The morality of an artist has always been a subject of debate, particularly when it comes to assessing the legitimacy of their work in light of their political stances. In an era where artists' opinions are meticulously scrutinized, it is legitimate to ask whether art should be dissociated from the failings of its creator or if the creator’s morality should influence the perception of their work. Figures such as Richard Wagner, Wilhelm Furtwängler and Herbert von Karajan, whose creations left a mark on history while being associated with morally questionable positions, embody this complex issue.
The link between an artist's morality and the legitimacy of their art is a question that transcends the ages, fueling sometimes fierce debates about the role and place of art in our modern societies. At a time when artists' statements are scrutinized through the lens of morality, it is legitimate to wonder whether art should dissociate itself from the actions of its creator, or whether, on the contrary, the moral integrity of the artist should fundamentally affect the reception of their work. Some argue that an artist's moral failings – whether hateful statements or compromises with tyrannical regimes – should make their art inaudible, even invisible. According to this view, any work created by an individual who has made reprehensible statements carries within it a moral stain that hinders its appreciation as pure art. This perspective relies on a rather rigid conception of the relationship between the artist and their art, where one cannot be separated from the other. On the opposite side, others argue that there is a separation between the artist's morality and the value of their art. This position holds that the work escapes the personality and flaws of its creator, and can thus be appreciated independently of its creator.
Aesthetic Philosophy
Take the example of Richard Wagner (1813-1883). The German composer’s antisemitic writings – notably his pamphlet Das Judenthum in der Musik (“Judaism in Music”), in which he launches a virulent attack on what he perceives as the “Jewishness” of certain German composers – nourished the darkest hours of history as their principles tragically resonated with the ideological foundations of Nazism. However, his art profoundly influenced Western art music and continues to provoke intense debate among historians, philosophers and musicians. Did the Jewish writer Heinrich Heine, who was closely familiar with Wagnerian thought, not write that Wagner’s music, despite its beauty, carried within it the seed of hatred? Should we then ban his operas from concert stages and ignore the great lessons he offered on musical structure, narration and the evocative power of music? It seems difficult to overlook the greatness of his work, even if his reprehensible views cannot be minimized.
In this regard, many critics and historians remain divided: is it possible to separate the artist from their work and draw lessons from it, without legitimizing their prejudices? The argument in favor of separating art from the morality of the artist finds fertile ground in aesthetic philosophy, particularly in the reflections of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). For the German philosopher, art is not simply an individual production, but a form of thought that transcends the individual. A work of art, in this sense, is not subject to the ethical contingencies of the creator, it lives autonomously and exceeds the personal or moral motivations of its maker. This view helps us understand that art can retain all its expressive power, even if the man who produced it is morally detestable.
Immediate Morality
Historical examples abound to remind us of the complexity of this issue. Wilhelm Furtwängler (1886-1954) and Herbert von Karajan (1908-1989), two exceptional conductors, maintained close ties with the Third Reich. Their collaboration, or their compromise with it, is unquestionable. Yet, their musical legacies are undeniable. The question then arises once again: should we reject the entirety of their work and evaluate them solely based on their political failings? If we follow this logic, we would also have to dismiss the art of all those in the past who took morally questionable positions or compromised with detestable regimes. But that would amount to judging art through a lens that, ultimately, would weaken and impoverish our relationship to artistic history, by denying the contexts in which these creators evolved.
The artist can be a product of their time, influenced by their ideals, but the work of art they create offers a universal dimension, touching souls and consciences far beyond its creator. If we remove access to this work on the grounds of the creator's political affiliation, we commit a double error: on the one hand, we neglect the artistic and historical value of the work itself, and on the other hand, we risk condemning culture as a whole by reducing it to the morality of the moment. This thinking is hard to accept in the case of highly controversial figures, but it is essential if we want to preserve the richness of the cultural heritage. Art has the ability to survive its creators and, sometimes, to challenge them. Beyond immediate morality, it speaks to us about the human experience in its diversity and contradictions. And perhaps it is this confrontation that gives birth to the true meaning of the work.
Omnipresent Ethics
There is a temptation to subordinate art to an absolute moral imperative, especially in times when ethical questions are omnipresent. This leads us to judge a work according to contemporary criteria, in a simplistic and reductive manner, which could turn art into a mere reflection of the morality of the moment. But such judgment can only sterilize its essential function: its ability to open spaces for reflection, to question History and to transcend the flaws and limitations of the individual who created it. It is up to us to maintain this perspective and exercise discernment, while recognizing the moral and judicial responsibility of the creators of these works. Thus, these works must be judged for what they are, not for what their creator may have been. And if the artist’s statements are condemnable by law, let them be judged as acts of the individual, but let the artist and their work be preserved. It is high time to return to art what belongs to art, by freeing it from human failings so that it may endure in its immutable splendor.
Comments