How Museums and Arts Institutions Can Deal With the Problem of Immoral Artists
A Reply to Mary Beth Willard
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11513339 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Erich Hatala Matthes (0000-0002-6067-6219, Wellesley College, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 62 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 559-566 |
| Publication date | 2022-05-09 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The British Journal of Aesthetics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0007-0904 • E-ISSN: 1468-2842 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1093/aesthj/ayac029 |
| OpenAlex | W4285121043 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 5 |
Mary Beth Willard’s thoughtful commentary on Drawing the Line (Matthes, 2022) focuses on questions about my discussion of how arts institutions ought to navigate the problem of immoral artists. We are both in general agreement that individual consumers have substantial moral latitude to engage with whatever art they want, although some further ethical complications arise as that engagement enters the public sphere. Willard likewise appears to agree that, in cases where contemporary artists take advantage of their celebrity in order to commit immoral actions, arts institutions can take a moral stand by discontinuing their work with these artists. Examples that I discuss in my book include decisions by Netflix and Ridley Scott to not work with Kevin Spacey on the heels of accusations about predatory behaviour by the actor, and the decision by the National Gallery in the US to suspend a special exhibition of the paintings of (the now late) Chuck Close in light of sexual harassment allegations. While such actions may go some way towards preventing further abuse, they also have an expressive function, signalling the institution’s attitude towards the allegations in question. However, as Willard notes, in contrast with these examples, in many cases, institutions are positioned similarly to individuals in at least one important respect: when the artist is deceased and their moral transgressions are long in the past, the moral questions that both individuals and institutions face are primarily expressive. But the context and power of institutions relative to individuals alter the considerations that influence how they can navigate these expressive possibilities. Willard raises important questions about whether and how institutions can ‘tread the desirable middle ground between uncritically endorsing an immoral artist and cancelling them’ (Willard, 2022, p. 539). In this context, Willard and I are both referring to ‘cancelling’ artists in the literal sense: institutions making decisions to cancel exhibitions, concerts, book deals, and so on
Aesthetics · Art · Commit · Context (archaeology · Exhibition · Harassment · Institution · Political science · Power (physics · Social science · Sociology · The arts · Visual arts · Ethics, Aesthetics, and Art · History · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
| Highly cited | No |
|---|