julie's Path of Growth

Controversial books, those that challenge societal norms and provoke discussion have a long history in literature. As readers, we are drawn to stories that evoke a range of emotions, force us to question our beliefs, and prompt conversations that extend beyond the pages of the book. Personally, a book that makes me “feel” nothing is a book that I basically wasted my time with.

It was a year ago that I found myself delving into the infamous pages of Vladimir Nabokov’s “Lolita”, a novel so provocative that it became a symbol of controversy itself.

My journey with “Lolita” was a rollercoaster ride to say at least. The discomfort I felt and the lingering questions that bothered me after finishing the read became something that finally made me pick up my computer today to write a blog post one year later.

What began with the discomfort of “Lolita” evolved into a broader question on how we consume controversial literature and furthermore, how we challenge it.

In a world and time where comfort often triumphs over intentional challenge while choosing our next read. One can find immense value in gaining new a perspective by leaving the intellectual comfort zone. Other positive examples of reading controversial literature could be:

• being confronted with societal taboos
• forcing us to engage with complex topics

While we have discussed the widely positive aspects of consuming said literature I also want to shed light on a different debate. “Should we separate the art from the artist? Yes or No?”

It is a very complex and subjective matter that was just recently debated in Austrian media following the accusations of a rather well-known provocative metal band’s lead singer.

I first want to list a few approaches on how different individuals and communities have stated their approach on how to engage with the works of artists or authors who have displayed morally or ethically questionable behavior.

Separation of Artist and Art: Some argue that it is possible, and even necessary, to separate the artist from their work. They say that an artist’s creation should be appreciated on its own merit, regardless of what said artist says or does in his personal life.

This allows people to enjoy and engage with the art without letting the perceived flaws of the creator spoil it for them.

• Example: Picasso, known for his groundbreaking art, had a tumultuous personal life. Advocates of separating the artist from the art might argue that Picasso’s art can be appreciated independently of his personal shortcomings.

Contextualization and Critique: Another POV is that you should acknowledge the artist’s actions. People with this strategy argue that it is necessary to place the work in its historical or cultural context. This approach involves recognizing the flaws of the artist while understanding the societal conditions that may have influenced their behavior.

It allows for a nuanced appreciation of the art while not ignoring the problematic aspects of the artist’s life.

• Example: T.S. Eliot, a renowned poet, had views that are now considered prejudiced. Critics might acknowledge his flaws while analyzing his work within the context of his time.

Boycott and Moral Stance: Some individuals also choose to boycott the work of artists who have engaged in morally objectionable behavior as a form of protest. This approach is based on the belief that supporting the artist’s work is a tacit endorsement of their actions.

It reflects a moral stance that prioritizes personal values over artistic appreciation.

• Example: Boycotting the work of an author who has been convicted of a crime might be seen as a way of expressing disapproval of their actions

Reevaluation and Evolution: Lastly, there is a perspective that involves recognizing that individuals can change over time. Some argue that artists should be given the opportunity to learn and grow and that their later works might reflect a different perspective. This view allows for the possibility of redemption and personal growth.

• Example: If an artist has made amends or actively worked towards positive change, some might argue that their later works should be evaluated separately.

Note from the author: I’d like to think that we could go with reevaluation and evolution. Sadly, personal growth and change are not easy, so what I often see is that artists don’t even apologize for their behavior or accept the consequences. Which makes an evolution near impossible.

In essence, the decision to separate the artist from the art is a personal one and can depend on factors such as the nature of the artist’s actions, the impact of their work, and individual values.

It’s really difficult to decide on one single strategy – and I would even argue nearly impossible. People may navigate this complexity differently based on their beliefs, and experiences.

What strategy do you use for yourself when confronted with controversial literature/art? What was a piece of literature that you came across, that sparked such thoughts/debates?

I’d love to hear your thoughts!