Benefit of Clergy: Artists and Society's Responsibility to Them

Okay, we were just talking about this is one of my classes and I was shocked at the diversity of opinion. Just thought it might make an interesting discussion topic.

For those of you who don't read Orwell (shame! ), Benefit of Clergy refers to the belief that artists answer to a higher responsibility than others in society.

Dali is used heavily by Orwell to indicate this mentality. In Dali's autobiography, he speaks about various atrocities he committed in his life, such as kicking his two year old sister in the head and tossing a boy off a ravine when he was under ten and trampling a pre-teen girl when he was in his twenties.

This is obviously a bit extreme, but the idea has come down through the years. In various persons.

A few examples, ranging from the extreme to the simply irritating:

Roman Polanski--(directed Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, Revulsion, The Tenant, etc) improper sexual conduct with a minor.

Alec Baldwin--(actor, Glengarry Glen Ross, Malice, etc) claimed he would leave the country if the president of his choice wasn't elected.

D.W. Griffiths--(directed Intolerance, The Vanishing American, The Birth of a Nation) racist who believed that the Ku Klux Klan was sent from God to the post-war South.

Paul Gaugin--(painter, Who Are We, Where Do We Come From, Where Are We Going?, etc) quit his job, left his wife and children to move to Tahiti to paint.

Salvador Dali--(painter, The Resistance of Memory, The Lugubrious Game, etc.) various atrocities against mankind.

Emile Nolda--(painter, Christ Among the Children, Christ and the Adulteress, The Crucifixion, etc.) prominant Nazi party member who backed Hitler for many years.

So, what do you say? Do we allow people their quirks if they can create something that will survive for centuries? If they are masters of their art, do we allow them anti-social tendencies? If yes, where do we draw the line?

 

While I can't think of any examples as extreme as the ones you've posted, I can sympathize with some of the more "everyday" anti-social behavior exhibited by some celebrities.

Some of these people have their entire lives photographed, and they face a barrage of questions and admirers everywhere they go. While I'm not condoning some of the harsher responses (i.e. Sean Penn beating the hell out of a photographer), I can see how easy it is for some of them to get so riled up at the presence of the press. Maybe if we didn't put these people on pedastals, they wouldn't act out in such rash ways.

But as for the Baldwin thing...that's just an ego trip on Alec's part. You'll notice that G.W. is President and ol' Alec is still here.

 

Aw, Rogue, how could you leave out the Wood man?

~PAd

 

Do we allow people their quirks if they can create something that will survive for centuries?

I really don't say we ourselves allow it, but society in general takes it and accepts it. Not everyone agrees with what these people did, but everyone has their flaws (even if some of them are radical in their thought process). As a society, more things are acceptable compared to a single person. The accepted views and beliefs are watered out in society, due to the ones that range through our society.

Of course, you also must understand that art is art. Unless the painting, sculpture or music piece is related to the acts and atrocities commited by these artists, then the work has no reason to be frowned upon by society. Therefore, it stays in our minds and we're quick to forget the wrongs that people did. As it seems, once a person is gone, their acts are forgotten and their works aren't. Or so it seems.

If they are masters of their art, do we allow them anti-social tendencies?

As I said above, as long as the people produce a work that can test time, not many people worry nor care about the actions of artists. All most people want are something they can enjoy for their days. If we were to draw a line because of anti-social tendencies, there would be far less works that society accepted. And of course, you'd have the issue of discrimination, also.