Portrait of the Artist as a Cancelled Man

A recent news story reported that Bob Dylan, one of my favourite artists, had been accused of grooming an underage girl in the 1960s. This took place shortly after I bought a big framed portrait of him for the wall of my new flat, and reopened a thought process that lots of people go through, I imagine, especially in this so-called "cancel culture" age. And that thought process is, essentially, can you continue to enjoy art made by a troubling artist?

Now, first of all, it seems these claims made against Dylan don't really add up. And, whilst happy to accept any legal outcomes, I personally don't believe them. I also don't think, although I am less sure, that I believe the many accusations made against another singer, the late Michael Jackson. I've been vocal, however, in my declaration that I'd most likely still listen to his music if they were true. This doesn't appear to be a very popular opinion. In fact, most people have the complete opposite opinion. So much so that I will frequently point out to David Bowie, Jimmy Page and Mick Jagger fans the likely involvement of all three with "baby groupie" Lori Mattix, who claims to have had relationships with these men when she was underage and they were adults. I then watch as these fans tearfully remove their own big framed portraits of these artists from their walls.

Let's just take a moment to analyse the debate, though. Essentially, what people are saying is that they simply cannot listen to a song they loved because of what they know about the artist. Now, I would perhaps understand this if the songs were written about grooming underage girls. I felt a bit uncomfortable watching the overly sexualised roles of female cast members in the horror film 'The Burning' knowing it was Harvey Weinstein's first success. But, largely, this simply isn't the case. And, therefore, I would say, there is zero correlation between enjoying a song/film/book for whatever reason, and supporting or endorsing the actions of the creator. Many people just can't seem to square this, however. I tend to find, though, that older people who struggle to square it don't have much of a problem shrugging it off, where as younger people do. This generational observation may be something to do with the whole cancel culture narrative. Because the way cancel culture works is related to this, yet different. Take JK Rowling, for example, who is a notable victim of this whole thing because of her views on the transgender community. I feel her legions of fans have a much easier time cancelling her than they do someone like David Bowie. And I think that that is because part of the appeal of cancel culture is very much the mob mentality, Twitter-based abuse nature of it. David Bowie can't defend himself because he's dead. And also, because he's dead, he isn't there to be victimised. In addition, his crimes are a lot more vague, happened a long time ago and are related to a topic that many people feel uncomfortable adressing, seemingly, even after the Me Too movement. Yes, these fans will take down their posters but they'll feel sad doing it. And yet they don't seem to have the same emotion when burning their Harry Potter books, because Rowling, on the other hand, is an easy target, is still alive and is being attacked for views she put forward in an online essay, rather than allegations of sexual abuse. It baffles me, really, as the latter is a much more serious crime. The former isn't even a crime!

I'm sort of the opposite. I have nothing against JK Rowling and I am not a fan of that side of cancel culture. This is something I've written about at length in a previous article. I do, however, lean towards believing the allegations made against David Bowie et al. but have absolutely no problem enjoying their work. And this is the more extreme end of the spectrum. Go the way of modern cancel culture and you'll end up with no art left.

But this introduces another, more delicate aspect of the debate. That being that, if you do believe somebody is guilty of crimes that you do find appalling. And I mean real crimes, not some blown-out-of-proportion views in an online essay, then why, by buying their work, would you support them financially? Now this is an aspect that I'll admit I have more difficulty squaring. I think the best I can come up with, and I don't think it's too unfair a conclusion, is that, first of all, dead people cannot reap the benefits of their art, and secondly, those who are still alive should be found guilty and the punishment should fit the crime meaning they are unable to do so anyway. And that brings me on to a topic that I do feel quite strongly about, which is why it seems to be one rule for some and one for another when it comes to celebrities and claims of historic sex abuse, and why some people just seem to get away with it. I disagree with that and find it hard to understand why it happens, but hope that the Me Too movement might solve that.

But, on the whole, I see no reason to link art to artist, because you enjoy art for what it is, not for who made it. People do deserve to be held accountable for their problematic decisions, however, I just think maybe the internet wants to calm down a bit in the nature of what they seem to see as problematic and be a little more forgiving to the artist, rather than the very different method of being scathing and remorseless as possible as well as denouncing the art. And, yeah, sorry fellow David Bowie fans, I feel it's likely that he may have made some problematic decisions in his life. But please don't tearfully bin your records, did you not read anything I've just said?