At a current Paul Gauguin exhibition at London’s National Gallery, visitors are warned that the famous French painter had sexual relationships with young girls, including two with whom he fathered children.A wall text notes, “Gauguin undoubtedly exploited his position as a privileged Westerner [in French Polynesia] to make the most of the sexual freedoms available to him.”
This is likely an exaggeration of course, rhetoric to make a point. Alongside projects to show only women painters or publish only women writers, it does make one wonder, will we get to the point where someone like Beethoven, undeniably a dead white male, will simply be "canceled" in favor of Clara Schumann or Fanny Mendelssohn? It really doesn't seem possible at the moment. I was just at a concert a few weeks ago where music by Clara Schumann for violin and piano was programmed alongside music by Beethoven and frankly, the comparison was not to her advantage. Will music-lovers simply ignore the fact that Beethoven is at the heart of the Western classical tradition and replace him with lesser composers simply because they are women or of a racial minority? It doesn't seem possible, does it? But a few years ago we would have denied the possibility of replacing Shakespeare by Indigenous authors.The “warnings” against Gauguin are another step toward excommunicating every Western creative talent from the realm of permissible enjoyment. If left unopposed, the PC fascists will inevitably ban everything by Western-world artists, writers and musicians due to perceived “sensitivities” or “colonialist” violations.
The whole idea makes me uneasy... You might remark that Beethoven's biography does not offer the kind of shortcomings that we find in Paul Gauguin: no dallying with young girls or owning of slaves [UPDATE: I didn't mean to imply that Beethoven owned slaves; I was thinking rather of the accusations against the Founding Fathers in the US, some of whom did own slaves]. But I have the distinct impression that the real reason great artists are being "canceled" is simply that they are great artists and greatness is perceived by those who are mediocre as being, well, oppressive. Pathetic, really.
13 comments:
Gaugain is being discussed'—and honestly I don't think it's really possible to talk about modern art without including him in that narrative—not because he was white or male, but because he sexually exploited young women. The fact much of his work is of those women makes it all the more problematic. Gaugain, as a human being, was awful. Should we celebrate his work any more? It's definitely a point of discussion. I think that the National Gallery did the right thing by bringing it up in their exhibit. This Steve Cuozzo is clearly trying to rile people up, kind of looks like that his gig—working for a New York City tabloid owned by the guy who owns Fox News.
Beethoven's doing fine. If Clara Schumann and Fanny Mendelssohn are being programmed more it's not because they're "replacing" anyone, it's because female composers have been historically under programmed.
If Mr Honcho's comment is meant seriously, then he must also have a life devoid of pop music and Hollywood movies. A distressingly large percentage of the men and women artists (and others) in these professions exploit under age 18 children. I think the Romans had a saying that a person's good deeds lived on while their bad deeds died with them. I also wonder what the people of the 22nd C will say about all of us that will force them to erase the memory of us.
Saying that female composers have been "historically under programmed" is a thinly disguised attempt to apply identity politics to aesthetics. A symphony or opera company or chamber music series programs particular works by particular composers because they believe their audience will enjoy them enough to purchase tickets. The composers who have been "historically under programmed" are those who have been judged to sell fewer tickets. They include a host of both male and female composers. The few exceptions are those who consistently over the decades and centuries have provided the most satisfying musical experiences. It is a continuing embarrassment to the identity politics ideologues that these exceptions have included almost no women until quite recently.
So in the past 300 years, women have had an equal opportunity to access education, support, and audiences but the reason that they haven't been programmed is that they've all lacked merit? If that's your position, I will just quietly hope that you don't have daughters. Apparently, you're so entrenched in your ideology that you're incapable of looking at the historical record. "Identity politics," to the extent that it exists as a movement, is about assessing our culture and making sure people aren't being excluded for b.s. reasons having to do with ethnicity, race, gender, etc., so that it actually functions as you suggest. You should ask yourself why you feel threatened by that.
And yeah, to Maury's point, I'm not into financially supporting artists, filmmakers or musicians who hurt people. Why would you be? What's wrong with that?
And I neglected to point out that ad hominem is not an argument, but you resorted to it in both your comments. You are perilously close to being banned from the comment section.
There is literally nothing in my first comment that refers to you. I said that Gaugain was "awful," and that Steve Cuozzo works for a tabloid and makes a living riling people up. In my second comment I implied that you're a misogynist—which I think has a basis considering what your stated attitudes. I continue to be surprised that you think so little of women and don't seem to think that's unusual. An ad hominem would have been calling you a dick or something, which I think you are. Not really concerned about being banned from your website. I've enjoyed some of your articles, but I've pretty much lost any respect I had for you today.
oh Honcho, Please don't get me started on Fanny and Clara. Their music is mediocre, Clara's pleasantly so, Fanny's abrasively so. Programming those two is a political decision, not an aesthetic one.
Let me just review what "ad hominem" refers to. It doesn't mean only that you attack me on a personal level, but that you attack anyone on a personal level. In your first comment, Honcho/Alex, you attacked Steve Cuozzo and in the second you attacked me on a very personal level for simply disagreeing with you. This is what we refer to as an "ad hominem." Your continually being surprised doesn't really come from my hypothetical misogyny, which doesn't exist, but from your ideological blinders, which do.
As Honcho/Alex has managed to annoy myself plus two of my long time commentators he is now excluded from this discussion. I think what is most annoying in comments like this is the absolute prior assumption of total moral superiority. This is due to being the captive of an ideology that not only makes everything very simple, but also assures one of that moral superiority. It does have the unfortunate consequence of making discussion impossible.
This is only the second time I have prevented a commentator from posting. The first was several years ago.
Normally I wouldn't have responded to Mr Honcho but in rereading the original article I could find not a single statement warranting a diatribe. I also found it amusing that a person with such ostensible absolutist attitudes chose a user name like Honcho. Has Mr Honcho looked up the meaning/derivation of the word Honcho? Pardon my skepticism but my experience is that people who state such absolutist principles always apply them selectively.
I just looked up "Honcho" and was a bit surprised as well.
I find it sad that, in this day and age, we cannot realize the importance of respectful communication between those with differing views. All lose out when that communication breaks down. However, I do agree with Bryan that the banned correspondent crossed the line with hateful insults.
Thanks, Patrick. You should have seen the one I deleted. We welcome disagreement here at the Music Salon. But we don't tolerate insults. And we have had almost none over the eight years of the blog! Great commentators.
Post a Comment