Must we separate the art from the artist?

I'm back, Cinebloggers ꨄ︎

What I'll be delving into today is what I'll call: The Buffalo '66 Dilemma: Ethics vs. Aesthetic Autonomy

Three years ago, I was a freshman and I'd also watched Buffalo '66 for the first time. It's a favorite film of mine, I could make a whole other post about why it's not just Stockholm Syndrome and how that aspect is not the "point." But having watched it for the first time also meant I learnt about the director, Vincent Gallo (a controversial man) for the first time. I discussed it with my friend in school (main topic of discussion: should we separate the art and the artist? Looking at Buffalo '66 as a model) and it evoke this feeling in me... I was one to separate the two, she was not. So after that heated debate, I wrote it all out. Some fragments of this are quoted or directly from the original note I dug up. Here we go...

I called art consumption a "silly thing." And there's different perspectives to this, it can be very nuanced. To what extent is separating the art and artist valid? 

So about Buffalo '66, it has and most-likely continues to receive backlash for being supposedly a misogynistic film. And who is in control of that? Vincent Gallo. He is a creative genius in a bad man's body. A filmmaker, actor, composer, ex-professional motorcyclist etc. In the making of it, he was said to have been hostile and erratic towards Christina Ricci (girl on the right), his co-star. His reputation was not formed entirely with Buffalo '66, but it solidified for many with his 2003 film The Brown Bunny... which was highly controversial for it's unsimulated, explicit scene starring Chloe Sevigny. So do you see this dilemma? It's hard to choose whether or not to love a film and be scrutinized or to mislead your heart and be accepted. 

The two can co-exist like most things in the universe. 

My friend believed that watching something without prior knowledge of the cast/director involved, enjoying it, then finding out "would cloud her mind to make her therefore dislike the film."

What I kept coming back to was this:

"Emotional reactions to art are valid but can coexist with an appreciation of aesthetic merit beyond morality."

You know by now, right? Vincent Gallo is notably controversial in narcissistic ways, but during that time... I may have blurred the lines. I believed there to be a "flaw" in what she claimed, and I quote, "To judge any work of art based on personal integrity, is most definitely not wrong but there is a flaw." Yeah, I said that. And I meant it then. The idea I pushed: 

"If you had never seen a film or an art piece or read a period piece, impactful novel of any sort that is instilled into modern culture and then took time to view it, loved it, and gave it a good review, but later came to find out that the artist, the creator of such impeccable work was truly a terrible terrible human, would you lower ur review and tell your conscience that it simply is a terrible work of art, that it is wrong, that it is unworthy of praise…all because you are conflicted with the personal choices of an artist?"

[Inner thought: It's a crazy thing! We want to play devil's advocate in our minds sometimes but that in itself can be flawed. If you're reading this, never, ever, limit yourself to one opinion, one view, one anything. Trust me, there is more beyond what you believe, there will always be something far more logical, far better, maybe even more suited towards you. Growth starts there.]

Christina Ricci, Buffalo '66 (1998)

So I'll be brief... there's this principle—aesthetic autonomy—that suggests that art should be interpreted independently apart from the artist’s personal life, intentions, or actions. And that's what I kept coming back to with Buffalo '66. Vincent Gallo is not in the good eye of the public. But he made something that, to me, is a masterpiece—one of the very interesting and real representations I've seen of how trauma shapes a person. 

Not to mention this isn't just a Gallo problem. It comes up with Tarantino, with Nolan, with anyone whose work we love and whose life we question. Aside from Gallo, there are other examples of this type of separation of art/artist: 

- Pablo Picasso, a sculptor/painter, notable for his major influence on 20th century art: abusive, mistreatment of his wives
            (taught in general curriculum worldwide)

- Roman Polanski, film maker, notable for Chinatown and The Pianist: sexual assault convictions 
            (still studied and taught in many university-level film and cinema courses)

Vincent Gallo in Basquiat's band Gray, 1980

Can I say Buffalo '66 should be appreciated for its cinematography, storytelling, performances, and emotional resonance, separate from the moral lens which its themes might be judged? Gallo is without a doubt hard to support. His films are simply a preference. 

Three years later and I'm not sure I'm so adamant on my freshman views anymore. So must we separate the art from the artist? I still haven't fully decided for myself. Ok! Until next time...

M.S.
The Cineblog ringleader