Is art essential?
Current norm states that artists caught in some socially unacceptable form of wrongdoing must not only be banned from the good spotlight, but that their work is now also tabu. Suppose we put aside the obvious question of what’s unacceptable and how those rules change over time and across cultural purviews, and suppose we ignore the concerning trend and maxim “live long enough to see yourself become the villain”, we are still left with a very interesting phenomenon to discuss, and that is: artists are specially targeted by cancellation.
It doesn’t matter how bad Elon Musk behaves, people don’t seem to want to stop loving Teslas. You would be hard-pressed to find examples of groups asking for the boycotting of antibiotics or bridges over scandals involving scientists or engineers. This pattern of behaviour implies two things. Number one: we simply can not afford to boycott science and technology. Instead, we assume that every piece of it — every bridge, and every antibiotic, and every new polymer — is essential. Number two: we can (in fact we must) boycott all cancelled art because no single work of art can be essential. Although valued as a practice and in concept, art is not really seen as a necessity. Or rather, materialised art does not have real value.
Most of us would agree that not every piece of technology or science is essential. In spite of that understanding, and for practical reasons, we assume they are, and thus we do not usually concern ourselves with the morals of inventors. Art on the other hand is often viewed as inseparable from its creator, and it is condemned as guilty as the woman or man who produced it. But should it?
This questioning is very much internal since even I believed for the longest time that science was fundamentally true and inherently important while everything else — art, culture, and society — were less noble pursuits with only circumstantial meaning. Things changed as I have gotten older. However fundamentally true and inherently important I still regard nature as being, I now realize science is but another way in which we make sense of it, alongside with art and (it hate to admit) spirituality.
I have noticed art’s power in changing people, myself included. I dare to say art has contributed more to my understanding of the world and of myself than science did, despite the fact that I have been heavily invested in science for the past 10 years. But don’t get me wrong, science — as the magnifying glass it is to nature — is a constant source of inspiration in my life. And yet, even the most detailed molecular maps of life are not good enough translations of it. In contrast, often the most simple songs, and poems, and paintings have a way of staying with us, of giving meaning and colorising otherwise hard-to-grasp situations, of helping us becoming ourselves.
As I reflect on this I am left with a few resounding questions. Should we keep classifying art as non-essential? Should we attach it to its author’s reputation for eternity? Perhaps equally important: Can we cancel art? What if it changed your life already? What if it steered your personality? Can one be exorcised from its influence? Can art be extinguished?
