that uses the male gaze to sexualize women or through the glorification of alcoholism in the works of Ernest Hemingway and Charles Bukowski, it is easy to dismiss these icons as genius' in their field of expertise, for they have created art that has been appreciated and critiqued throughout the world. But this does not dismiss the fact that women have been sexualised or that alcoholism has been promoted by the same artists.

This suggests that supporting such works of art makes inexcusable actions excusable if you can create good enough content that can suffice the crowd. This is commendable when viewers are responsible enough to take ownership of what your support contributes to.

“To enjoy the art is not to endorse the artist”

Pablo Picasso, the mastermind behind Spanish-cubism and Post-Impressionism was not short of female muses, for he was also known to distort women in his life for the sake of his art. But this does not necessarily entail that enjoying his work of art means defending misogyny or promoting women’s abuse. Moreover, the further in the past the misdeeds of the artist, the easier it is to separate them from their work.

But this wasn't the case with Morrissey, the frontman and lyricist of the 1980s critically acclaimed English rock band, The Smiths, for he is still criticised for his racial comments about the ambiguity of England and expressed his disdain for foreign cultures and non-white forms of music. None of that changes the significance of The Smiths, who, even after 30 years of their disbandment, remain one of the most influential boy bands Britain has ever produced.

Image Credit: Brands&People from Unsplash

Take the Quiz: What Flower Are You?

Take this quiz to find out which flower you are!

Picasso: Genius or a walking female carnage?

We all know Picasso as the widely influential artist of the 20th century, who not only co-founded the Cubist movement but also invented constructed sculpturing and collaging. These new art forms he brought to the graphic and ceramic scene dabbled in the course of both art forms for the rest of the century. But little do we know about the abusive relationships and the trail of carnage he left in his wake with most of the women in his life.

“I paint the way some people write an autobiography. The paintings, finished or not, are the pages from my diary.”

Pablo Picasso's first wife, Olga Khoklova, a Ukrainian ballerina was a major catalyst for his work, for it is well within his nature to derive inspiration from his surroundings. What was once a flourishing marriage turned quite sour and problematic when Olga spent the first weeks of 1929 in a clinical state, recovering from a hemorrhagic condition that deprived Picasso of quality time with his 14-year-old mistress, Marie Thérèse.

Frustration and superstitious fear of sick women built up in him, and the resulting art was some of the most startling works he has created up to date.

Image Credits: RhondaK Native Florida Folk Artist from Unsplash

The decline of his marriage with his wife Olga can be traced back to his painting from 1918 which depicts Olga as a beautiful young woman with muted colours and a sombre mood. The painting, “Large nude in a red armchair” with its dashing red armchair and flashy/green walls and a distorted and twisted Olga in the centre does not seem to convey the same mood as the previous one. The once petite and fragile Olga had now become a monster to him.

Picasso replicated the frustration and anger that came with this thought by pulling and pushing parts of her body to create a horrifying image. What he could not do in real life, he did on canvas. The emotional anguish he felt during the breakdown of their relationship is violently portrayed on the canvas which goes hand in hand with what his first lover, Fernande Olivier had endured with him.

“In love, he's wonderful, but when he's irked, when he gets angry, it's not so terrific”

– Alexandra Schwartz, Writer at the New York Magazine on his cruelty with his first great lover, Fernande Olivier.

This image was not the only disturbing and disrespectful painting he had created of her, for he also had made yet another gruesome painting of her face through a fierce [censored] dentata which was his response to rage, misogyny and guilt Olga had generated in him after his relationship with his mistress was known.

What Picasso failed to understand was that he couldn’t control people in his world like he did with paint on his canvas. This was seen when he locked up Ms. Olivier in their apartment because he wanted exclusive access to her when he was gone, keeping her a prisoner in his studio.

But regardless of all his complexity, and unpleasant and problematic ways, his works are regarded as great art. It carries with it these problems and contradictions within it. Cancelling Picasso would entail cancelling all art that came from these traits which is on par with what his daughter with Ms. Gilot had stated:

“You can't just say he's a monster or he's a genius - he's just a man”

Art, like any other existing system in life, is a huge body of power. It can make or break society, for it contains meaning that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Creating art means taking accountability for what the art means and the meaning itself can be traced back to the artist and their ideologies.

For the art is not too far from its creator and what he stands for. By consuming the art, you are knowingly or unknowingly supporting the artist and their motives. But this is not a strict moral matter as the artist does not necessarily have to pertain to our moral standards and our degree of morality as it is specific to individuals. Enforcing a standard code of moral principles that artists are required to follow would destroy the essence of their art, forcing it to become rigid and shallow. It is rather important to take ownership of what your support contributes to and not blindly follow an artist without realizing their cause and effect on society.

Moreover, it is not wrong to like The Smiths or read Oscar Wilde novels, but it is about creating a personal satisfactory experience that caters to both our sense of morality and the act of understanding great art.