Mel Gibson has an impressive career, ranging from extensive acting and directing roles alike. Over the years, he has accrued 41 awards, including two Oscars.
Despite his wide array of accolades, he has also been under fire for antisemitic comments. Should society disregard the success of artists and creators like Gibson because of their personal opinions and actions?
Some say you should burn your commemorative shirts, smash your disks to bits and post the trendy new hashtag. Or perhaps, take a step back and examine what you liked so much about the creation in the first place.
For many people, the selling point to a creation is the work itself, not the creator. The auteur theory challenges the notion by saying art is deeply connected to the artist. The idea isn’t too controversial: everything we do has foundation in our environments, our experiences and our worldview.
Creative artists have a stereotype stating the best creators are crazy. A study from the European Journal of Social Psychology validates the concept.
In the study, subjects had to look at a piece of art. One group was told about the artist’s eccentric background. The study found the group who knew the zany backstory held higher the art in higher regard.
A fine model for the theory is filmmaker Quentin Tarantino. The director’s work is a genre on its own, known for whacky but consistent settings, absurd storylines and pulp characters believable only in their own world.
Tarantino himself is no stranger to controversy. His films are jam-packed with violence, sexual misconduct and foul speech. True to the theory, fans laud the man’s psychotic films as being so wonderfully Tarantino.
Recently, “Kill Bill” star Uma Thurman put Tarantino in the spotlight for abuse on set. The actress says Tarantino spit on her, choked her with a chain and had her drive a dangerously modified car for scenes in the film.
The director claimed he wanted the scenes to look and feel real, and therefore refused to use stunt doubles or special effects. Many directors favor this method, but Tarantino should have known better given the violent nature of his films.
Tarantino deserves punishment for his actions, but his films do not. The artist and the art are intrinsically tied, but art and man ought to be judged on different terms.
Art is not sentient; it has no agency. It is meant to speak to a greater truth or universal question.
We cannot, therefore, rightfully dismiss a work’s value on account of a dishonorable creator. Burgeoning filmmaker Dee Rees agrees, suggesting we should “love the work first, and then be excited about the creator.”
It seems like a preemptive defense coming from a director, but her ideal is healthier than the alternative. If we lost faith in the art that drives us because the creator gets caught up in scandal, how much faith did we have in the art in the first place?
If a work is meaningful, the actions of fallible beings shouldn’t be able to sully it. When a band’s singer turns out to be a misogynist, does the worth of your favorite song change?
In many cases, we idolize artists because of their controversial work. Eminem’s psychotic ravings, Kanye West’s liberal ego stroking and Rage Against the Machine’s anti-authoritarian tirades are lauded for their fierce content.
Until now, Tarantino has more or less gotten a free pass for his whacky stories and vile characters. We’re not consistent on when something has crossed a line. Is it only when someone opens up as a victim? Or is it when we realize people are being hurt?
With so many variables, it’s hard to tell. What is clear, though, is art isn’t to blame.
We may get confused and not know where to put the blame, so we put it on both the creator and the creation. This misguided reaction serves only to tear down innocent creations in a modern witch hunt.
Kyle Richoux is a 19-year-old sociology sophomore from LaPlace, Louisiana.
