EthicsBowl.org

The following guest analysis is by Michael Andersen, longtime ethics bowl supporter, EthicsBowl.org friend, and Ethics Club Adviser at Vancouver School of Arts & Academics, Vancouver, WA. Thank you, Michael, for sharing this superb analysis!

Case #8 from the 2021-22 NHSEB Regional Case Set, “Art with an Asterisk,” raises some thorny questions about the hazy territory between art and morality.  Question 1 (Q-1) asks, If it is possible to celebrate the art without excusing the transgressions of the artist, what form should that celebration take?  If it is not, what becomes of the art?  To begin grappling with this question, it is worth exploring what a “celebration”of artworks by a morally compromised artist might entail, as well as what “excusing” the transgressions of the artist suggests.  So, a necessary first step in drafting a coherent position on the question requires that you clearly define these operative terms in the Discussion Questions.

Does a “celebration” mean highlighting the artwork’s qualities in a museum display, theater brochure, album notes (or the like) in what could be characterized as a ‘whitewashed’ and neutral space, where nothing is mentioned about the artist’s (alleged) immoral and/or criminal conduct?  Or, on the other extreme, should sufficient biographical detail about such transgressions be foregrounded in all publications associated with the artworks in question?  There’s an array of possibilities here for “celebrating” artwork, ranging from: a) no mention at all of the controversy surrounding the artist; to b) including relatively minor qualifying footnotes about the artist’s problematic conduct; to c) a forthright spotlighting of the artwork’s “tainted” nature due to its association with a morally compromised creator; to d) refusing to showcase the work at all, but otherwise acknowledging the influence of the artist’s work in some less public format—which could also serve the purpose of financial divestment in the artist’s career or estate.  (The issue of morally-compromised artists, or their patrons, continuing to profit from their work strikes many as a key factor in this question.  This concern is especially relevant when, in spite of the seriousness of their transgression(s), artists or their patrons profit from the misconduct scandal itself.) 

These forms of “celebration” will be more or less warranted, depending on the seriousness of the transgression and the nature of the relationship between artist and alleged “victim.”  Are we talking a series of rape allegations by credible accusers or one isolated incident involving an off-color joke?  The nature of the moral transgression matters for our judgment about how much, if any, “celebration” of an artist’s work is morally defensible, as does the credibility or character of the persons in question.  These kinds of contextual details can range from morally significant to morally irrelevant for our examination of the tension between the merits of a piece of art and the reputation of its creator.

(A brief side note: some commenters on this issue like to pretend that artworks can be appreciated in a kind of pure aesthetic vacuum, where all details about the artwork’s creative context are completely irrelevant to the process of appreciation.  I have trouble imagining such a space, and I doubt that in the real world anyone is truly capable of divorcing artwork from the biography of the artist(s) who made it or the cultural context to which it refers.  This seems like an untenable position to defend since it contradicts everything we know about conscious perception or meaning making.  If you aim to defend such an “art-stands-on-its-own” ideal, your team should be prepared to grapple with (non-straw person) counter-arguments that emphasize the inevitable overlap of our interpretations of art with moral and cultural norms—not to mention the scientific evidence on conscious associations and moral cognition.)

It might help to use a few contrasting examples of how producers or curators handled the “celebration” of artworks made by morally compromised artists to illustrate why a “one-size-fits-all” approach is insufficient.  Which (if either) museum handled the Chuck Close controversy better and why—The National Gallery of Art in Washington or the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts?  Did Netflix do the right thing by firing Kevin Spacey but continuing to make available the previous five seasons of House of Cards?  In what sense is Netflix’s compromise a “celebration” of Spacey’s acting performance (not to mention the contributions of other actors and production staff)?  Did Spotify make the right call to remove Bill Cosby and Louis C.K. from their Top-Ranked Comedy playlists?^(a)  You should illustrate your team’s position on Q-1 using such examples to draw important distinctions about the context or content of these artists’ work, as well as their moral transgressions and the resulting negative effects.  We draw moral lines in the sand to protect vulnerable parties, as well as for other reasons that the judges (and the other team) should hear about.  You need not be exhaustive with your supporting examples, but having some on hand that help illustrate your argument will significantly strengthen your position on this case.  (And for some people, their judgments about censoring art to any degree will depend on the morally significant details of these examples.  Choose wisely which examples best support your argument.)

A further factor to consider in defining what form a “celebration” might take is the degree of certainty the producers or curators of the artwork have about the alleged guilt of the artist.  Keep at the forefront of your minds that the case description asks “…whether the work of […] artists accused of questionable conduct needs to be revisited or recontextualized [by those who curate the art]…even before a courtroom determined guilt” (my emphasis).  The case cites various examples of alleged transgressors, each of which may have unique complications surrounding the allegations or varying trajectories in the courts’ attempts to establish the truth of the allegations.  Moreover, for some examples noted (e.g., Piccasso, Louis C. K.) the individuals were never brought to trial, even though a range of negative consequences may have ensued (from severe to none). It would be wrong to overgeneralize too much about all such cases involving famous artists or producers accused or convicted of sexual misconduct.  What these examples have in common is their shared status as famous artists whose work is either in the process of being “celebrated” in some form, being re-evaluated as a candidate for future “celebration,” or retrospectively being reconsidered as worthy of admiration and respect.  Since “those who curate the art” are not judges or juries bound by formal rules of due process, nor are they privy to all of the relevant information that criminal courts might possess, their judgments should exhibit appropriate caution.

Ethics Bowl teams should consider how much certainty that producers, curators or the general public actually possess about the alleged transgressions of the artist in question, as available facts could vary widely.  We know, too, that some accusations or conclusions made in the court of public opinion were later found to be unjustified.^(b)  As philosopher Ben Burgis points out regarding the example of sexual misconduct allegations made against filmmaker Woody Allen, the public’s access to the truth about the alleged misconduct that took place in private 30 years ago is limited (especially given that accounts by Allen and Mia Farrow’s adult children conflict significantly).^(c)  This puts our certainty about Allen’s guilt on more shaky footing than in cases where full confessions of guilt are available. 

We also know that American police departments and legal institutions charged with investigating such cases have a mixed record, especially where sexual misconduct allegations come from women or minorities and involve figures in positions of power.^(d)  Furthermore, as the #MeToo movement has repeatedly emphasized, many sectors of the entertainment industry or art world have a very poor record of taking seriously the sexual misconduct allegations brought forward women actors, models, musicians or other artists, since the fields in which these artists work have been disproportionately controlled by men (who often are shielded by a patriarchal culture of male dominance still prevalent in their fields).  Similar concerns have been raised on behalf of allegations brought forward by LGBTQ artists.^(e)

Do these complications mean we can never have any degree of certainty?  No.  But there are a few starter questions to consider and guideposts to help you navigate the ethical swamp here.  Should your team emphasize a strict innocent until proven guilty principle, and trust fully the investigative institutions or governing bodies to properly police and report such transgressions?  Or should you take a more skeptical accounting of the available data on sexual misconduct allegations?  Surely, it’s not the case that we know nothing about these records of sexual misconduct (i.e., total skepticism isn’t warranted).  Equally likely is that some accounts or studies of these patterns of misconduct by famous artists are better than others (so you’ll need to cite available data from reputable sources).  Our degree of certainty about allegations made against a given artist should track the quality of evidence supporting the victim’s claims, as well as the historical record of allegations within that institution or field of employment.  When certainty is compromised, the strength of our convictions about the alleged guilt of the artist should be dialed down. ⁽¹⁾   

Given all of these complications affecting our degree of certainty about the reporting or the investigation of sexual misconduct allegations, it might be wise to align your team’s position to reflect: a) any evidence of bias in a given case; b) what we know about the power dynamics involved in the artistic institutions in question; as well as c) the rights of all parties to due process and fair consideration of their grievances.  Stronger positions will account for these bias concerns and varied records of institutional accountability.  Ethics Bowl judges are also likely to favor positions on this case that are backed by reliable evidence, interpreted fairly and accurately, as well as those that are sensitive to the unique context of each example noted in the case description (or cited beyond the case description).

Question 2 (Q-2) asks you to consider, if a given body of artwork is “historically transformative and has produced an immeasurable amount of good for humanity,” then Does celebration of the art excuse the (possibly unrelated) transgression(s) of the artist?  Again, if this is the moderator’s question for you, from the outset establish clear definitions of key words like “celebration,” “excuse,” and “unrelated” to make your team’s position coherent and well-grounded in shared assumptions.

The crux of this question, I think, can be restated as: Is it even possible to “celebrate” (award esteem and recognition to) an important body of artwork without sanctioning or minimizing the morally problematic actions of its creator?  Depending on which definition of excuse one emphasizes, the implications of this question for the integrity of the art world and the moral climate of a society will be far-reaching: 1a: to make apology for, b: to try to remove blame from; 2: to forgive entirely or disregard as of trivial import : regard as excusable; 3a: to grant exemption or release to, b: to allow to leave; 4: to serve as excuse for : JUSTIFY. ⁽ⁱ⁾  One helpful exercise is to substitute for “excuse” in Q-2 each of these senses of the term in order to test your moral intuitions for each independently. 

I don’t know about you, but, no matter which definition I substitute, if I were the victim of abuse perpetrated by such a monumentally important artist, the ongoing “celebration” of this artist’s work would feel like the harm I suffered was being minimized (or ignored altogether).  Even more so if the artist’s creations were somehow offered up as some kind of moral compensation for the transgressive behavior in question.  While it may not be sufficient to adopt such a personal point of view to address this question, it may be necessary to do so in order to grasp what it’s like to be a sexual abuse victim forever associated with the work of a famous artist.  The best positions on Ethics Bowl cases will strive for clarity and objectivity without losing appreciation for what a personal perspective can reveal, morally speaking.  What’s at stake for victims here is fundamentally personal in nature—i.e., their self-worth, dignity and ongoing agency—which requires what philosophers call intersubjectivity in order to apprehend.  (You can’t have the same private experience as someone else, but our moral imaginations give us some access to others’ private experience because we, ourselves, have had similar or relatable experiences with which we come to grasp why the self-worth, dignity and ongoing agency of persons matter.)  It should go without saying that this is equally true for artists who are falsely accused but whose reputation could be forever suspect once sexual misconduct allegations go public.  Carefully appreciating the deeply personal consequences of these sexual misconduct cases will allow you to grapple with whatever sense of excuse is conveyed in Q-2.

There’s another tricky element involved in Q-2 (which is perhaps included by the case authors to test how closely you’re considering what is morally relevant in cases like this).  The first sentence of Q-2 introduces the supposition of a work of art that “…is historically transformative and has produced an immeasurable amount of good for humanity—akin to a revolutionary advancement in technology or medicine.”  To assess how much this matters, consider that the personal devastation alluded to in the paragraph above would be just as relevant for a sexual misconduct case involving a relatively unknown artist, no?  Just as a court of law might determine that some evidence is irrelevant to the matter of establishing the defendant’s guilt, to fixate on the relation between the cultural impact of an artist’s creations and the determination of his or her alleged guilt would introduce a red herring.  A celebrated artist who commits rape is still a rapist, and their fame is irrelevant to society’s assessment of their character or their crime.  We can probably safely assume that their status as “celebrated” artists conveys some sense of worth projected onto their artwork (which is a safe assumption for the artists cited in the case description—i.e., they all were/are extremely talented, perhaps even “masters of their craft”). 

But maybe some artist’s work is so stellar in quality that we could make a case that the artwork “excuses” transgressions of respect and decency, even violations of human rights.  Perhaps, following a kind of utilitarian logic, you can imagine a “celebrated” novelist who has written a hugely-influential book about—among other things—sexual misconduct, which sells millions of copies and influences countless people to take these transgressions more seriously, as well as victim’s rights and testimonies more seriously.  Imagine too that with all the public good that comes from this novel, it comes to light that the author is alleged to have “done research” by sexually harassing and abusing vulnerable people.  Ramp up the stakes even more in your thought experiment: make her victims minors and the abuse allegations even more horrible.  Whatever the circumstances, will there ever be a morally defensible calculation of maximized utility produced by the novel’s greatness that “excuses” such crimes?  I’ll leave that for your team to ponder. 

As noted earlier, “those who curate the art” are not judges or juries bound by courtroom procedures or a legal code of ethics.  But in their capacity as the gatekeepers of the art world, many will argue that curators have a moral responsibility to respond to allegations—past or present—involving an artist they showcase in a manner that reflects the integrity of the institutions they represent, as well as the shared moral codes we collectively rely on to live with ourselves.  (Few would argue that a curator must completely separate their own moral conscience entirely from their work.)  This doesn’t mean that curators must themselves be moral role models, nor does it mean that their institution (museum, production company, media platform) must present itself as a guardian of public morals.  But as gatekeepers with some degree of power and as members of a wider moral community, the quality of their response to the allegations will send a message about the seriousness of sexual misconduct anywhere in society.  It will also send a message about their own institutional reputation (and perhaps even their personal character).  Being indifferent to the scandal would also send a message, so that’s probably not an option for curators either.  In short, a lot of real-world evidence suggests that the art world is never completely separate from the messy business of ethics, and that there is more at stake in these decisions than the institution’s stock value or financial endowment (although those may also be affected by a bungling of a sexual misconduct scandal). 

The takeaway question here: Is it morally relevant how famous or great the art or artist is when determining whether a body of art could ever “excuse” a moral transgression like [most cases of] sexual misconduct?  Again, wouldn’t the seriousness of the moral choice here be the same if the artist in question were relatively unknown? (A final note on this point: as noted earlier with Q-1, maybe what is morally relevant for this question is the credibility or seriousness of the allegation—as opposed to how great the art might be.  Maybe your team is ready to conclude that a body of immensely  influential and beneficial artwork is enough to “excuse”—overlook? counter-balance? make amends for?—one isolated minor accusation of sexual misconduct, thereby warranting no “art with asterisks” in a museum.  On the other hand, maybe for most sexual misconduct cases—like those noted in the case description—your team may decide to prioritize the seriousness of the allegations over the work’s cultural or artistic significance, concluding that no great art can ever “excuse” moral transgressions of this kind.)

A related red herring that could stem from a careless reading of Q-2 would be to confuse an artist’s personal artistic mission vis-à-vis morality with the role of a curator’s moral responsibilities in showcasing the resulting art.  Unlike last year’s Regional Case #14 “American Dirt,” Q-2 is not asking you if artists themselves should make art that is receptive to reasonable moral considerations; it is asking you to reflect on the moral responsibilities of curators who are in a position to “celebrate” in some form the work of an allegedly morally-compromised artist.  There may be great art out there that is amoral in nature or arguably immoral in some respects, and is still worth curating or even “celebrating” in some capacity.  The morality of the art produced in this case is a separate issue (as are discussions about the relation between the two).  What is at issue here is what curators of art ought to consider when they decide—if they decide—to showcase a “celebrated” artist’s work whose moral character and conduct is, to varying degrees, implicated by a sexual misconduct scandal.  In other words, don’t get sidetracked in your team’s position by the question of how much—if at all—morality should factor in the creation of art. This case is about the moral responsibilities of those curating art.

Q-3 of the case is What does it mean to display art “with an asterisk?” How much consideration should curators give to the psychological safety of art consumers?  Since my case analysis is already fairly long, I’m going to leave this one to your team, trusting that you can apply the relevant considerations I raised above to prepare for this question.

Good luck in your preparations and on “Bowl Day”!

Footnotes:

(1) Given past discrimination against women and LGBTQ persons and—historically at least—the patriarchal bent of our artistic institutions, my own bias on this issue of reliability of sexual misconduct claims and investigations leads me to first give the benefit of doubt to reporters of abuse, as there is an established precedent in many entertainment fields of women and LGBTQ voices being unjustly discounted.^(f)  However, all of us are human and therefore susceptible to the same kinds of cognitive biases.^(g)  We’re learning more each year about the prevalence and reporting of sexual violence against women and gender minorities, and research on these trends shows that a variety of complicating factors are at play.^(h)

Endnotes:

(a) Resnikoff, Paul. “Spotify Removes Bill Cosby and Louis C.K. from Top-Ranked Comedy Playlists.” Digital Music News, May 11, 2018. https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/05/11/spotify-bill-cosby-louis-c-k/.

(b) Artland Editors. “10 Controversial Artworks That Changed Art History.” Artland. Retrieved: 10-7-21.. https://magazine.artland.com/10-controversial-artworks-changed-art-history/.

(c) Burgis, Ben. “Separating the Art from the Artist: Woody Allen, Marilyn Manson, and George W. Bush.” Zero Books on YouTube, March 2, 2021, https://youtu.be/mk-iQ3Ca04s.

(d) Frye, Jocelyn, et al. “Transforming the Culture of Power: An Examination of Gender-Based Violence in the United States.” Center for American Progress. October 31, 2019. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2019/10/31/476588/transforming-culture-power/.

(e) [Example case] Gelt, Jessica. “The sexual misconduct allegations rocking L.A.’s largest LGBTQ theater company.” L.A. Times, May 28, 2021. Retrieved 11-15-21. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-05-28/celebration-gay-theater-michael-shepperd-sexual-misconduct-allegations

(f) Jones, Trina, and Emma E. Wade. “Me too: Race, gender, and ending workplace sexual harassment.” Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y 27 (2020): 203. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1353&context=djglp.

(g) Monahan, J., and S. Polk. “The effect of cultural bias on the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault.” Police Chief Magazine (2018). https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/the-effect-of-cultural-bias-on-the-investigation/  b) Latack, Jessica A., et al. “Attentional bias for sexual threat among sexual victimization survivors: A meta-analytic review.” Trauma, violence, & abuse 18.2 (2017): 172-184. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5593786/

(h) Tjaden, Patricia Godeke, and Nancy Thoennes. “Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women.” (2000). https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf.

(i) Miriam-Webster Definition of excuse (transitive verb). https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excuse