The art and the artist

Juan Camilo Espejo-Serna
Universidad de la Sabana

Plan

  1. Film overview
  2. The artists
  3. The philosophers
  4. The humans

Film overview

Write in chat a one-line summary of the plot of Manhattan.

(A good one :P).

The artists

The film considers several topics of philosophical interest revolving around what it is to be human and our own understanding of morality.
But this time we will also consider the human being that made the film itself
So unlike previous sessions, I do not wish to focus on the film alone but also on what we ought to do with the moral standing of the people involved.
Let us begin with a clip
YALE Well, I'm not a saint, okay?
IKE (Gesturing, almost hitting the skeleton) But you—but you're too easy on yourself, don't you see that?! You know, you ... you—that's your problem, that's your whole problem. You-you rationalize everything. You're not honest with yourself. You talk about . . . you wanna—you wanna write a book, but—but, in the end, you'd rather buy the Porsche, you know, or you cheat a little bit on Emily, and you play around the truth a little with me, and—and the next thing you know, you're in front of a Senate committee and you're naming names! You're informing on your friends!
YALE (Reacting) You are so self-righteous, you know. I mean, we're just people, we're just human beings, you know. You think you're God!
IKE I—I gotta model myself after someone!
YALE Well, you just can't live the way you do, you know. It's all so perfect.
IKE: Jesus—well, what are future generations gonna say about us? My God! (He points to the skeleton, acknowledging it at last) You know, someday we're gonna—we're gonna be like him! I mean, y-y-y-y-you know—well, he was probably one of the beautiful people. He was probably dancing and playing tennis and everything. And—and— (Pointing to the skeleton again) and now—well, this is what happens to us! You know, uh, it's very important to have—to have some kind of personal integrity. Y-you know, I'll—I'll be hanging in a class­room one day. And—and I wanna make sure when I ... thin out that I'm w-w-well thought off
Compare this to the following clips
Describe in three words the character played by Woody Allen.
So much for the art, what about the artist?
In August 1992, American filmmaker and actor Woody Allen was accused by his adoptive daughter Dylan Farrow, then aged seven, of having sexually molested her in the home of her adoptive mother, actress Mia Farrow, in Bridgewater, Connecticut. Allen has repeatedly denied the allegation.
When the allegation was made, Allen and Mia Farrow had been in a 12-year relationship and had three children together: two adopted, Dylan and Moses, and one biological, Satchel (now known as Ronan Farrow). The sexual abuse is alleged to have taken place eight months after Farrow learned that Allen had a romantic relationship with another of her adoptive daughters, Soon-Yi Previn, who married Allen in 1997; Previn was a first-year undergraduate and 21 years old when Farrow found out about the relationship. Allen alleged that the relationship prompted Farrow to concoct the molestation allegation as an act of vengeance. The Connecticut State's Attorney investigated the allegation but did not press charges. The Connecticut State Police referred Dylan to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale–New Haven Hospital, which concluded that Allen had not sexually abused Dylan and the allegation was likely coached or influenced by Mia Farrow. The New York Department of Social Services found "no credible evidence" to support the allegation.
After Allen married Soon-Yi Previn, the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn, Farrow commented, "He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression."[94]
Woody Allen has shaped the film industry in ways that will only be fully understood in retrospective.
But his moral character seems, at best, questionable and, at worst, that of a sexual predator.
How should we respond to brilliant-but-flawed artist and his work?
Possible responses to the question:
  1. Why bother with the question? You have to distinguish the ART from the ARTIST.
  2. It is wrong to mix! It is an ad hominen attack. Criticize the film, not the director and actor. Do not mix aesthethics with ethics.
  3. Maybe the moral character of the artist is in some way embedded in their art but it is only circumstantial, a minor element of the work and by no means matter to criticize the filmwork as a whole.
  4. Maybe the moral character of the artist is in some way embedded in their art but it can be fixed (or ignored) and thus does not affect the work of art.
  5. Maybe the moral character of the artist is in some way embedded in their art but people can make amends and thus save the work.
  6. Maybe the moral character of the artist is in some way embedded in their art and there is no way to make amends and thus save the work.
What do you think about this particular case? What do you think about similar cases like Weinstein (convicted) and Polanski (fugitive of the law)?

(In 1977, Polanski was arrested and charged with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. As a result of a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of unlawful sex with a minor. In 1978, after learning that the judge planned to reject his plea deal and impose a prison term instead of probation, he fled to Paris.)

(In October 2017, The New York Times and The New Yorker reported that dozens of women had accused Harvey Weinstein of rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse over a period of at least thirty years. Weinstein denied "any non-consensual sex". In February 2020, he was found guilty of rape in the third degree and a criminal sexual act. In March 2020, he was sentenced to 23 years of imprisonment.)

The philosophers

and with philosophers?

If you pick randomly a philosopher from the past, there is a strong chance you get to find racism, misogyny, aporophobia, and many other prejudices and biases that discriminate against minorities.
  1. Aristotle: thought that people could naturally be slaves and women are lesser versions of men.
  2. Descartes took animals to be machines.
  3. Kant: made racist remarks about the “perfection” of the white race and the ineptitude of the non-white races right up until his death
  4. Hume: “I am apt to suspect the negroes, and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites.
  5. Schopenhauer: “Women are suited to being the nurses and teacher of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’”
  6. Nietzsche: sick people are parasites on society
  7. Frege: antisemite
  8. Heidegger: nazi
  9. Sarte: womanizer
How should we respond to brilliant-but-flawed philosopher and his work?
Possible responses to the question:
  1. Why bother with the question? You have to distinguish the philosopher from the theory.
  2. It is wrong to mix! It is an ad hominen attack. Criticize the theory, not the philosopher. Do not mix philosophy with the persona life.
  3. Maybe the moral character of the philosopher is in some way embedded in their work but it is only circumstantial, a minor element of the theory and by no means matter to criticize it as a whole.
  4. Maybe the moral character of the philosopher is in some way embedded in their philosophy but it can be fixed (or ignored) and thus does not affect the work of art.
  5. Maybe the moral character of the artist is in some way embedded in their art but others can make amends and thus save the work.
What do you think about the case of the troubling views of philosophers?

The humans

What to do?

Acceptance: Take the Good, Ignore the Bad
Complete Dismissal: Boycott and Excommunication
Historical Apologism: Judge by Past Standards
Redemption: Using the Good to Defeat the Bad
What are you more inclined to do?

Cancel culture
vs
blissful ignorance

This is a false dilemma.

Next week