Summary

The article discusses the paradox of morally flawed individuals creating profound works of art, suggesting that the spectrum of self-actualization, from 'flow' to transcendence, explains why some artists are not morally elevated by their own creations.

Abstract

The essay titled "The Curious Phenomenon of Bad People Creating Good Art" delves into the complex relationship between an artist's moral character and the quality of their artistic output. It posits that while great art has the power to ennoble and elevate its audience, the creators of such works are not always paragons of virtue. The piece cites examples of renowned artists, such as George Bernard Shaw, Charles Dickens, and Pablo Picasso, whose personal lives were marred by moral transgressions, hypocrisy, and even abuse. The article argues that while all eminent artists are self-actualizers to some extent, there is a distinction between reaching a state of 'flow' during the creative process and achieving true transcendence, which involves a profound sense of unity with all existence and a loss of the sense of self. It concludes that only by reaching the highest state of healthy transcendence can one be truly transformed and insulated against moral transgressions, which is why some artists, despite their genius, fail to reflect the moral profundity of their art in their personal lives.

Opinions

Great art does not necessarily imply that its creator is morally virtuous.
The moral inadequacies of artists' personal lives contrast sharply with the moral profundity of their art.
Intellectual dishonesty and moral hypocrisy are seen as hollowing out an artist's moral fibre.
The idea of separating the art from the artist is a practical solution to avoid engaging with the artist's morality.
Artists like George Bernard Shaw and Charles Dickens are criticized for their moral transgressions and intellectual dishonesty.
The concept of a 'unitary continuum' is introduced, ranging from 'flow' to mystical transcendence, to explain the varying degrees of self-actualization experienced by artists.
Healthy transcenders, who experience more intense peak experiences, are believed to be morally anchored and less prone to moral transgressions.
The article suggests that true transformation and moral integrity come from experiencing transcendental states, which many morally deficient artists have not achieved.
The conclusion is drawn that there is no inherent contradiction in morally flawed individuals producing great art once the spectrum of self-actualization is understood.
The article leaves it to the audience to decide whether to appreciate the art of morally tainted artists or to judge and potentially boycott their work based on moral standards.

The Curious Phenomenon of Bad People Creating Good Art

Transcendence holds the key to understanding this apparent paradox

Nobody will disagree with the truism that great art ennobles and elevates us. Sublime art has a transcendental power that helps us to transcend the present reality and peek into higher planes of existence. Great art is a powerful moral force.

Just because a work of art is great, it doesn’t necessarily follow that its creator is a paragon of moral virtues because many artistic masterpieces were created by men whose personal lives were tainted with vices like misogyny, sexual misconduct, cruel treatment of children, anti-Semitism, wilful hypocrisy, etc., to name a few

If art can do wonders, why is that some of its creators seem impervious to their art’s transformative power? They seem immune to the spell of their own art.

The disparity between the moral inadequacies of their personal lives and the moral profundity of their art stare at us as one of life’s puzzling contradictions.

How can we reconcile the glaring incongruity of bad men creating good art?

It’s easy to dismiss this contradiction by saying we should look at the art and not the artist. Separate the art from the artist.

This is a practical solution as it helps avoid engaging with the artist-morality divide.

Is a willing suspension of moral judgment the only sensible way to appreciate good art?

Just because we appreciate great art doesn’t mean we should ignore the moral failures of its creators. At least, we should try to make sense of its apparent contradiction.

Before that, let’s remove the veil of the greatness of some artists and see the dark sides of their personalities.

At the base of every major work of art is a pile of barbarism. (Walter Benjamin, German art critic)

Writers seem most predisposed to moral hypocrisy. More than a musician or a painter, a great but morally deviant writer offends our sensibilities because they produced classics that spoke of the human condition with profound conviction and clarity.

George Bernard Shaw, the English playwright who produced masterpiece like “Pygmalion”, and “Man and Superman”, is guilty of moral hypocrisy, not a crime, but a moral transgression on a par with other evil behaviour.

He toured the Soviet Union as the guest of the brutal dictator Stalin when the country was in the grip of a famine that killed millions of people. When Shaw returned to Britain, he spoke on the BBC in October 1931. Shaw deliberately avoided talking about the famine and praised the Soviet regime for its pro-poor policies. Intellectual dishonesty hollows out an artist’s moral fibre.

Charles Dickens, the famous Victorian novelist, falsely accused his wife Catherine Hogarth of neglecting their children and banished her from his home. He packed off one of his sons to Australia, never to see him again because the child was difficult to handle.

Ernest Hemingway’s personal life was littered with broken marriages and neglected children. Nobel-laurate V.S.Naipaul abused his wife.

Many 20th century writers like T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound were guilty of anti-Semitism.

Of the seven dominant women in painter Picasso’s life, two went mad and two committed suicide.

Filmmakers Woody Allen and Roman Polanski discredited themselves through their sexual misconduct.

As critic George Steiner said:-

We know that a man can read Goethe or Rilke in the evening, that he can play Bach and Schubert, and go to his day’s work at Auschwitz in the morning.

The self-actualization spectrum holds the key to understanding the bad artist — good art paradox

All eminent artists including bad people who produced good art are self-actualizers in varying degrees. When they create art, they reach a flow state. A flow state, however, is not the same as transcendence, which is a mystical or a peak experience.

Scott Barry Kaufman in his book, “Transcend :The New Science of Self-Actualization.” says:-

At its most extreme, transcendence is a feeling of complete unity with everything (“Absolute Unitary Being”), including other humans (the social environment), as well as all of existence, nature, and the cosmos (the spatial environment).

But not all transcendent experiences are mystical. There are a variety of transcendent experiences that differ in their intensity and degree of unity with the world. There is a “unitary continuum,” ranging from the experience of becoming deeply absorbed in an engrossing book, sports performance, or creative activity (what psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi refers to as the flow experience), to experiencing an extended mindful meditation retreat, to feeling gratitude for a selfless act of kindness, to merging with a loved one, to experiencing awe at a beautiful sunset or the stars above, to being so inspired by something — whether an inspiring role model, virtuoso performance, intellectual idea, or act of moral beauty — that you have a “transcendent awakening,”, all the way up to the great mystical illumination.

Artists with character flaws can reach a state of flow briefly, but they cannot transcend their selves. Even if we use the term’ flow’ as a synonym for transcendence, the two experiences are qualitatively different.

The healthy transcenders have more and intense peak experiences than the other self-actualizers.

The key to healthy transcendence is the loss of the sense of self and a feeling of connectedness with all beings.

Self-transcendence (transcending the self) erases our selfishness as we feel connected to all other beings. Healthy self-actualizers are morally anchored and insulated against moral transgressions.

Our fallen icons, on the other hand, were trapped in their selves. They failed to reach the highest state of healthy transcendence. Therefore, they lacked the empathy to understand the suffering of their victims.

Conclusion

Humans, including talented artists, are fallible. An outstanding work of art is born when the creator enters into a state of flow, which falls within the spectrum of self-actualization. On the other side of the spectrum, the healthy self-actualizers experience transcendental states where they lose the sense of their selves and merge with a larger unity of existence.

Morally deficient artists never reach transcendental states. They cannot go beyond the flow state which doesn’t have such an impact on the artists as the transcendental state.

Only transcendental art can truly transform people whether they are artists or consumers of art. No wonder that a Picasso painting or a T.S.Eliot poem or a Hemingway novel inspires us but does not help us reach a transcendental state.

There is no contradiction in bad people producing great art if we understand the spectrum of self-actualization. If we appreciate or buy a work of art created by morally tainted artist, it doesn’t mean we are condoning their transgressions. It’s up to us whether to accept our art icons as fallible humans despite their mastery or to judge them and boycott their art based on our puritanical moral standards.

Thanks for reading!