Marko Rupnik as Slovenian priest is under investigation by the Vatican for allegedly abusing twenty nuns. A successful mosaic artist his work is shown in the shrine at Lourdes. This led BBCRadio4Sunday, August 18th, to ask, ‘Can we separate the art from the artist?’ Dr Daisy Dixon, philosopher and art historian from Cardiff University, took part in a recent Cambridge debate on that question and her answer was, ‘No.’ ‘Whilst the investigation is going on his work should be covered up,’ she said. ‘And if he’s found guilty removed from all churches,’ as the work is, ‘Morally and artistically flawed, for social reasons.’
All works which she and those who share her views, term, ‘Immoral’ should be ‘contextualised,’ ie have warnings attached explaining to the public their ‘problematic nature’ so viewers don’t fall into error themselves. A very modern academic, not just the face studs and black stockings, inspiring one of her followers on Instagram to call her as a, ‘Thighlosopher,’ she has myriad moral concerns. She lectures on YouTube about, ‘Artistic hate speech,’ ‘Immoral Artists,’ and ‘The reality of Aesthetic injustice,’ which she is obviously fighting by referring to herself as, ‘Dr Chubby Cheeks,’ in a photo suggesting plastic surgery.
With so many misguided views to correct, perhaps she’s lost track of recent artistic developments. She told BBC Sunday that Art is, ‘Supposed to be about beauty.’ Rightly or wrongly, it hasn’t been about that for over a hundred years. Perhaps she also doesn’t realise that her rejection of irresponsible modernism was shared in the 1930s, by the Nazis. Their great, ‘Exhibition of Shame,’ in 1938, contextualised all the works shown as, ‘degenerate,’ and ‘immoral,’ bad for the viewer and bad for Germany. For Hitler shared the view that art was about shaping society, not just artistically but culturally. It had to align with the prevailing views of those in power and so it was necessary to remove anything ‘dangerous’ or as we say now, ‘offensive’.
In the radio discussion Gauguin was mentioned. Dr Daisy almost spluttered at his name as in Tahiti he had, ‘Child brides’. ‘This is not about curators preaching,’ she said, ‘It’s about child abuse and curators have a moral responsibility to engage and confront.’ She worries that if his art is shown without correct comment, ‘The value of the work might be seen as weightier than the pain the victims have gone through.’ Social concerns must prevail for the good of all. Any idea that his behaviour was, ‘Of its time,’ is ‘revisionism,’ ignoring, ‘Moral facts that have remained constant.’ They haven’t, they’ve evolved, but must now be judged only by contemporary values, in case ‘victims’ are further traumatised.
The good doctor describes herself an artist, and only wants to protect the public by controlling what they are allowed to see. She might find she’s taken on a complex task; among their ‘Degenerate’ works, the Nazis included thirty-three paintings by Emile Nolde who became the most confiscated artist of the purge. Over a thousand of his works were removed from galleries. For sixty years after he was seen as a victim. Mrs Merkel hung his paintings in her office seeing them as, ‘Good for Germany’. In 2010 revelations exposed his antisemitism. Suddenly he’s just another bad man. Artists, what can you do with them? Lock them all up perhaps, as that could well be the only way to protect the safety of us all.
