 |
| Gauguin, Dr. Gouzer and two Tahitian women, courtesy Hyperallergic |
"Museums," the article says, "are reassessing the legacy of an artist who had sex with teenage girls and called the Polynesian people he painted 'savages.'" Who wants to look at paintings made by the guy who spread syphilis to underage island girls?
 |
| Painting by Paul Gauguin |
 |
| Photo by Jules Agostini allegedly showing Gauguin in Tahiti. © 2017 Daniel Blau, Munich |
The story mentions that qualms about the artist prompted a museum director to rewrite some captions, but admits that there have been plenty of exhibitions about Gauguin lately. There have been retrospectives at the National Gallery in Washington, at the Tate Modern, the Art Institute of Chicago, and other museums.
The question leads to other questions. Should Caravaggio's paintings be taken out of circulation because he was a murderer? Should we ban Egon Schiele's drawings of underage girls because he allegedly abused them? Should we remove all of Picasso's work because of the way he treated women?
I think the work should be available to those who want to see it without someone deciding in advance to take it away. If someone really wanted to censor an artist because of their personal life, who would make such a determination, and by what standards? Should it be according to today's standards, or to those of the artist's time? How can a deceased artist defend himself or herself from false accusations?
Not everything in a museum's collection gets exhibited or published, and many factors go into doing so. In my view, the decision to mount an exhibition or to publish a book on a given artist should be based on the merit of the work itself, whether there's really new light to shed on their life story, and how many shows there have been in recent years. Maybe we should mothball Gauguin because we've seen enough of him. How about a show of other, more able artists who haven't received the exposure, such as Edwin Austin Abbey or Alphonse Mucha?
A related question is whether you can appreciate someone's art without knowing about their biography. Do you enjoy an artist's work more after you learn about their life? How does your evaluation of someone's work change after you find out they had a dark or criminal personal history? Can you keep your feelings about the art separate from your feelings about the person?
That depends on what their work is about, and how they presented themselves to their audience. I recognize that all of us are flawed, and that artists in particular are almost a separate species from the rest of humanity. Artists tend to live more at the fringes of the mainstream world. I almost expect artists to have taken more risks than average people. Rock 'n' roll wouldn't be the same if some authority applied a morality test to all the musicians.
Recently published letters have cast doubt on Gauguin's portrayal of his life in Tahiti. It apparently wasn't quite the erotic mecca that he tried to convey. He evidently hoped the scandal that surrounded him in Paris would help promote his work. 'The island [and the realities of Gauguin's life there] are virtually unrecognisable in his representations, carefully calculated to intrigue the French audience,' says Nancy Mowll Mathews, author of Paul Gauguin: An Erotic Life.
It may be that the museums and newspapers are also being a little disingenuous in wringing their hands about Gauguin as the lascivious colonialist. Let's face it: a little bit of scandal is a good thing for publicity and for the sales market, and it probably doesn't hurt the Gauguin exhibition to receive press coverage, negative or positive.
What do you think? Do you have any examples of how your knowledge of personal biography has changed your appreciation of a given artist's work?
------
Book: Paul Gauguin: An Erotic Life.
The Guardian: Gauguin's erotic Tahiti idyll exposed as a sham
New York Times "Is It Time Gauguin Got Canceled?"
Gauguin: It’s Not Just Genius vs. Monster
The question leads to other questions. Should Caravaggio's paintings be taken out of circulation because he was a murderer? Should we ban Egon Schiele's drawings of underage girls because he allegedly abused them? Should we remove all of Picasso's work because of the way he treated women?
I think the work should be available to those who want to see it without someone deciding in advance to take it away. If someone really wanted to censor an artist because of their personal life, who would make such a determination, and by what standards? Should it be according to today's standards, or to those of the artist's time? How can a deceased artist defend himself or herself from false accusations?
Not everything in a museum's collection gets exhibited or published, and many factors go into doing so. In my view, the decision to mount an exhibition or to publish a book on a given artist should be based on the merit of the work itself, whether there's really new light to shed on their life story, and how many shows there have been in recent years. Maybe we should mothball Gauguin because we've seen enough of him. How about a show of other, more able artists who haven't received the exposure, such as Edwin Austin Abbey or Alphonse Mucha?
A related question is whether you can appreciate someone's art without knowing about their biography. Do you enjoy an artist's work more after you learn about their life? How does your evaluation of someone's work change after you find out they had a dark or criminal personal history? Can you keep your feelings about the art separate from your feelings about the person?
That depends on what their work is about, and how they presented themselves to their audience. I recognize that all of us are flawed, and that artists in particular are almost a separate species from the rest of humanity. Artists tend to live more at the fringes of the mainstream world. I almost expect artists to have taken more risks than average people. Rock 'n' roll wouldn't be the same if some authority applied a morality test to all the musicians.
Recently published letters have cast doubt on Gauguin's portrayal of his life in Tahiti. It apparently wasn't quite the erotic mecca that he tried to convey. He evidently hoped the scandal that surrounded him in Paris would help promote his work. 'The island [and the realities of Gauguin's life there] are virtually unrecognisable in his representations, carefully calculated to intrigue the French audience,' says Nancy Mowll Mathews, author of Paul Gauguin: An Erotic Life.
It may be that the museums and newspapers are also being a little disingenuous in wringing their hands about Gauguin as the lascivious colonialist. Let's face it: a little bit of scandal is a good thing for publicity and for the sales market, and it probably doesn't hurt the Gauguin exhibition to receive press coverage, negative or positive.
What do you think? Do you have any examples of how your knowledge of personal biography has changed your appreciation of a given artist's work?
------
Book: Paul Gauguin: An Erotic Life.
The Guardian: Gauguin's erotic Tahiti idyll exposed as a sham
New York Times "Is It Time Gauguin Got Canceled?"
Gauguin: It’s Not Just Genius vs. Monster
Thanks, Winsor.
"For him these are more than mere sketches, embodying not only the conception but all the study necessary to the production of a completely worked out pastel."
