“Guernica,” the famous painting by Pablo Picasso in 1937, conveys a deep sense of anguish, horror, and protest against the brutality of war. It evokes intense and powerful emotions based on the vivid pain and suffering depicted. To this day, the tormented and distorted figures in Picasso’s painting highlight the devastating consequences of war and the resulting human suffering. “Guernica” is not only a reaction to a historical event but also a broader condemnation of violence because of the impact that it has on humanity. Many call Picasso the most influential artist of the 20th century.
Picasso was also a misogynist.
Throughout his life he abused women. He was also a cultural appropriator. As a result, many critics believe that his work should be taken down around the world since he hasn’t been held accountable for his disrespect towards society. But I think differently.
You don’t need to agree with or even respect the artist to appreciate the art. Whether or not Picasso actually believed what he depicted in Guernica, the artwork displays ideas and emotions that are central to world history and can teach younger generations about our past. It is enough to acknowledge the abhorrence that he’s done to his muses and those around him; we should not also rob younger generations of the opportunity to learn about his work. The ethical question of separating the creator from their creation prompts a call for a nuanced perspective. There is a nagging and persistent fear that appreciating the idea or quality of an artwork implicitly means that one ignores (or worse, supports) the flaws of its creator. That fear, though understandable, is unjustified and unwarranted. By avoiding the conflation of the artist with the art, we can preserve and appreciate diverse legacies for future generations.
Virtue, character, and good behavior are all admirable.
In a romantic partner.
If society were to suddenly get a morality attack and decide that the works of “bad people” — music, movies, sports, books, etc. — were to be outlawed, the world’s libraries would easily be halved. The “Rogues Gallery” of artists who were also abusers would be a veritable “Who’s Who” — a multidisciplinary Hall of Fame. Not just Picasso, but Alfred Hitchcock, Michael Jackson, Norman Mailer, Richard Wagner, and so many more.
Art is, generally, a multi-sensory delight. It satiates and stimulates our imagination, sometimes filling us with emotions like happiness when listening to “Billie Jean,” fear when watching “Psycho,” or sadness when seeing “Guernica.” Art is an expression of emotion and a way to appreciate life’s beauty. It’s a simple pleasure that I believe all generations should have, regardless of the face behind the piece. Seeing and enjoying, say, “Psycho” does not mean that I, or anyone, condones the way Hitchcock treated Janet Leigh or Vera Miles while shooting the movie. Seeing a movie about a misogynist does not make the viewer a misogynist too. Likewise, enjoying art made by a “bad person” does not make the audience “bad people.” Bad behavior is not contagious or a communicable disease. Just because one watches a Robert Downey Jr. from the ’00s doesn’t make them a drug addict.
We need to separate the wheat from the chaff. We need to remember that no one is perfect. We do not need to feel guilty about Woody Allen’s behavior to enjoy “Manhattan.” We are absolutely not condoning abuse of women because we are moved by the central motif of Guernica — that crying cow.
Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Let’s not rob future generations of immense artistic wealth. Let’s not second guess our own intelligence by conflating the artist with the art.
