I've been struggling with something for a number of months. I am not alone in this struggle. There are many of us trying to figure out what to do. Our shared problem...is Morrissey. We have given him the benefit of the doubt and cut him slack when he said he was misquoted or something was lost in translation. From downplaying #metoo to victim blaming Kevin Spacey's accuser (which forced a newspaper to release audio of the conversation to prove he wasn't misquoted) we are left in no doubt how he feels on a lot of topics. Over the course of his career he is renowned for being contentious. But his statements and actions of the last couple of years are at odds with our own personal beliefs. He has worn a For Britain badge when performing on tv and even posted on his own website scoffing at the idea of 'white privillidge' dubbing it racist.
The Smiths meant so much to so many people. Their lyrics and music spoke to the outsider, the underdog, the insecure introverts. Bookish types who liked wearing black. A mix of poetry and politics. Morrissey in the late 80s showed a different way of being male, a new masculine that hurled gladioli around the stage, wore cardigans, draped himself over guitarist Johnny Marr, was vegetarian and a vocal animal rights supporter and tore off his shirt on stage. A fluid sexuality; not defined and not static. At times almost asexual. The Smiths formed in the shadow of the Thatcher government, and their fans were critical of this divisive conservatism. Morrissey was always controversial; a professional contrarian, stating his hatred for the Royal Family and that Meat is Murder. His personal politics have always been worn on his sleeve. He has had many battles with the press over the years, but somehow this feels different. His beliefs seem to be supporting the oppressors rather than the oppressed.
Morrissey fans have fallen into three categories. People deciding not to listen or read the press or even statements from Morrissey himself, choosing to focus on the music. Then there are those who do not question Morrissey's god-like status, and agree with everything he says...or maybe they have always thought similarly. And then there is the category many of my friends and I fall into - of being heartbroken by statements and actions and leaving us not knowing what to do with his music.
In trying to make sense of it all, I recently read an article called 'What do we do with the art of monstrous men?'. It discusses Roman Polanski and Woody Allen, and was written on the cusp of the #metoo Harvey Weinstein snowball turning into an avalanche. The author sees Allen as a predator after he marries Mia Farrow's adopted daughter Soon-Yi, but makes no mention of the allegations made by Dylan Farrow. She tries to determine what to do with her cherished Woody Allen movies, but discusses the selfishness required for art creation. She offers no answers, only the difficulty of watching these much loved movies now.
But the list of monsters grows. Late last year we watched 'Surviving R. Kelly' and it demonstrated how fans will support an artist they love, even in the light of mounting evidence. The general rebuke is that he hasn't been convicted, only accused. I'm currently reading Bri Lee's book 'Eggshell skull' which follows Bri's own story of being a judge's associate in Brisbane, hearing stories of rape and sexual assault daily. She eloquently sums up the failings of the courts and how placing the onus on the victim is flawed. It also makes me think of the lyric from Billy Bragg's song 'Rotting on Remand' - "And the judge said, "this isn't a court of justice, son. This is a court of law." Not being able to legally prove someone is guilty doesn't always make them innocent. It's so very complicated.
Tarana Burke (#metoo founder) in the R. Kelly documentary talked about how his music was played at graduations and weddings. How certain songs had become part of people's own memories and history. To consider that this music was made by a monster means redefining or tarnishing our own memories. And this is why so many people choose to look away from the headlines and controversy.
Hannah Gadsby also tackled this issue in her show Nanette, describing Picasso as a misogynistic abusive arsehole...but he gave us cubism. After being told to separate the art from the artist, she wonderfully points out how much his paintings would be worth if we took his name off them. For Gadsby, the art is judged through the lens of the artist who created it. Even looking back, we should judge behaviour by today's standards or even just being a fucking decent human.
Social media is bringing us closer to celebrities and we receive direct commentary from them. Actors are now activists and musicians and comedians are sharing their opinions online or taking to the streets and making political statements (Joakim Phoenix - veganism and animal rights, Leonardo Di Caprio - the environment, Jane Fonda arrested at climate rallies, Amanda Palmer and Kathleen Hanna - women's reproductive rights, Lena Headley and many others - refugee rights, Rob Delaney - political parties). Back in 2003 there was a brouhaha when the Dixie Chicks disagreed with the U.S. invasion of Iraq and said they were ashamed that the president (G.W. Bush) was from Texas. A shit storm ensued from their conservative country fanbase, hurling abuse and making death threats. It's great when artists opinions align with our own moral compass. The complexity comes when it doesn't.
I recently went to a Q&A session with Amanda Palmer. A quivering introvert, I sucked up the courage to ask her a question. She is no stranger to people disagreeing with her and being on the end of abuse. She is also a Smiths fan. My question - inspired by Morrissey - should we separate art from the artist, and if we don't, what do we do with that art? The crowd rumbled and the woman in front of me turned around saying it was a great question. It made me realise perhaps there are many more people trying to navigate this. Although she said her answer was off the record, it was thoughtful and honest and spoke to the complexity this raises for many of us. I hope she doesn't mind me writing about it.
Amanda replied saying that artists are actually humans. People who are changing and learning as they go. If we want an artist who has never said anything stupid or controversial we would be searching for a long time. She doesn't believe in 'cancel culture' and had spent part of her show talking about her belief in 'radical compassion', believing everyone deserves a voice in the conversation. She spoke of looking at who he was when he created the Smiths music. But she said she also struggled to not look back through the lens of his current statements. She said she hoped (as many of us do) that he comes out confirming that he was just saying controversial things to sell records and he was joking. She also said perhaps what we need to do is find the voices that we support. That speak for us and our beliefs. These are the voices we should put our energy and financial support behind. Time to focus on music or art that feeds our soul.
Answering another question, she spoke of concerts or theatre being our church. This idea has resonated with me so much. Going to author talks, libraries, book clubs, live comedy and galleries. These are all spaces and activities where people come together to experience art. Something that nurtures us. Resonates. Makes us think and feel. Introduces us to new ideas or explores the human condition. All these things bring us together as a community. Connects us. I've always been an atheist and always loved music and art and more recently books and theatre. Art IS important. Amanda said she responds to people supporting cuts to arts funding by asking them if they've ever been to a wedding without music? I would add funerals too. Music speaks to who we are and sometimes says more than we are capable of personally. And THIS is why the question of what to do with Morrissey's music is so fucking hard. Because it's been so important in our lives. And it feels like a loss of faith.
Between Tarana and Amanda's comments I feel like I understand the struggle better. I also understand it's a complex and evolving problem. In thinking through this, it is other artists who have helped me frame my thinking. Johnny Marr says he doesn't think Morrissey's statements should tarnish the Smiths legacy:
“[The Smiths] stood for many things, and you can’t change history, I don’t think it really reflects on The Smiths to be honest. I don’t think what Morrissey says really reflects on The Smiths,” he told the Standard. “People have their ideas about the group and if they’ve ever liked it or loved it that’s part of their lives,” he said, reflecting on the band’s legacy. “If other things come into play, that’s just new stuff – you can’t take away something that’s already happened.”
Looking forward, I can only follow Amanda's advice and find voices that I support and focus on them. And wait to see if attitudes evolve.
The Smiths meant so much to so many people. Their lyrics and music spoke to the outsider, the underdog, the insecure introverts. Bookish types who liked wearing black. A mix of poetry and politics. Morrissey in the late 80s showed a different way of being male, a new masculine that hurled gladioli around the stage, wore cardigans, draped himself over guitarist Johnny Marr, was vegetarian and a vocal animal rights supporter and tore off his shirt on stage. A fluid sexuality; not defined and not static. At times almost asexual. The Smiths formed in the shadow of the Thatcher government, and their fans were critical of this divisive conservatism. Morrissey was always controversial; a professional contrarian, stating his hatred for the Royal Family and that Meat is Murder. His personal politics have always been worn on his sleeve. He has had many battles with the press over the years, but somehow this feels different. His beliefs seem to be supporting the oppressors rather than the oppressed.
Morrissey fans have fallen into three categories. People deciding not to listen or read the press or even statements from Morrissey himself, choosing to focus on the music. Then there are those who do not question Morrissey's god-like status, and agree with everything he says...or maybe they have always thought similarly. And then there is the category many of my friends and I fall into - of being heartbroken by statements and actions and leaving us not knowing what to do with his music.
In trying to make sense of it all, I recently read an article called 'What do we do with the art of monstrous men?'. It discusses Roman Polanski and Woody Allen, and was written on the cusp of the #metoo Harvey Weinstein snowball turning into an avalanche. The author sees Allen as a predator after he marries Mia Farrow's adopted daughter Soon-Yi, but makes no mention of the allegations made by Dylan Farrow. She tries to determine what to do with her cherished Woody Allen movies, but discusses the selfishness required for art creation. She offers no answers, only the difficulty of watching these much loved movies now.
But the list of monsters grows. Late last year we watched 'Surviving R. Kelly' and it demonstrated how fans will support an artist they love, even in the light of mounting evidence. The general rebuke is that he hasn't been convicted, only accused. I'm currently reading Bri Lee's book 'Eggshell skull' which follows Bri's own story of being a judge's associate in Brisbane, hearing stories of rape and sexual assault daily. She eloquently sums up the failings of the courts and how placing the onus on the victim is flawed. It also makes me think of the lyric from Billy Bragg's song 'Rotting on Remand' - "And the judge said, "this isn't a court of justice, son. This is a court of law." Not being able to legally prove someone is guilty doesn't always make them innocent. It's so very complicated.
Tarana Burke (#metoo founder) in the R. Kelly documentary talked about how his music was played at graduations and weddings. How certain songs had become part of people's own memories and history. To consider that this music was made by a monster means redefining or tarnishing our own memories. And this is why so many people choose to look away from the headlines and controversy.
Hannah Gadsby also tackled this issue in her show Nanette, describing Picasso as a misogynistic abusive arsehole...but he gave us cubism. After being told to separate the art from the artist, she wonderfully points out how much his paintings would be worth if we took his name off them. For Gadsby, the art is judged through the lens of the artist who created it. Even looking back, we should judge behaviour by today's standards or even just being a fucking decent human.
Social media is bringing us closer to celebrities and we receive direct commentary from them. Actors are now activists and musicians and comedians are sharing their opinions online or taking to the streets and making political statements (Joakim Phoenix - veganism and animal rights, Leonardo Di Caprio - the environment, Jane Fonda arrested at climate rallies, Amanda Palmer and Kathleen Hanna - women's reproductive rights, Lena Headley and many others - refugee rights, Rob Delaney - political parties). Back in 2003 there was a brouhaha when the Dixie Chicks disagreed with the U.S. invasion of Iraq and said they were ashamed that the president (G.W. Bush) was from Texas. A shit storm ensued from their conservative country fanbase, hurling abuse and making death threats. It's great when artists opinions align with our own moral compass. The complexity comes when it doesn't.
I recently went to a Q&A session with Amanda Palmer. A quivering introvert, I sucked up the courage to ask her a question. She is no stranger to people disagreeing with her and being on the end of abuse. She is also a Smiths fan. My question - inspired by Morrissey - should we separate art from the artist, and if we don't, what do we do with that art? The crowd rumbled and the woman in front of me turned around saying it was a great question. It made me realise perhaps there are many more people trying to navigate this. Although she said her answer was off the record, it was thoughtful and honest and spoke to the complexity this raises for many of us. I hope she doesn't mind me writing about it.
Amanda replied saying that artists are actually humans. People who are changing and learning as they go. If we want an artist who has never said anything stupid or controversial we would be searching for a long time. She doesn't believe in 'cancel culture' and had spent part of her show talking about her belief in 'radical compassion', believing everyone deserves a voice in the conversation. She spoke of looking at who he was when he created the Smiths music. But she said she also struggled to not look back through the lens of his current statements. She said she hoped (as many of us do) that he comes out confirming that he was just saying controversial things to sell records and he was joking. She also said perhaps what we need to do is find the voices that we support. That speak for us and our beliefs. These are the voices we should put our energy and financial support behind. Time to focus on music or art that feeds our soul.
Answering another question, she spoke of concerts or theatre being our church. This idea has resonated with me so much. Going to author talks, libraries, book clubs, live comedy and galleries. These are all spaces and activities where people come together to experience art. Something that nurtures us. Resonates. Makes us think and feel. Introduces us to new ideas or explores the human condition. All these things bring us together as a community. Connects us. I've always been an atheist and always loved music and art and more recently books and theatre. Art IS important. Amanda said she responds to people supporting cuts to arts funding by asking them if they've ever been to a wedding without music? I would add funerals too. Music speaks to who we are and sometimes says more than we are capable of personally. And THIS is why the question of what to do with Morrissey's music is so fucking hard. Because it's been so important in our lives. And it feels like a loss of faith.
Between Tarana and Amanda's comments I feel like I understand the struggle better. I also understand it's a complex and evolving problem. In thinking through this, it is other artists who have helped me frame my thinking. Johnny Marr says he doesn't think Morrissey's statements should tarnish the Smiths legacy:
“[The Smiths] stood for many things, and you can’t change history, I don’t think it really reflects on The Smiths to be honest. I don’t think what Morrissey says really reflects on The Smiths,” he told the Standard. “People have their ideas about the group and if they’ve ever liked it or loved it that’s part of their lives,” he said, reflecting on the band’s legacy. “If other things come into play, that’s just new stuff – you can’t take away something that’s already happened.”
Looking forward, I can only follow Amanda's advice and find voices that I support and focus on them. And wait to see if attitudes evolve.
Comments