A writer whose work you admire A LOT turns out to be a disgusting pervert. Do you stop reading their work? Do you hold your nose with one hand as you turn the pages with the other? Do you refuse to be on a panel with them?
Personally, I think it’s important for writers to stand for
something. You should have something to say, otherwise your work risks being
boring or pointless. Every creative project needs to have a purpose – even if
it’s as simple as making people laugh or seeing beauty in the ordinary. Writers
block, in my opinion, happens because you don’t have anything urgent to say. And
I think that if you stand for something in your writing, then you should stand
for something in your life, too.
If asked to sit on a literary panel beside a pervert, I would
decline the invitation. This is not a situation where you disagree with someone over
politics or ideas. If a person has been found to be, or has admitted to being,
a disgusting pervert, they’ve hurt someone. That’s a clear-cut case - they
don’t deserve my time or attention.
However, if I knew a book was written by a disgusting
pervert, I might be curious to read it. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it to
others. If I was compelled to talk about it with someone, I’d also share the pervert’s
background information. Readers, and consumers of art, should be given this information
as they consider the merits of the artistic endeavour.
This is where some institutions have got it wrong in the
past. A decade ago, in the Tweed River’s undulating hills of orchards and rainforest
a few hours’ drive south of here, an art gallery featured a photographic
portrait of the self-confessed paedophilic painter Donald Friend. The now deceased
Friend lived in Bali for more than twenty years where he employed houseboys and
gardeners and spent his days entertaining famous guests with orchestras of
local musicians, eating and drinking decadently, and collecting art and
antiques. Many of the paintings the famous painter produced in his lifetime –
he died in 1989, aged 74 – are sexually suggestive images of local boys.
In 2016, the Tweed Regional Gallery displayed a portrait of Friend
and was selling copies of a biography about him in their gift shop. The
biography was compiled from Donald Friend’s own extensive diaries, in which he
wrote candidly about ‘sexual experiences’ he’d had with boys in Indonesia and other
island nations throughout his life. For the casual visitor, strolling through
that gallery, there was no context in the exhibition revealing that this man
was a self-confessed serial paedophile. After six months of public pressure,
the gallery removed Donald Friend’s portrait.
At the time, this gallery was not alone in this moral
dilemma, as major art galleries across Australia had displayed Friend’s work.
Even when it is not on display, you can view his art on their websites. To
date, most organisations have added contextual statements regarding Friend’s
paedophilic proclivities.
As a society, we don’t quite know what to do when sex
offenders create art that we like. The list stretches from Paul Gauguin to Rolf
Harris, and Roman Polanski to Bill Cosby. There is a writer I could name but
I think his case is still grinding slowly through the judicial system –
although I note he was mentioned in the comments of Catriona’s piece! Do we
burn their work? Do we put it on display with contextual explainers? Do we hide
it away in storage? Even storing it, though, seems to suggest that there is
public interest in allowing it to survive for future perusal.
In my opinion – the art/film/book should be available with
context. People should be able to see it and decide for themselves. Have a note
on Netflix – this actor or director is convicted of (insert crime here). Have
a sticker on the book – Convicted of (whatever it was). It might sound silly but there is a
bit of sense in it.
My ideology on the ethics of consuming art produced by questionable
people can be applied to other issues. When it comes to Palestine, the layers of
Australia’s so-called civilised literary scene have been peeled back. There is
a woman writer who went out of her way to have (mainly Arab) writers fired from
their day jobs, to get their publishers to cancel contracts, to get their
workshops etc cancelled. Recently, I almost signed up to a writing workshop
that interested me. When I saw this woman was involved in it, I decided not to
do it. I don’t want to support someone who tried to destroy the careers of
other (in some cases, very financially vulnerable) writers.
Thinking about the art you consume is as important as
thinking about the art you create.
No comments:
Post a Comment