Pop, the Question (S6: E43)
When Great Artists Behave Badly
Featured Guests Paula Marantz Cohen, PhD (Dean and Host of The Civil Discourse); Aruna D’Souza (Author and Art Critic); Bill T. Jones (Tony Award- Winning Dancer/Choreographer); Martha Lucy, PhD (Barnes Foundation Renoir Scholar); and Erich Hatala Matthes, PhD (Author and Philosopher)
Host and Producer Melinda Lewis, PhD (Associate Director, Marketing & Media)
Dean Paula Marantz Cohen, PhD (Dean, Pennoni Honors College)
Executive Producer Erica Levi Zelinger (Director, Marketing & Media)
Producer Brian Kantorek (Assistant Director, Marketing & Media)
Research and Script Paula Marantz Cohen, PhD with Melinda Lewis, PhD and Brian Kantorek
Audio Engineering and Editing Brian Kantorek
Original Theme Music Brian Kantorek
Production Assistance Noah Levine
Social Media Outreach Jaelynn Vesey
Graphic Design Kat Heller
Logo Design Michal Anderson
Additional Voiceover Malia Lewis
Recorded January 21, 2021 through virtual conferencing with supplemental recording on October 13, 2022.
Pop, the Question is a production of Marketing & Media in Pennoni Honors College at Drexel University.
The views expressed in this podcast are not necessarily those of Drexel University or Pennoni Honors College.
To watch these episodes and others from The Civil Discourse, check your local PBS listings or visit www.youtube.com/c/thecivildiscourse.
Copyright © 2022 Drexel University
Episode Summary
This special episode highlights a previously recorded discussion in partnership with the Barnes Foundation in Philadelphia. Presented as an installment of the Pennoni Panels series—and later produced as a pair of episodes for the PBS-broadcast TV series The Civil Discourse, hosted by Drexel University Pennoni Honors College Dean Paula Marantz Cohen—“When Great Artists Behave Badly” features Tony Award-winning dancer/choreographer Bill T. Jones and a panel of esteemed experts. The panelists take on the topic of controversial artists and how society can separate the art from the artist in cases of toxic, immoral personal behavior.
TRANSCRIPT
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 1 of 16
Speaker 1:
(singing).
Pop the question.
[inaudible 00:00:14].
Melinda Lewis:
Welcome to Pop The Question, A podcast that exists at the intersection of pop culture and academia.
We sit down and talk about our favorite stuff, through the lenses of what we do, and who we are.
From Pennoni Honors College at Drexel University, Dr. Melinda Lewis here. I'm your host.
Coming Up, we gave a special Pop The Question for you. This episode highlights a previously recorded
discussion, in partnership with the Barnes Foundation, here in Philadelphia. This was also a coproduction
between our ongoing discussion series, Pennoni Panels, and our broadcast TV series, The
Civil Discourse, hosted by Pennoni Honors College Dean, Paula Marantz Cohen.
In this episode, When Great Artists Behave Badly, Tony Award-winning dancer and choreographer, Bill T.
Jones, and a panel of esteemed experts take on the topic of controversial artists in popular culture, and
how, if we can, and should we separate the art from the artist in case of toxic, immoral, or even criminal
behavior. It has been edited for time and clarity.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
We have a group of panelists here with us today who are well suited to address this topic, and I'll briefly
introduce them, and then set our discussion going. First, Bill T. Jones.
He's a MacArthur= and Tony Award-winning dancer, choreographer and visual artist and director of the
Experimental Dance Organization, New York Live Arts, and of the Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Dance
Company. He holds the special distinction of having once been body painted by Keith Herring.
Aruna D'Souza is an art critic, commentator, writer, and editor of books on the subject of art, race, and
gender. Her most recent book, Whitewalling, Art, Race, and Protest in Three Acts, was named one of the
best books of 2018 by the New York Times.Erichh Hatala Matthes is an associate professor of philosophy
and director of the Frost Center for the Environment at Wellesley College. His work is devoted to the
ethics, politics, and aesthetics of cultural heritage, art, and the environment. He's completing a book
entitled, Drawing The Line: What to Do with the Work of Immoral Artists from Museums to the Movies.
Finally, Martha Lucy is Deputy Director for Research, Interpretation and Education at the Barnes
Foundation, in Philadelphia. She's a historian of 19th and 20th century European art and visual culture,
and an expert on the impressionist, and on Pierre Aust Renoir in particular. So let's begin with the
question of how we should respond to the malfeasance of great artists.
For example, Edgar Degas' anti-Semitism, Picasso's vile treatment of women, Bertolt Brecht's
enthusiasm for Stalin, Philip Johnson's racism. When such facts come to light about artists, do you think
we're obligated to take them into account, in our evaluation of their art?
Erich Hatala Matthes:
What I think, what we can't do is antecedently, right from the beginning, just artificially try to cordon off
the artists from the artwork. We need to be open to the possibility that the lives of artists have
relevance to our interpretation of their work. I think that there's ultimately nothing that puzzling about
this, right?
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 2 of 16
While there's, of course, controversy about what kinds of contextual features are relevant to aesthetic
interpretation of work, there are all kinds of features of the lives of artists that we often take into
account, when thinking about art interpretation, when they lived, the political climate, they're working
in, geographic context, et cetera. So I think it's arbitrary to just say, "Well, the moral lives of artists? That
couldn't possibly be relevant to our interpretation."
I do think, though, that it's incumbent upon us to explain why in a particular case, the moral lives of
artists are relevant to interpreting particular works of art.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Let me push back a little on that and ask somebody else on the panel. If you. think necessarily, and this
moves a little bit against Erichh's point, that there would be the imprint of say, Degas's anti-Semitism
somewhere in the art itself, that by necessity, given that's in the fabric of the character of the artist, it
shows itself in the art.
Aruna D'Souza:
I'll jump in here, and just say that the artists that we see in museums aren't there because they were
good people or bad people. They were there because museums tend to confer ideas of genius on people
who look a certain way, who have a certain gender, who perform their gender in certain ways. And so
already, all sorts of things have gone into the determination of artistic greatness, beyond the idea of
aesthetics.
Those judgements have already been made. So I think that we've already taken it into account, some
very basic things about the artist's life, when we've decided who we're looking at in the first place.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
So let me ask, and I guess I will go to Martha with this one, a museum making an evaluation of its
collection, in light of what you say, Aruna and Erichh. Do you think there should be this sort of
evaluation as we do?
I mean, we evaluate the legal provenance of works now, which wasn't done in the past, and that's been
fairly recent. Should there be a board of evaluation as to the moral life of the artist, according to certain
standards and so forth as to whether that art is exhibited?
Martha Lucy:
I do. I don't know how to answer this question, when it comes to living artists, but when it comes to
dead artists, I wouldn't want to go through the Met's collection, or through the Barneses' collection, and
start taking things off of the wall, based on whether that artist had done something immoral in the past.
I would not want to do it. And it's not just because there would be practically nothing left to look at, but
it's also because I think, then, that we're losing an opportunity to talk about these things. But I think that
the responsibility of museums now, and the way that a lot of museum industry people are thinking, is
that it's really about education.
So if it's Degas's anti-Semitism, whether it's just something that you know about him as an artist, or
even if it's showing up in the work itself, which it does, I think that we need to talk about that. And we
need to know that that was part of history.
Bill T. Jones:
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 3 of 16
I'm not sure if I'm on the right panel.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
[inaudible 00:06:50].
Bill T. Jones:
The paradigm of museums is a problematic one for me to get into, but I'll do my best. My remarks are
about artists. I thought that the title of this was a bit misplaced, because what my experience would be,
we should have another panel that says, when institutions, critics, collectors, taste makers behave badly.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Yeah.
Bill T. Jones:
Then that's the next thing I will say is, some basic pronouncements about art. Art should be dangerous.
It should not be easily digested. Now, this is a black man, a black gay man speaking, and I know that I
can be offended, but I think that you really have to separate the work from the person.
Now, we want artists there because they're doing something, an existential gesture, of pushing back
against the absurdity of life. And they may leave artifacts. And those artifacts are oftentimes a lot to
take in their time. Some of them fall with time, and some of them grow with time.
So for us to put guardrails up, separate them out? Some things are against the law, period. If you're
abusing a child that's against the law, let the law take care of that. And if you're abusing ...
Paula Marantz Cohen:
But not censor the art of that person.
Bill T. Jones:
Yeah, of course not.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Do you think as an artist, versus a critic, because I think, when you said you're on the wrong panel, I'm
wondering if there's been an age old tension between critic and artist? Do you feel that, still, in our
culture?
Bill T. Jones:
Yes, yes. There is art, there's something that the art that I'm talking of, is at a level that I'd say it's
something next to someone's spiritual understanding of being alive.
No, I really think art should be dangerous. It should not decorate. And I'm talking as a living artist.
Aruna D'Souza:
So, I want to [inaudible 00:08:50]. Because I think that Bill, I'm just a huge fan of your work and your
career, but I want to talk, I want to change the terms a little bit because I do think that art should be
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 4 of 16
dangerous. And I'm not sure that often we are talking about artists who are making dangerous art when
we're talking about this question.
So that I'm not sure that, in all cases, that what we're often talking about when people get riled up
about artists behaving badly, are artists who have personally acted in ways that are offensive. In your
case, the work was dangerous and uncomfortable for people, and that was the problem.
Bill T. Jones:
For certain people, for certain people.
Aruna D'Souza:
For certain people. Okay, I'm going to give you an example that I think is really clear because, and that
speaks, as well, to Martha's comment about the necessary conversations. So I went to the National
Portrait Gallery after the Kehinde Wiley portrait of Barack Obama was installed there.
As I was walking around that floor of the National Portrait Gallery, I look over, and there's Chuck Close's
portrait of Bill Clinton. Chuck Close is an artist who was accused of sexual harassment and abuse of a
number of women. And the National Portrait Gallery decided, in the context of the sort of first flush of
the MeToo movement, that his retrospective should be canceled.
So there was a controversy, "Do we cancel retrospectives? Do we only give retrospectives to decent
people," all of that kind of stuff. I don't think anyone would argue, no one that I know would argue that
Chuck Close is making the most cutting edge, dangerous, thought provoking work on the contemporary
scene, by a long shot.
But what was most interesting to me is the wall label for this picture. Because the wall label for this
picture, which as Martha said, fine, keep it on the wall, and have the difficult conversations. The wall
label for this picture talked extensively about Bill Clinton's various sexual scandals, and did not mention
the artist's own sexual scandals, right?
So, in that sense, my problem is not that we need to take all the work down, my problem is the
apparatus, which doesn't want to actually have the conversations that need to be put forward. In Bill's
case, as he points out, it's a very different situation of an artist who is being put on the spot, because of
the power of a single art critic, where that turns into a conservative position being used as an aesthetic
standard. And that's problematic.
Bill T. Jones:
If people don't know about the controversy, the victim art controversy, it was a work that I made in the
'90s. I had made a work called Last Supper at Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Promised Land, which was a work
taking on the issues of race before it became a pop issue. And then, that also blew up.
A lot of people were upset about that, Last Supper at Uncle Tom's Cabin, featuring 52 handsome nudes.
And the piece ended with a stage of anywhere between 52 to 60 plus people of all shapes and sizes and
ages, naked, bathe in a golden light, and singing light children. Okay, we got over that.And then I
decided I want to make a work that was completely, you could not say it was divisive along any lines. In
other words, we are all born, we grow, and some of us reproduce, and then we die mortality.
I went around and I did survival workshops in about 35 communities, with people who were or had been
dealing with life threaten and illness. But this particular critic said she had obviously heard, or
something, and she said it's impossible for her to review work that's about people she feels sorry for.
And it was unfair of, I guess, me to make it, and the Brooklyn Academy Music, or wherever it's
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 5 of 16
presented, because it's there to make you feel bad. And therefore, you should not go. Don't go see this
work. It's just there to make you feel bad.
So how we got here, and Aruna, I'm trying to make that important distinction you make, between what
is the object, and who made it, what's the story behind it? I still don't know why. If the National still feels
it's important to put a label on a work by Chuck Close, or any representation of Bill Clinton, does the
work stand?
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Is that different from putting a label on a statue, to give context to it, where the sin is a historical sin? I
was going to ask Erich, because he is an environmentalist, as well as a critic of art, about the statue in
front of the Museum of Natural History that is going to be taken down, although many people feel it
should have a label explaining it, that shows Teddy Roosevelt on a horse, a Native American and an
African on either side.
But do you have thoughts about this? Now I realize I'm moving away from artists behaving badly to
history behaving badly, and therefore impinging on the artist. How much does a work of art like this,
which I think is a masterful work of sculpture, is it too offensive to stand, or to stand there?
Erich Hatala Matthes:
Yeah, there's a lot going on in that question. I mean, I think when it comes to public artwork, in
particular, and monuments that have a particular function, which is to honor, I think it's really important
that we think carefully about the public meaning of those sculptures, and the messages they might send.
So, quite apart from anything involving Teddy Roosevelt, I think a lot of people have convincingly argued
that this statue, in particular, embodies certain forms of colonialism and racism, and then projects those
as the public face of the Museum of natural history.
So I think that there are a lot of good reasons to remove this particular sculpture. So I think that context
can matter. I think that the way in which we provide context about the lives of artists, and the potential
relevance, too, of the lives of artists to interpretation of their work, within a museum context, can be
quite different from how we would do that.
Bill T. Jones:
Well, I was wondering, isn't there another way that they're taking some of these sculptures, and putting
them in their own preserved location? Therefore we go there, because we want to see things that are
troublesome historically. Now, that's where I think it should be, but I do think that it says something
about history, as Erich says, and therefore, it stills a sense of conversation in us. I wouldn't destroy it.
Martha Lucy:
I agree with that, too. I do not think that we should get rid of it, because it is part of our history, and we
need to acknowledge that. But context is everything, in this case.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Martha's expertise is in Renoir and in impressionist painting. I think the Barnes has one of the largest
collections of Renoirs in the world, and he has been targeted as the embodiment of the male gaze. And
many critics have accused him of painting pornography. And I want you to know what Martha has to say
to that.
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 6 of 16
Martha Lucy:
Renoir is the poster boy for the male gaze when it comes to modern European art. If the male gaze is
about the power dynamic, that's sort of embedded in the act of looking, and it's the sort of sexualized
looking, where the woman is the object.
She is presented as kind of mindless, as if she's unaware that she's being painted. So there's this
voyeuristic element, there's the fleshed cheeks. But I like studying it, because it's fascinating to me, and I
want to understand the context that it's coming out of.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
And, of course ... Excuse me.
Bill T. Jones:
Wouldn't Balthus have been a better example?
Aruna D'Souza:
Bill, I was thinking the exact same thing, in the sense that, because as Martha says, he's such a typical
example, His work looks like so much other art, historical work, not in factor, or even in composition,
but just in terms of his own position, and relation to his model, and everything like that. Whereas,
Balthus is so much weirder, because of the ...
Paula Marantz Cohen:
So wait a second, so wait a second. You're saying these are gradations of pornographic gaze, because
the whole history of art is full of the female nude, right?
Bill T. Jones:
Yeah. It is.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Therefore, yes.
Aruna D'Souza:
I mean, the history of art is full of the female nude. It's full of sexist artists, because we live in patriarchy.
That's going to be a given.
And it's full of racist artists, because we live in racist patriarchy. And those things are all givens. I mean, if
people are finding Renoir pornographic, I would say that they have a really tame idea of what
pornography is.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
I don't know. [inaudible 00:18:45] I don't know if I agree with you on that. I don't know if I agree with
you. I think it's pretty pornographic. That doesn't mean that it's not also sensual.
Aruna D'Souza:
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 7 of 16
Well, what's so interesting is that around the time that the MeToo movement sort of gained
momentum, and around the time that Harvey Weinstein was being brought to task about his own
crimes, which were genuine crimes, a group of museum members at the Met started a petition around
the Balthus painting that the Metropolitan Museum in New York had.
And people freaked out, and there was a big article in the New York Times about MeToo culture, and is
it going to mean that we take all the art off the walls, and what kind of litmus test, and everything like
that. So I went to look at ... I mean, it's a fantastic article if anyone wants to search it, because museum
directors were seriously losing their heads over the idea that you would do anything in relation to this
Balthus.
They literally only asked that a line be added, again, to the wall label saying to contemporary viewers,
"This painting may strike you as disturbing because of this sexual content." That's it. That's what they
were asking for. And people lost their minds.
For me, it's like, well, if museum directors and curators aren't going to do their job by helping us
contextualize what we're looking at, then they shouldn't get to play with their toys anymore. So if you
can't deal with a Balthus responsibly, then yeah, don't put it up on the wall. If you want to [inaudible
00:20:23], do the work.
Bill T. Jones:
Aruna, did you think that was enough? Was that enough, to put that tag for you, as a woman, and
[inaudible 00:20:28]?
Aruna D'Souza:
To me, I'm a historian. I'm trained as an art historian, if I was going to decide that people weren't worth
studying or looking at, based on their racism or misogyny or whatever, I would not have anything to
study. And Martha says the same thing about museum collections, I would not have anything to study.
But I will say, now that I'm an art critic and not an art historian, I make choices about who I pay
attention to, and who I don't. I feel no need to review whatever the artistic equivalent of Woody Allen
is, right?
I feel no need to review that. It doesn't matter if their art is good or bad or indifferent. I have a choice of
looking in a different direction.
Speaker 8:
Hey, it's your mom. I have a question about that podcast you do. Are you on the Instagram, or the
Twitter or the Facebook? If I have an idea for a podcast, how do I get in touch with you? Love you, Bye.
Melinda Lewis:
'Sup, mom. Yeah, so you can find us on all those things, actually. Twitter, Instagram, Facebook.
Just go to Pop Quest Pod on any one of those, and follow. If you want to send us ideas, you can either go
over to our website, and leave us a message, at Pop Q Podcast, or you can get us directly at
popq@drexel.edu.
You can actually find us on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher. I can help set it up when I get home, but then you
have to promise me to read with you. All right, love you. Bye.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 8 of 16
But I do want to get us back to a point that Bill made, about the artist as a dangerous person. Is the
creative mind by definition, bound to break boundaries, to be extremely sensitive and fragile in certain
ways, and therefore, susceptible to elements that could be very illuminating on the one hand, but also
offensive on the other? I think it's a very hard thing to tease apart.
There are also fads, it seems to me, as to what may be acceptable as dangerous, and what might not be
acceptable as dangerous. And I think we should just be aware of that. I'm just going to quickly go
through a couple of names, and I don't necessarily, because I do want us to open to questions, but I
want maybe a quick thought on this.
In recent years, artists are accused of sexual and domestic abuse crimes, with variable effects on their
reputation. Michael Jackson was presumably sexually involved with a minor, but so was Elvis. James
Levine was predatory, but so is Frank Sinatra.
Ike Turner was a domestic abuser, but so was John Lennon. Are we selective, based on a variety of
factors, which would include the kind and degree of wrongdoing, but also, the race and the historical
moment, and the medium in which this happens? And I'll start with Martha, because as somebody
who's deeply into a museum culture, what your thoughts are.
Martha Lucy:
I'm going to punt on this, and say that I think the best thing that I have read on this topic is Claire
Dederer's article or essay. What do you do with the Art of Monstrous Men?
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Yeah.
Martha Lucy:
It's so good. It was in the Paris Review. If you haven't read it, Google it, because it's beautiful, and she
grapples with these questions. And she loves Woody Allen, and she hates what he did, but she loves
him, and she doesn't want to give up his art.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Yeah.
Martha Lucy:
And it's just so well done.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Erich?
Erich Hatala Matthes:
Yeah, so I mean, there's a lot going on here, but one thing I think that we should say, is that we
shouldn't adopt, I think, this position where we act as if because somebody makes great art, what they
do in their personal lives, especially when what they do is serial abuse, just doesn't matter, as if it's
somehow worth it that we get this art, in exchange for their abuse. It's not worth it to their victims.
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 9 of 16
I don't think that this needs to lead to censorship, and I think we've all sort of been in agreement about
that. I do think it needs to lead to arts institutions taking more responsibility when they're working with
artists.
If they're hearing multiple accusations, that an artist that they're working with is an abuser, just like in
any other professional context, they should take steps. They should not continue to work with that
person, and not act as if the fact that they're a genius makes it okay.
Bill T. Jones:
I find it regrettable that we, and my respect for all of my colleagues here, but that we've stayed with the
more conventional arts and art museums. When we open up what we mean by art in the Instagram
world, and in the TikTok world, and there's a generation of people who are being, they've grown up with
pornography, they've seen violence since they were very young. There is white supremacists.
Now, works are going to be coming out of that, and works are coming out of that. So I want to get ahead
of it, and give them as wide a berth as possible, as long as they're ... Well, I won't say as long as, because
I don't know, it's not my job to say. As long as they're not doing human sacrifice, or what have you.
But we have not really been able to really deal with the communication devices of our era. That is that
little thing, where instantaneous images can come up, and are so quite beautiful, quite arresting, and
dubious.
Aruna D'Souza:
But Bill, my position, is I want to get those old white men abusers out of the condition queues, and out
of the wall space, to make room for young people who are actually making disturbing and thought
provoking work, that is actually doing the work to prompt conversations that allow change to happen.
For me, that's precisely why I don't want to see another Chuck Close show, and frankly, Martha will kill
me, I think that we could go for a few years without a Picasso show or without a Renoir show. It's
precisely because we've got this limited space, limited resources for all of this stuff. I want to give room
for those people who have lived, as you said, with all of these things, and are now trying to make sense
of it.
Bill T. Jones:
I'm not sure if I understand you. what about technique? What about innovation? What about style? All
of those things, which some of those old white guys have really been leading us, about how you handle
paint, how you look at forms.
Do you give any points off? I mean, do you give, for people being able to be ... Their formal
contributions, even if it's an offensive painting, do you give them points off?
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Bill, that's a great question for us to now open to our audience.
Bill T. Jones:
Okay.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 10 of 16
I see a question here. "So if you don't identify how the artist's bad character or behavior is manifested in
his art, and we condemn the art because of the bad behavior, how do we deal with the artist influenced
by the bad artist? For example, Richard Wagner's music influenced many visual and literary artists. If we
don't know what it is about his music that expresses or embodies his raging anti-Semitism, how do we
evaluate the art of his followers?"
Aruna D'Souza:
In order to make those kinds of assessments, you have to really get to know the work very well. You
have to know why an artist was looking or listening to Wagner, and what they got out of Wagner, and
artists like Trenton Doyle Hancock, a sort of young-ish African American artist, who is doing amazing
work that addresses histories of racism and anti-blackness, precisely by looking at artists who were
themselves creating racist imagery? Kara Walker as another person.
Bill T. Jones:
Yeah. Can we talk about Kara for a moment? Is it because somebody ... I love all of Kara's work, but
somebody, and I imagine some powerful white person, has been able to see past the horror of what
she's doing and say, "Ah, this is a modern artist who is scraping her consciousness over the prongs of
history, and we have to look." Matter of fact, when we're uncomfortable, it's a good thing.
Aruna D'Souza:
But that's the work, right? That's the work that curators and museums and critics, and all of us in the
apparatus, need to be paying attention to, in doing that work, because I don't think that that's
necessarily the artist's work.
Bill T. Jones:
Anyways, next question, please.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
I agree with you, Bill on that. This is a question, I believe it's from Aaron, I'm reading."I wanted to follow
up on something Erich Matthes said. He argued that the artists' lives are indeed relevant to how we
interpret their work. I agree with that, but what bearing has personal behavior and moral attitude have
on how we evaluate their art? Meaning is one thing in this debate. But what about quality?"
And I think, actually, that speaks a little bit to something Bill said about technique, maybe? The issue of
quality. Can quality be taken apart from the artwork, as the whole, and meaning?
Bill T. Jones:
And quality and innovation, I was saying,
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Yeah. So Erich, do you have thoughts on that?
Erich Hatala Matthes:
Yeah, sure. I mean, there's a lot of different ways to think about artistic quality, but I mean, one way,
just one, in which we might evaluate art, has to do whether with whether it achieves its own aims, right?
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 11 of 16
If it's trying to elicit a certain reaction from the audience, but there are factors about the life of the
artist, that not just happen to prevent people from having that reaction ... But make it the case that we
have a moral reason, not to have the response that the artist is going after?
Then I think that can plausibly get in the way of the art succeeding on its own terms. So just to give in a
sort of a pop example, take Aliyah's song, Age Ain't Nothing But a Number which was performed when
she was 15 years old, written for her by R. Kelly, who she was secretly married to.
That context changes the meaning of that song. The song is trying to be sexy, but there's a really
plausible interpretation in which it fails to be sexy, because of that context. Whereas, if you change the
context, maybe the song was written by J Lo for her much younger boyfriend, then it's doing something
totally different, right?
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Yeah. Yeah.
Erich Hatala Matthes:
It's bucking sexist double standards. Obviously, not every artist and artwork, they're just going to have a
context in which they relate to each other in this way. But what I think is, we need to be open to the
possibility that these relationships exist, and think carefully about them.
That's why I agree with everybody, that's so important to have the art available. Because there's
important interpretive work with moral and aesthetic consequences for us to do.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Thank you. Erich. There's another question here. I'm going to reduce it to the last line, and I think this is
an interesting point that we haven't addressed. "Should we let the art market handle any issues that
come to light about an artist?"
Aruna D'Souza:
No. Absolutely not.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
It's a provocative question.
Bill T. Jones:
Can I be rude, and say that I think that that discussion is going to lead us into a blind alley that we don't
have time to deal with?
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Right, right.
Bill T. Jones:
What about, that there's still some areas ...
Paula Marantz Cohen:
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 12 of 16
And Bill, I have a related question for you here, which is, "Bill T. Jones, it is beautiful how you bring up
the idea of spirituality being alive as artists. I know the art and spirituality are interlinked, but how do
you tackle things from the material world into your art, while still connecting to the higher self, and
having these conversations about race, colonialism and imperialism?"
Bill T. Jones:
How do you have meaning in your life? My work was a crazy guy, trying to figure out how to find form
and meaning that moved him? And it just so happens that my poetry had to do with being an African
AmErichan, a homosexual person, and the AIDS crisis came along. That's how you do it.
So there is no rule book. Art should be dangerous, and you have got to all be primary alchemists, holding
up a bowl of base material, and hoping that a cosmic ray comes along and turns it into a precious metal.
Aruna D'Souza:
I do not believe, for one second, that it's some magic alchemy.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Okay. Can I ask Martha a question that's coming from Amanda? Amanda wants to know your thoughts
on Gauguin.
Bill T. Jones:
Oh, boy.
Martha Lucy:
Oh, boy. He sort of falls in the same category for me, as Renoir does. I think he's more problematic, but I
would not suggest that we stop looking at his work, because I think that the way that Gauguin is being
talked about now is a lot better than the way that Gauguin used to be talked about, which was, nobody
talked about the sort of colonial history that his works are coming out of. It was just a discussion about
form.
I think that the way that the National Gallery in London, they did a Gauguin portraits exhibition of last
year, and it was also in Canada. I think that the way that they dealt with it, with his work, was right. They
explicitly said, "He took up with his, this is a portrait of his 13-year-old mistress."
They didn't hide that information, they didn't not show the work. They included that information, and
sort of let the audience deal with that information.
Bill T. Jones:
I am a big fan of his, the paintings are beautiful.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
They are.
Bill T. Jones:
This is a person of color, looking at a white man, draw half naked women of color, and yet I felt the
poetry of it. I think that he's fighting a battle for us on another front.
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 13 of 16
Is it possible for you to really be outside of the morays of your era? Very few of us are, right? And I don't
want to give any, sort of, racist or past from the history, but I think those paintings, for me, they do cut
through something, which is a spiritual fog that I have, around form, beauty, and history.
Aruna D'Souza:
I'm not interested in art without knowing its history. I'm either going to be looking at art in an
uninformed way, in which case, I can only see half of what's there. Or I can understand the history, in
which case, all of those things come in, and I can see fully.
This conversation can almost never happen outside of the assumption of individual genius. We have so
much investment, as a culture, in the idea of the individual genius. And as long as we're talking about
genius, then we are always talking about mostly men, mostly white men, mostly straight white men.
And we're always talking about then the idea of people who have enormous privilege in their every day
lives, getting even further privilege, because of their genius? And that is what drives me nuts.
Martha Lucy:
Yeah, I think Aruna's point about the problem with genius is that it justifies the canon. But I don't want
...
Bill T. Jones:
That's a good point.
Martha Lucy:
I don't want to not be able to say that, I don't want to say that they're not geniuses, the ones that I love.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Now doesn't genius, though, bring us back to quality?
Aruna D'Souza:
I mean, my teacher, and Martha's teacher, Linda Nolan wrote the foundational text of feminist art
history, and it was called, not because she believed it, but because a man came up and challenged her at
a lecture. He said, "Why have there been no great women artists?"
So she took that question. She said, "I could list the great women artists, but that would be a losing
game. Because any name that I came up with, Artemisia Gentileschi, some guy in the audience would
say, 'Yeah, but compared to Caravaggio, right?"
What she said is, "Our whole idea of genius, and our whole idea of quality, is wrapped up in conditions
that have nothing to do with craft, or nothing to do with technique, nothing to do with any markers of
artistic, not nothing to do, but very little to do with those individual markers, and everything to do with
standards that are set by people who are not women."
But the notion of genius, the notion of the singular genius who is producing work that's so great, that
you should just give them a pass on everything else, is deeply ideological. My concern is, until we
actually start recognizing that talent can exist in the most unexpected places, then we are actually not
looking at the art that might help us think our way out of this terrible world that we live in, right?
Bill T. Jones:
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 14 of 16
But Aruna, I don't want us to finish our discussion here, but the young are out of the gate with this
already.
Aruna D'Souza:
Yeah.
Bill T. Jones:
They don't buy that anymore. I mean, really, the young have taken that, and they are running with it.
And more power to them.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Erich, I'm switching gears a little because there's a question for you. "Do you think that there should be
a personal responsibility on the part of a viewer, or an audience member or a viewer, in a museum, to
study what's behind an artist that one likes?"
In other words, you see a painting, you love the painting. Are you then obliged to go out, and should you
be obliged to go out, and study what's behind that painting?
Erich Hatala Matthes:
No, I don't think so. I mean, are consumers, people who are not in positions of particular power with
respect to the artists, they're just somebody who goes to a museum? I think it's really up to you.
I mean, I think that we can make sense of what you could gain from that kind of investigation. Just like
we can make a sense of what you gain from any other kind of art historical investigation. There's a lot
there's to find there.
But I don't think it's an obligation, anymore than I think it's an obligation to read the wall text when you
go through museum. There's lots to find there. There's lots that's enriching, but you can also go through
museum, and just look at the art.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
Yeah, I guess, then, the question for Aruna here is, and for Martha, is it then the responsibility of the
museum to create that background? And for me personally, when I read a wall copy that tells me how to
think about a work, it irritates me.
But I suppose there's a difference between being told that this is beautiful, or this is important, or
whatever, and being told some fact about the artist. And that's a hard balance. Would you agree,
Martha?
Martha Lucy:
It's a really hard balance, and it's something that, I mean we talk about all the time. Whether or not
you're bringing up these difficult issues, just having some text on the wall, some people want that.
They just want to be with the art, and looking at the art. And I guess I would just argue that if you don't
want to read it, don't read it. It's there if you want it.
Bill T. Jones:
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 15 of 16
I do read labels madly. I'm a black person. I always feel like I have to understand the world of white
people, which most museums are, and I am always trying to improve my mind, and learn more about
context, and so on.
For a lot of us, we were taught that that's the whole reason you go to art, is because it's not science, and
it's not religion, and it's not politics. It's something that you have to figure out.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
We're almost out of time. There is someone, Mimi who said, and I just think it's a nice way to end,
perhaps.
She says, "I agree with Bill T. Jones, in regards to Gauguin paintings being beautiful. I'm not socializing
with the guy, I'm reflecting on what the work says. Why can't I just enjoy it, and consider it separate
from the artist?" Which brings us full circle. So yeah, Aruna?
Aruna D'Souza:
Anyone can look at whatever work they want, and find meaning, and find sustenance in whatever work
they want. You have to individually decide what your boundaries are around that.
Instead, people are so bound up with, who they like is who they are, what they like is what they are.
There becomes something where people are not willing to deal with the nuance, the difficulty of
knowing that bad people can produce beautiful things. And I think people overreact, a lot of times, to
suggestions that maybe we actually need to do more to contextualize something.
Paula Marantz Cohen:
That's well said, Aruna, it's a good place to end. People's nostalgia is a powerful, powerful force, and
how to get people to be comfortable enough to let go of some of those feelings of the past, where they
feel safe, so to speak, is part of what our education should be about. And yet it's a very hard thing.
All right. Well, thanks, everybody. I want to thank you again for the generosity of your time and your
thoughts. And thank you, Barnes Foundation, for partnering. I'm sure most of our audience has been to
the Barnes.
Bill T. Jones:
It's one of my favorite museums in the world.
Martha Lucy:
Yeah, yeah.
Bill T. Jones:
I love it, yeah.
Martha Lucy:
It's awesome.
Melinda Lewis:
That wraps up our panel discussion on When Great Artksts Behave Badly. Thanks for joining us.
This transcript was exported on Oct 24, 2022 - view latest version here.
Pop, the Question, S6-E43, When Great Artists Be... (Completed
10/22/22)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 16 of 16
In addition to Pop the Question, please check your local PBS broadcast listings for our TV series, The Civil
Discourse, or subscribe on YouTube, where you can find these full episodes, and many other insightful
guest discussions. Until next time, take care of everybody.
Pop The Question was researched and hosted by Dr. Melinda Lewis. Our theme music and episodes are
produced by Brian Kantorek, with additional Audio Production by Noah Levine.
All of this was done under the directorship of Erica Levi Zelinger, the deanship of Dr. Paula Marantz
Cohen, and the Pennoni Honors College at Drexel University.
Speaker 9:
Stop the presses.
Speaker 10:
I know what's important. I do, I honestly.
But we talking about the practice, man. What are we talking about? The practice? We talking about the
practice, man.