13. Art & Ethics 2: Ethics & The Artist

Some notes for this lesson come from this video by Sarah Green for Crash Course, Art History.

Eleanor Roosevelt once stated, "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." But, what do you do when you learn that an artist you admire did something so terrible that you can't enjoy their work anymore? What does it do to the art?

R Kelly during his criminal trial.

This question has gained a great deal of attention lately, as social media has transformed modern society. People have smart phones, which they can use to record every interaction, whether with celebrities, the police, or even you. We can witness every confrontation, every tirade or tantrum, every poor choice that people make. And we are encouraged to judge people, based on these videos that are really just a momentary glimpse into people's lives.

What's more, we have new truth movements where people come forward to tell their tales of being oppressed, assaulted, harassed, and so on - all in the hopes of tearing down someone's reputation and career. And it's worked! Quite successfully, there are many famous examples of people who, quite rightly, are no longer influential, revered, or working in Hollywood.

In this lesson we'll look at cases and consider, to what extent, the artists deserve any respect or legacy, whether their artwork holds any value, and also, whether we know enough to judge them fully. Another question is, to what extent can we hold artists from long ago to the standards of today? How have ethics changed over time? Which ethical rules are universal, and which aren't?

Let's start with a crime universally condemned, throughout history - murder. in 1606, the painter Caravaggio killed a man during a game of pallacorda (a precursor to tennis). Here's what we know - the two men had fought before, not liking each other. They began arguing during the game. The victim, Ranuccio Tomassoni, came from a wealthy family, and was reputed to be a bit of a gangster - he had once been arrested for possession of an illegal weapon. One of the women that worked for Ranuccio was Fillide Melandroni, who served as Caravaggio's model in several famous paintings, including Judith Beheading Holofernes. After the murder, Caravaggio fled Rome. In his absence, there was a trial where Caravaggio was found guilty, and was sentenced to beheading.

So, before we judge, here's what we don't know. We don't know who started the argument, or what it was about - possibly a debt owed? Possibly jealousy over the beautiful Fillide? We don't know if Ranuccio was also armed, or if he tried to strike first. Some accounts say Caravaggio intended merely to wound the man, and the severing of an artery was an accident - perhaps it was self-defense? We don't know if the two started a duel, which may or may not have been legal then. We don't know if the trial was fair; it certainly wasn't up to modern standards. There was no jury. Defendants couldn't have lawyers then - that was an 18th century English invention. And, without Caravaggio present to defend himself, his guilt was assumed.

Caravaggio fled to Naples, which, at the time, was not a part of Italy, but belonged to Spain, which did not recognize Italian courts, so that he could continue to live and paint. After a few months he moved to the Isle of Malta, hoping to secure a pardon for Ranuccio's murder. The court there was so impressed to have him, they made him a Knight of Malta. That lasted for about a year until another brawl in which a fellow knight was seriously wounded. Caravaggio was expelled from the knightly order, imprisoned, and then escaped, fleeing to Sicily.

In Sicily, Caravaggio met and stayed with an old friend from Rome, Mario Minniti. As in Naples and Malta, Caravaggio took on several commissions which cemented his reputation as a genius painter - and then his bizarre behavior got him into more trouble. Supposedly, he went to sleep fully dressed and armed. He would destroy his own paintings at the slightest criticism. Historians speculate he might have gone mad due to the lead in his paints - or possibly from syphilis. 

Caravaggio was convinced someone was out to get him, so he travelled from town to town, before fleeing back to Naples. Soon after, he was attacked and wounded. Upon the promise of a pardon, he traveled towards Rome - but died under mysterious circumstances. The official cause of death was fever, but this is contested among historians. Who knows? Perhaps it was revenge?

So, That was how he lived. What of his art? It is still housed in numerous churches, cathedrals and world-class museums - the art of a murderer. Is this acceptable? Should the work be removed? Destroyed? Is it repugnant? Or at least a little ironic?

If we do accept the art, is it because we find the behavior of Caravaggio forgivable, or is it because his work is so great, we ignore that which is unforgivable?

Finally, is there a difference between a bad man who does commits evil, versus a good man who commits evil? If so, what is it, and how do we account for this in our judgment?

As you ponder these questions, it's worth remembering, the next time you hear someone calling Picasso a monster for making rude and callous jokes - there was an artist actually guilty of murder, whose work is still gracing altars in some of the greatest churches in the world.