Art vs The Artist

Vileness of the artist doesn't necessarily mean cancellation

Recently, there has been a lot of commentary about the “editing” of Roald Dahl books by Puffin sensitivity readers.

Honestly, the fact they have merely slightly censored the works of Dahl for current sensibilities, not Dahl himself, is proof of something that I have long suspected. The cancellation of artists (and the inability to separate them from their art) is something that can only truly happen to artists with personalities larger than their works. People tend to not care about the personality of artists whose art is better than the fallible human that created it. And in some cases, being “bad” can even help an artists image.

Dahl’s record as a vile human being is extremely well documented. From the sympathies he expressed for Hitler to raping his stroke-paralyzed wife. He has transgressed all of our modern morals as well as those in the day in which he lived.

But all this is not enough to have him cancelled, merely slightly altered for what could be considered “wrong think” that made it into his work. This is because he is a celebrated author not because of his dazzling personality but in spite of it. His works outshine him and are guide children to behave way more civilized than he did in his life – as they should.

It seems even the most blemished artist can have them, and their work survive being cancelled if it is well-loved enough to not even give a second thought about the type of person who made it.

The same process is happening in real-time as Woke millennials that grew up with the Harry Potter books trying to separate their love of the books from their distaste of JK Rowling (who’s transgression is merely defending female only spaces). At the beginning of the up roar there was a brief period of book burning but today the outraged have moved on to doing everything to consume Harry Potter without giving a cent to the “transphobic” JK Rowling instead.

Despite the outrage at the author, Harry Potter is still loved by these people that would otherwise love to see JK Rowling torn down.   

The Australian music scene, and more specifically the long-running music festival Bluesfest is currently embroiled in its own cancellation controversy.

The Bluesfest at present has stood firm in its decision not to revoke the invitation of Sydney-based band Sticky Fingers. The front man, Dylan Frost, has been accused of violent and aggressive behaviour towards minorities. It is unclear whether the characteristics (such as being female, indigenous or trans) was the reason for his aggression - in which case the claims that he is bigoted could be warranted – but if not, he is just an old-fashioned “uncouth” that is indiscriminately aggressive towards everyone.

Like many rock front men before him (I am thinking of the likes of the Vines’ Craig Nicholls here) he blamed his behavior on substance abuse and his mental health.

And maybe this is true, but does it matter?

I, myself think the actions of King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard who has withdrew from the lineup to protest the inclusion of Sticky Fingers is cowardly – but I am not going to stop listening to their music.

This whole controversy is predicated on the idea that we – the rock audience – expect rockstars to be well behaved. And would cease to listen to our favourite bands because of uncouthness or even straight up vileness.

This is a doubtful assumption.

Rockstars are not in the category of a Dahl - their vile personalities don’t merely transcend their work - but being ‘bad boys’ or ‘edgy’ or transgressive’ is typically expected if not celebrated.

The cancellation attempt might even help Sticky Fingers’ popularity.

The outcome of this current cancellation attempt will largely depend on the audience of the Bluesfest – not it’s organisers who have been noble in their steadfastness. Whether the musicians that will pull out are significant enough for ticket sales to drop or the popularity of Sticky Fingers will prevail over all the hoo-ha remains to be seen.

But for all the moral posturing over what artists say and do, if the public (and even the activists) are unwilling to boycott their art then attempts to cancel will be unsuccessful.