Ph.TSD, Or, Separating the Artist from the Art...Or Not

Yr. Hmbl. Scribe coins yet another term that is sure not to catch on: Ph.TSD = "photographer traumatic stress disorder."  This seems to be what I suffer from sometimes when I worry about the character and conduct of a photographer whose work I want to discuss or recommend.

I thought of this again the other day because, pursuant to our discussions of color photography last week, I was going to put together a mini-portfolio of pictures that I consider to be "real" color photographs. I decided I couldn't risk trying to present the actual pictures here on my site—rights holders have become very stingy with any use of their images in static presentations online, the opposite of the way it used to be. So I was going to find images that I could link to. I have a visual memory, and visuals often come to mind before anything else. One of the photographs that lazily came to mind in that context was one by David Alan Harvey.

But Harvey, as you might know, was outed as a sexual predator in a long and carefully researched article by Kristen Chick called "Magnum's moment of reckoning" that was published at the Columbia Journalism Review. It's a long article but instructive and worth reading. It eventually led to Harvey being the first and only photographer ever to be kicked out of the Magnum Photo cooperative. Technically he resigned before he could be kicked out, but that was a preemptive manipulation—it was highly likely that his removal was imminent.

I like photography for a lot of reasons, but one thing I really don't like about photography is that it can serve as a cloak or a screen for sexual predators...and worse. Apart from Harvey, the poster child for who you do not want to be, there's Nick Nixon, famous for his annual portraits of his wife and her three sisters over the course of decades. Nixon was revealed by a Boston Globe investigation in 2018 to be preying on students, engaging in highly inappropriate behavior, and misusing his teaching position for sexual harassment. He "retired" in disgrace and his last exhibit was cancelled. Although he has not been convicted of a crime, the situation casts a retrospective pall over his life's work. Another is the execrable Terry Richardson, who used to sexually abuse hired models. Although he has also not been convicted of a crime, "In 2017, due to the allegations of Richardson's sexual misconduct, many fashion brands and fashion magazines decided to no longer commission his work, including Valentino, Bulgari, and the Condé Nast magazines: Vogue, Glamour, Wired, Vanity Fair, and GQ. Following the professional repercussions, he has not actively worked since 2018." (Quotation from Wikipedia.)

At another level altogether are rapists, murderers, and serial killers who use photography as part of their schemes to entrap their victims. The litany of exemplars is too awful to rehearse, but the worst example who can stand for the others is perhaps the "Dating Game" killer, Rodney Alcala, a stone-cold psychopath who was convicted of five rape-murders but might have committed as many as 130. He lured both young women and young men to photo shoots, and entrapped and tortured victims as young as eight. (Although he "won" his notorious 1978 appearance on the TV show "The Dating Game," the winner refused to go on the date with him because she found him "creepy." That's the understatement of the century, but definitely good instincts on her part.) After his convictions, 120 of his photographs were circulated to the public (900 more could not be released because they were too sexually explicit), and "at least six" families came forward to identify loved ones who had disappeared.

(Just as an aside, humanity badly needs to work out an effective legal way to identify and stop psychopathic killers, similar to the way that the RICO act allowed law enforcement to counter the activities of organized crime. I don't know what this would look like, but there is certainly an urgent public safety mandate at stake.)

Anyway, all of this is an issue for me when I blithely poke around the Internet looking for interesting pictures. I knew about Harvey and one of his pictures came to mind anyway, although, fortunately, I recalled the scandal involving him before linking to a picture of his. I'm reminded of a friend of mine, a top lawyer, who told me once that he had to charge $5,000 to write a letter. I asked him how that was even possible, and he replied that he had to know the deep story before he would know what and what not to say in any letter. It's not so Draconian in my case, but it's something that does worry me. I don't want to brightly point out a website or a nice portfolio or some outstanding picture or other without knowing some functional minimum about the person who made it.

How do you feel about "separating the artist from the art"? I would say I have low demands of artists as people—the art matters, and it can still matter even if the artist was very far from an ideal human being. And I know that ethical standards change over time, so I don't require that historical personages conform to current ideas about morality (I don't even agree with all the current ideas about morality). Condemning Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because Twain used the N-word in the 1884 book is asinine* in my opinion. Asking that a person be a great artist and also a great guy or gal that you'd leave your children with and love to have a beer with is simply asking too much. The proof is in the inverse; many of the very best human beings I know happen to be artists...but their art sometimes stinks. (No, it's not fair.) Many good and great artists, on the other hand, are far from good people. In some cases that's part of the wellspring of their art.

But there are also cases where I just can't separate my feelings about the person from the art. I will never care a whit about Salvador Dali, never look at or recommend Joel Peter Witkin, and so on. (I don't even want to name more of them here, as if the very mention of the names sullies the page.) Others are further into a gray area. It helps that I always thought Terry Richardson sucked as a photographer—I had no interest in his work even before learning what a jerk he is. But Nick Nixon was someone I admired. I heard him speak when I was a student, have seen many of his originals (even owned one once, thanks to Keith Canham!), and followed his work through the years. I thought there were some things about his life, work, and career that were instructive and illuminating for photographers to know about and consider. Will I ever look at his work the same way again? Or even look at it again? Probably not. At least, not the way I feel about him now. But, if I'm being honest, I'm just not sure.

Mike

*I once got into a long discussion with a feminist friend because a character in a short story I wrote referred to a grown woman as a girl. My friend's feeling was that as the author of the story I controlled my characters and had an obligation to make them use currently acceptable terminology. My feeling was that I was writing a character, and if the character was one who would call a woman a girl, then that's what I should have the character do. Surprisingly, we were not able to resolve the argument.

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Andrew V: "There is an excellent recent book called Monsters: A Fan's Dilemma by Claire Dederer that deals with this topic. I learned of it through Joerg Colberg's blog. It is a great piece of writing with a thoughtful and careful approach to the issue."

Lothar Adler: "I think the discussion at hand (art vs. artist) is too narrowly defined and that is what creates this problem. The actual underlying topic is the purpose of art to explore and celebrate human nature and conditions of being, to the extent we can recognize and tolerate, depending on our intellect and mental durability!

"In this discussion group, with all due respect to all persons involved, it is probably a very bourgeois view of human nature, which is also further restricted by the cultural sphere, the zeitgeist, 'good taste,' moral and political correctness.

"In consequence only 'decent' people who stick to the current rules would be allowed to create artistic products and only these products could be consumed without feeling guilty. The image of an armchair, a coffee table with photo books and a landlord in a knitted vest comes to mind. If art is the creative expression and creative exploration of human nature and human conditions, then all of this has to be much more broadly defined and permitted, otherwise we are only talking about crafts and decorations."

Ken: "I think it may be easier to separate the art from the artist if there is a distance involved between the artist and the viewer, whether that distance is temporal, spatial, or in terms of the art's appeal. E.g., I find it a lot easier to be critical of artists whose work doesn't appeal to me to begin with, regardless of whether the 'art' involves photography, painting, sculpture, music, literature, or another medium. It is also easier for me to be more critical of western artists (I live in the U.S.), those who were actually convicted of crimes, and those whose crimes were closer to the present time. On the other hand, I would have a difficult time getting worked up about the alleged crimes or misdeeds of Caravaggio, Gauguin, or Renoir, to use three examples. Those artists were far enough in the past (and I like their work enough) that I have no problem separating the art from the artist. Maybe that's all just my long-winded way of saying, it depends."

Comments

[Albert Smith]

This is always a touchy subject. There is a musician, Gary Glitter who is a confirmed pedophile that has been arrested multiple times in countries that are less restrictive on adults using minors for, well you know. Yet all is forgiven by sports teams that love his song, "Rock And Roll Part 2" and use it in arenas for games. These people are probably the same ones that wanted to execute the Dixie Chicks for simply stating an opinion that offended the right wing. You have to love hypocrisy.

I was a fan of Harvey for a long time and have his book, "Cuba" which was a darling on the Leica sites 20 years ago. There is not a single image in that book that even hints at anything inappropriate, so I don't think I'd conduct a book burning. But it's hard to ignore the information about his behavior so I doubt I'll be adding any more Harvey books.

This is a hard topic. If a doctor developed a lifesaving procedure that aided thousands of people and was subsequently found to have participated in activities that offended society, would we scrub the medical world of his discovery?

[Dave Levingston]

You don’t have to be an asshole to be a great artist, but it does help.

[robert e]

100 percent agree with you about the difference between fictional characters and authorial parrots.

About artists, I think we each have our bright lines and fuzzy lines, some reasoned, some emotional or instinctive. And I think it is reasonable to weigh historical and cultural context. Individual artists are the easy cases, though. What about, say, movies produced by Harvey Weinstein? His execrable behavior stains much fine work by numerous artists and craftspeople, and a legacy of succeeding in a highly commercialized industry by championing art over cookie-cutter products. And we all know he wasn't the first abuser-producer (though hopefully the last of a breed). Historically, some horrid people made possible large chunks of our cultural heritage, even if they didn't make it with their own hands.

To connect this to another recent topic, if I even want to dabble in generative AI, how do I treat the exploitation of artists and third-world labor; the enormous financial investment and interests; the massive energy consumption; all the questionable things that made and make these tools possible? (Never mind the questionable use cases.) What about the cynical and irresponsible marketing? Is it valid to equate the possibly commensurate social costs of previous photographic tools and products? At what point does modernizing our expectations or allowing for historical context become "moving the goalposts" (in either direction) or simply excuses?

[John Camp]

I've reached the conclusion that most of the very best artists are deranged. Not always criminally so, but many are a couple cans short of a six-pack, by most of our standards. And I think that's because the best of them are so focused on -- obsessed by -- their work that they simply are not socialized. Show me a fully socialized artist and I will show you one that will soon be forgotten.

And because they are not socialized, but still need some products of socialization -- like sex -- they handle the need poorly and sometimes criminally. (Van Gogh, Gauguin, Picasso.) I've often tabbed certain photographers as people who got into the profession for access to sex or sexual situations. The British photographer David Hamilton committed suicide after several rape accusations were brought against him by models. One of them was 13 at the time of the alleged rape. If you ever looked at Hamilton's work -- nude photos of young girls -- you wonder how he was allowed to go on as long as he did, since the psychopathy was fairly obvious.

I do separate the artist from his work. Gauguin is one of my very favorite artists, but if he was working today he'd be considered a sexual predator. (Though perhaps not in the context of when and where he was.)

And that whole thing about "girls" and "women" -- in my experience, "girls" is often used as an affectionate diminutive, the same way women say, "Oh, he's out with the boys." Life is too short to argue about it.

[Matthew]

I'm glad to see this. Because when I read "I like photography for a lot of reasons, but one thing I really don't like about photography is that it can serve as a cloak or a screen for sexual predators...and worse." I was immediately reminded of a previous post, about using a camera to take revealing photos without a subject's knowledge or consent. https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2020/01/if-there-was-ever-a-cartoon-for-top-readers.html

Actually, the post was about "tee-hee!", with the non-consensual acts being the punchline.

[Henry White]

Caravaggio. Murderer, painter. Toss his canvases now? Or separate the artist from the work and understand the value they brought to the art world? Some of the best and most exciting art seems to be made by people closer to the edge of the envelope than the mainstream would like to know.

Just how deep should we be digging into everyone's past? Is it relevant? I think we should be judging works (novels, painting, photography) separately from their creators. It's far too slippery a slope to vet the creator of every piece of art we might currently like.

By the way, I don't like Terry Richardson's work either...

Asking for a friend, "Having never been arrested, divorced, bankrupt, voted for fascism, or even had a library book overdue, should my work be judged by much less rigorous standards? Will an untarnished social record increase the value of my work? Where do I sign up?"

[hugh crawford]

Well one of my favorite photographers is Caravaggio.
It is generally accepted that he was using some sort of a camera, but not film and today’s photographers are using cameras, but not films so I say he’s a photographer.

Before I pushed the post button, I thought maybe I should do a quick Google if I’m going to post something provocative, and look at this https://amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/mar/11/caravaggio-art-studio-photography-first

Apparently, I’ve become more mainstream in my old age.

[Robert Roaldi]

There are probably lots of people, more than we care to imagine, who gave us useful things but with whom we would not want to be associated. You think those captains of industry were nice guys because they left behind some libraries? But we do single out cases of sexual exploitation of minors for extra special treatment, understandably so. I do find it a bit hard to swallow that the fashion industry take a dim view of a particular photographer, given their historic excesses.

Do you separate art from artists? In Weinstein's case it's easy to do so. He was an exec producer, one of probably dozens of suits involved in film productions, and shunning movies because of his involvement seems beside the point. You'd be throwing away the work of numerous others at the same time, which would not be fair to them. Although it sounded to me at the time that his behaviour came as no surprise to a lot of people, and I don't know what to do with that.

(As an aside, when Trump's day in the sun is done, I wonder how many former "followers" will come out against him.)

Woody Allen's case is interesting. The word "incest" was bandied about at the time. I read a more sane article a couple of years ago about the situation. He and his wife were already living apart at the time that the 16 year old girl went to live with his ex. He was never in any sense her father. They met when she was 21 and she seemed to have her head screwed on right despite what might look like a young age. They're still together. So you have to be a little careful what you read in the popular press and especially in social media.

I recently listened to a multi-part "Canadaland" documentary about minor league hockey in the Toronto junior leagues. The widespread exploitation of young males, including sexual exploitation, is enough to turn you off hockey. Can you separate the winning record of a coach because he/she was a predator?

Maybe in some sensitive situations minors need chaperones. Maybe children should not ever be put into some situations.

[Benjamin Marks]

Mike, this is a vast subject. Book worthy. And none of us has it figured out. But here are some observations.

In my view, the function of art is to take one out of one's self. Once the biography of the artist reaches a certain pitch, that is no longer possible. Still, it is hard to discuss this in anything other than generalities.

We are often protected by our ignorance about artists' personal lives in our enjoyment of their art. So we will never know, for instance, how Wm. Shakespeare treated the women in his life ("second best bed" nothwithstanding) despite his having created some of the most memorable female characters for the stage. But we know perhaps too much about the personal choices of artists who are nearer to us in time, such as Picasso or Roald Dahl or the photographers you mentioned in your post. There have always been artists who were "mad, bad, and dangerous to know."

In some cases though, one might decide that one doesn't want to support an artist, regardless of his art: R. Kelly comes to mind.

There is a distinctly generational slant to this: my 20-somethings have a much harder time getting to the art of artists who behave in ways they find morally unacceptable (I am looking at you, J.K.Rowling). But true to my generation, I can't help feeling that we don't actually want to live in a world where only artists of whom we socially approve have a voice, regardless of what we say, or the moral qualms we may actually feel. We want to be thrilled, or transported from our daily lives because. . . . well, because the expression and consumption of art is part of what makes us uniquely human.

Consider too that much art (nearly all film, theater, and dance, for instance) is essentially collaborative. If we did want to link our moral judgments and our consumption of art, how far down in the creative food chain would we be prepared to go in our demand for moral purity? If the gaffer and best boy on Star Wars don't meet our personal moral test, are we prepared to abandon the joy that film gave us when we first watched it? I think not. I say this because if the result of this thought-experiment is "true" (rather than "false" as I maintain) aren't we in the odd position of parsing how central to a work the offender is before getting out our torches and pitchforks? So if the director is evil, we aren't interested in what he has to say, but if the head of make up or costumes (or the lead actor) is mad or bad, we don't care? Absurd result.

Consider too how many artists were "bad" in their own eras, only to have their "sins" rehabilitated as mores changed. So Leonard Bernstein, Freida Khalo, Emily Dickinson, Robert Rauchenberg etc., etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam, may have sinned by the mores of 1950 but are at no risk in later decades once society changed (in part, at least, _because_ of them).

I don't think that the current social media focus on this reflects reality, or a deeply considered ethical position, all that well. I think that we have been dabbling with the strong medicine of an "outrage machine" that is driven by, and feeds, social media algorithms, without considering the broader consequences. But moral panics were ever thus.

Here is the struggle though: I am happy that Harvey Weinstein and R. Kelly are being punished for their crimes, and wouldn't want it any other way.

[Stan B.]

I had long ago learned to separate the artist from their art- sometimes we just have to think... Hey, be happy the lowlife, scumbag, person of 'dubious reputation' can at least do something worthwhile and life affirming! But it certainly feels different when the guy is not only a jerk- but an out and out predator, or worse. When you mentioned Nixon I actually felt a kinda relief when I thought that maybe (just maybe) I had confused him with Thomas Roma who I particularly like(d). Oh, well... Yeah, at least the art remains.

[Richard Man]

I took a workshop with DAH in 2011 or so, and followed on social media since then. FWIW, he still maintains he's innocent. I have a conflicted feeling about it. Art wise, he is one of the greatest color photographers...

[Dave Jenkins]

If we are honest with ourselves we have to admit that we are all sinners. First stones, anyone?

[Gary Merken]

This is a difficult subject, and not one confined to photography.

Someone mentioned Woody Allen in the comments, and whether or not he was wrong to have married the adopted daughter of his former girlfriend Mia Farrow. Does that outweigh the decades of comedy, theater, filmmaking, book writing, and jazz clarinet playing?

Should Richard Wagner's operas be performed in light of his virulent antisemitism?

Should recordings of conductor Herbert von Karajan, or soprano Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, be banned from the radio because both joined the Nazi Party?

Arguments could be made both ways, even in light of the fact these four examples left behind (or in the case of Woody Allen, who is still active, will leave behind) substantial bodies of superior work.

[Bear.]

Unfortunately, our present society has become so touchy that’s it’s not possible to have a sensible discussion on the topic without someone becoming upset. What bothers me about it is that if we can’t discuss anything historical because our present morals - rightly or wrongly- are offended, then we can’t learn from past errors. If the history and memory is the erased, the prospect of returning to and repeating our errors increases…

[Kye Wood]

Your friend who thinks that all fictional characters in your book need to be politically correct is... quite frightening in an Orwellian way.

Ignore her at all costs.

[Joseph L. Kashi]

I'm really glad that you started this discussion and have encouraged very good comments while keeping an inherently volatile subject under good, civil control.

Several commenters have made excellent points and at some basic level, there's probably a broad consensus that at some point or other, a person may appropriately decide to avoid the work of a particularly odious individual.

However, where each person draws that line, and upon what level of evidence and misconduct, is, and should be, a personal decision, at least in a democracy.

While one commenter compared avoidance to be evidence of a bourgeois mentality, we do need to consider that banning or avoiding artists can work in both directions, when a supposedly progressive society / country bans work considered to be bourgeois and reactionary, i.e., subversive to their views.

For example, Ai WeiWei is now banned from China. Solzhenitzen and Pasternak were not allowed out of the Soviet Union to accept their Nobel Prizes in Literature due to their views.

Some really odious behavior by prominent photographers has been well-established, beyond fair doubt, and it's probably good business sense for the advertisers to stop using them, if for no other reason than avoiding a consumer backlash.

On the other hand, shunning someone because of mere accusation is unfair. In our supercharged times, inaccurate accusations are made for ulterior reasons on occasion, sometimes simply due to misunderstanding or a poorly phrased remark.

I've seen that occur from time to time in 45+ years of trial law practice. When it occurs, the accused has usually lost a great deal in the end and never really recovers fully.

There's an old maxim in journalism that the correction never quite catches up with the original erroneous story. That's particularly true in our Internet era, when scurrilous rumor spreads across the globe at the speed of light.

Leonardo reputedly thought women useful only for sexual and reproductive purposes, yet the Mona Lisa is one of the first sensitive portraits of a woman.

[ChrisC]

Whilst I dislike the way it messes with the flow of the reading, this article could do with a big dose of “allegedly”.

[Christopher Perez]

I used to think that history could wash away all "sins". But then I had to remember Dali and Franco. Picasso's case is well known. What about Michelangelo? And recently there was a kerfuffle in the US around Renoir and his nudes. Or the French Republic until just a couple years ago ignoring the fabulous portraits by Vigee leBrun because she is still closely associated with l'ancien régime. I'm now of the thought that all art viewed by the public is political/cultural/social and subject to the context viewers live in.

[Rob Brodman]

Well thats a bummer. I have always been enthralled by Nicolas Nixon's work. completely looked by someone using an 8x10 candidly. Amazing. Shame he took advantage of a situation and I'm not sure how to feel about him as I don't know him personally. I will still be in awe of his art if only for his dedication and commitment to following muse.

[Bob G.]

Wow… a lot of interesting and intelligent notes on the artist/art issue. Most are well thought out and offer some pathways to understanding it. I think lot of us have come upon these conflicts throughout our lives. Worth the reads, especially from photographers…

[KeithB]

There is also Lewis Carrol's penchant for photographing nude children:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Carroll

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Some of the examples are easily disposed of, at least to my satisfaction; for example a gaffer working a movie isn't the artist in any meaningful sense, they're a craftsman working at the direction of others. Any criminal or moral trespasses in their private life don't splash onto the movie.

A director, a cinematographer, a writer, they have much more connection to the movie.

And a producer is one of the messier cases; very prominently connected, but how much artistically connected? At one level, a producer decided the film would get produced! But they don't have that much detail input generally.

I find myself personally unconcerned by murders committed in the 17th century, so far as tainting art is concerned.

[Jeff1000]

This topic reminds me of situations I continually encounter at work, and in life, generally. When I’m in situations where I need a service performed, for example waiting in line to have paperwork processed at a shipper or a receiver, or just performing the ordinary tasks of daily life that require that a service be executed for me, I’ve noticed that the person performing the service will make a quick assessment of me as a person and then treat me either fairly or poorly based on that assessment. My reaction is usually just muttering under my breath, “You don’t have to like me. Just do your job!”

I believe that when consuming a piece of art it is our duty as consumers to appreciate or reject a piece of art based on its own merits, just the work of art itself. In other words, you don’t have to like the artist. Just do your job!