Do you think Michael Jackson molested children
Ethics professor on Michael Jackson debate: "Boycotts are crazy"
DW: Ms. Lotter, after the documentary "Leaving Neverland" was broadcast in the US, in which two men report that Michael Jackson was sexually abused as children, numerous international radio stations took his hits off their programs. How do you rate this reaction?
Maria-Sibylla Lotter: I find this reaction terrifying. Even if it makes sense to understand what an artist does as a kind of quality judgment for his art, a boycott makes no sense, because the raising of public accusations against people cannot be equated with a legal court judgment. And such a reaction naturally signals: If the good reputation is somehow questioned by public allegations, this can immediately result in the destruction of an artistic existence - at least for people who are not already established like Michael Jackson.
The allegations are not new, there have been two trials against Michael Jackson in which he was acquitted. There are now the very detailed descriptions in the documentary, but no new evidence. Why do many view Jackson's legacy differently than before?
Maria-Sibylla Lotter, professor of ethics
I think the radio stations fear that the clarity with which the abuse is apparently shown in this documentary will affect people emotionally differently than if they were just reading about it in the newspaper. The broadcasters anticipate that in the next few weeks or months, people may have these images in front of their eyes when they hear a Michael Jackson song. I just find it disturbing that one thinks that these mixed feelings can no longer be expected of adult people today.
What is the purpose of a boycott?
This arises less from one's own moral conviction than from fear of public opinion, against which one would rather not take a position. With censorship, however, one actually takes the side of the morally indignant. At the moment there is obviously the idea that if you have mixed feelings while reading or listening to works of art, this disqualifies these works of art.
Possibly a crime scene: Michael Jackson's fabled Neverland ranch in California
Banning the art of a person who has acted dubious, immoral or even criminal in private means equating the person with their art. Is that appropriate?
No. How strange this is is easy to see by comparing the situation to science: imagine someone just won the Nobel Prize in economics and it turns out that the person molested little boys. Nobody would think of declaring their economic books unsuitable. When it comes to art, we obviously have different ideas, which certainly have something to do with the needs that we address to art.
Have these needs changed?
In the heyday of rock 'n' roll, the prevailing idea was that the artist was living a different life, a more dangerous life without rules, which has been associated with the term genius since the late 18th century: someone is not the valid one Subject to norms, but creates its own. That is apparently obsolete today; one now associates completely different wishes with artists.
You should remain the genius, but at the same time be the nice neighbors next door?
Exactly, they should even be particularly exemplary. This is also noticeable in the pressure that actors in the USA are exposed to in view of the constantly changing and highly demanding norms of political correctness. You have to apologize publicly if you play a member of a minority or a paralyzed person and thereby deprive a person of the role of a person who belongs to that minority or group, according to what I believe to be the rather absurd new codes, which actually no longer allow for acting.
Banish or risk an uncomfortable feeling: Kevin Spacey in his star role as Frank Underwood
When we see a work of art or a film or hear a song, we believe that through it we can experience who the artist is as a person. Isn't that a coherent expectation that we as viewers associate with art?
That's an interesting point. With a singer who sings with her whole body, we see how she feels in the moment and we believe that her personality shows in her vocal expression. A writer's novel also expresses her own life experience. Or a rock musician gets into moods while writing a song. Of course, it shows fragments of a personality, but it is misleading to equate what is expressed with the moral person.
So we exaggerate the people in our imagination when we see them as artists in a film or music video?
I think so. We also project moral needs for idealization onto people who arouse our admiration. Kevin Spacey was best known for playing the villain in House of Cards. An actor who is loved precisely because he plays a particularly cunning, absolutely unscrupulous person, is then cut out of an almost finished film because it turns out that in his private life he is the sleazy uncle next door who can't help it to keep laying hands on young men’s thighs. That's crazy. We want to see the evil fictional character because he is more attractive than the man next door. And when someone turns out to be a very common grocer, that person has to be removed from perception.
Accusation of sexism: The Gomringer poem "Avenidas" at the Alice Salomon University in Berlin was painted over.
When reality catches up with fiction, it pulls us out of our escapism. Do we want to avoid that?
Exactly. When we know it's only in the movie, then we enjoy the viciousness of these characters. But we are no longer ready to accept the usual greasiness of such a molester when it comes to a person whom we on the other hand admire as a great actor. The desire not to be confronted with unpleasant truths under any circumstances is currently attached to this aesthetic admiration. Why not see Kevin Spacey and feel uncomfortable at the same time, reminding yourself that as a real person, he's probably a pretty uncomfortable character? That may be an ugly feeling, but it is a realistic perception.
Apart from the boycotts, it is to be welcomed that issues such as racism or sexual abuse are debated more openly in society today.
Forced into a role as a child: Michael Jackson
Of course, the good thing about such occasions is that they trigger discussions that can lead to a sensitization of moral perception, but as a side consequence often also to hysterical reactions. I mean cases such as the well-known fate of the Eugen Gomringer poem at the Berlin university, which fell victim to a discussion about sexual harassment that was in itself welcomed, but also partially hysteria. And it makes no sense to anticipate possible reactions from radio listeners and to pretend to be a moral institution that has to protect the audience's delicate feelings through moral censorship.
Maria-Sibylla Lotter is a philosopher and professor for ethics and aesthetics at the Ruhr University Bochum. Her research areas include the ethics of everyday life and the interaction between philosophy and art. She is currently a fellow at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research at Bielefeld University.
Interview conducted by Torsten Landsberg.
- A screenshot of a photo reduces its quality
- Who was Pazuzu according to mythology
- Why is FileMaker Server so crappy
- Cookies or bread rolls
- Is zinc ferromagnetic
- Which city is richer Shanghai or Mumbai
- What does f x 6
- Is surface tension only for flat surfaces
- Automation is always a good thing
- What is the specific gravity of water
- How often do restaurants reuse cooking oils
- What is your favorite essential oil diffuser
- What is the best way to learn origami
- Do the Palestinians really need help?
- Which band is better Radiohead or Oasis
- Socrates was a dangerous subversive
- How can I earn money with paintings
- If atheism is ideology, who will deter
- What is the re-establishment of an economy
- What is real peace
- Does God exist Are there spirits
- How did Alan Turing die
- How many clothes do shirts last?
- Albert Einstein was a stoic