"...come on..."

Here's a question for you; is it possible to find an artist a reprehensible, loathsome, person yet still enjoy their art? It's a question that came to mind yesterday, when it was suddenly all over the internets that Gary Glitter had set up a Twitter account, and was talking of a book, new material, and gigs.

Now, no-one is suggesting that we should make light of what Glitter was convicted of doing. But does the fact that he has committed these acts change his songs at all? Should it stop us singing along to Rock and Roll part 2 (though, all the cool kids obviously sing the KLF's version of the words!) or The Leader of the Gang? Do Glitter's actions stop us enjoying his song?

Or is there a line? If a person does something very bad (as Glitter did) you can't enjoy their art, but if the thing they do is somewhat lower level is that okay? What if someone were a shoplifter? Would that be serious enough for a person to have their work consigned to the dumper?

It's a very thorny debate. If we do accept the premise that if a person commits a crime that this must mean their art is suddenly taboo, we then get in to the semantics of which offences are so bad to make this happen. If this is the standpoint you have, then where the line is drawn will end up coming down to a personal opinion as to what is beyond the pale. Most with this opinion would end up putting Glitter in to this category due to the serious nature of his offences. But, how many would place the shoplifter in that category? If you do... well, you'll have to avoid ever watching Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, and Star Trek (2009) as these contain a convicted shoplifter... so, where would you draw the line?

Then there is the issue of the rehabilitation of the artist; surely if a person commits a crime, have been punished, and puts that part of their life behind them they should be able to live as close to a normal life as possible? And again, as above, the question of where the line is drawn will come in to play. Whereas a rehabilitated shoplifter would be very likely to be readily forgiven, the comments on Twitter would suggest that the prevailing view on Glitter is that his offending was so beyond the pale that this could never happen for him. The opinion of Glitter as a person is overwhelming the opinion of his songs.

That Glitter's music isn't exactly the greatest in the world may very well play a part in this, as well as the size of his fanbase. By the time of his initial conviction, his career was already on the wane. He was a bygone relic from the 70s, someone who had a handful of hits and hadn't done anything of note for some time. It was easy for his music to be boycotted; I mean, can you recall the last time you heard his music on the radio? (As an aside; it'll be interesting to see if BBC4 edit his performances out of their repeats of 1977 Top of the Pops shows.)

Contrast this with the case of Michael Jackson, who was accused of some very serious offences, on a par with Glitter. At the time the allegations first came out, and when the trial was on, there wasn't anything like the vitriol towards him. There was some, don't get me wrong; but his fans fought back at them, defending them to the hilt. And his music continued to be played on the radio...

I have a feeling that an amount of distance can help as well; if it were to come out, after a person's death, that they had been responsible for some bad, bad, things this will certainly have a lesser impact. They'll no longer be around to either commit further offences, or to earn money for their art. Say, for example, it was found out that Shakespeare had murdered three people around the time he was writing his best plays would that make people stop enjoying his work? Would the Royal Shakespeare Company disband because they didn't want to associate with a murders work? No. Of course not. Nor should it. But... if it were someone contemporary... that would be rather a different matter.

It's a very thorny issue, and realistically it has to come down to personal tastes and opinions, and whether a person thinks that artist and art are capable of being seen as discrete entities.

[I apologise for the rambling nature of this post, but it's something I've been mulling over in my mind, and I don't think I've come to any sort of conclusion. I may return to this subject again in the future...]