Art vs. Outrage: Phil Anselmo, John Lennon and the half life of controversy

Art vs. Outrage: Phil Anselmo, John Lennon and the half life of controversy

“One ought to be able to hold in one’s head simultaneously the two facts that Dali is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being.” - George Orwell, Dickens, Dali and Others

Is it possible to dislike what a person stands for, believes in or does, yet still appreciate and enjoy what they produce? Does it(and should it) make it harder to like something if you know that the artist is someone or something you dislike? Can you appreciate talent objectively, with no consideration of whether you like the talented person in question?

Ok, I cheated a bit with the Orwell quote because he apparently didn't approve of Dali's art despite appreciating his talent, but I think the point still stands. My Ipod, in a cunning attempt to test me, played a song by Down the other day. Normally I like Down; a supergroup featuring members of Corrosion Of Conformity (ace), Crowbar (ace), Eyehategod (kind of ace) and fronted by Phil Anselmo of Pantera fame. Anselmo had recently been filmed affecting what appeared to be a Nazi salute and shouting what sounded distinctively like “White power” to the crowd. With this fresh in my memory, it felt distasteful to listen to something Anselmo had performed on and the song was skipped. My liberal sensibilities and conscience appeased, my ego started to nag at me, almost saying “but you like that song. You're allowed to listen to it, even if the singer is apparently a big racist.” By this time I had moved on to another tune and realised that an inner dialogue between conflicting parts of my psyche is probably not healthy while you're out buying teabags and oranges.

To put this into a more relateable context, take the example of John Lennon. I am not a Beatles fan by any stretch, but I can appreciate their influence on popular music and the many artists that followed them. I also appreciate John Lennon's anti-war stances and willingness to use his celebrity to promote peace, however much of a douchebag it made him sound. He was also shot on the day I was born, but that's another story. What isn't remembered or acknowledged about Lennon is that he allegedly had a tendency towards domestic violence among other unpleasant things. Like Anselmo's apparent racism, this is abhorrent and inexcusable behaviour. But is this forgotten because of Lennon's lingering cultural legacy, or simply because he's dead? Should you think of a bruised Cynthia Lennon every time you hear 'Imagine'? Should I think of a burning cross every time I listen to Pantera's 'Fucking Hostile'?

Not a Beatles fan? We'll take a look at some other examples of moral and legal crimes: Jimmy Page, according to Led Zeppelin biography Hammer Of The Gods (Stephen Davis, 1985), had a relationship with 14 year-old Lori Maddox; singer Chris Brown was charged with assaulting Rihanna in 2009; Tupac Shakur was awaiting sentencing for sexual assault at the time of his death; Lostprophets singer Ian Watkins was sentenced to prison for child sex offences; Pete Townsend and Bill Wyman have both been the subject of allegations regarding their sexual preferences; Metallica's James Hetfield apparently likes to shoot animals for fun; James Brown and Ike Turner were famously accused of domestic violence; Eminem has been accused of homophobic attitudes , not to mention domestic violence. Granted being a racist or homophobe, and shooting animals aren't criminal acts per se, but they're the sort of things that anger people and rightly so.

Millions of records sold between them. Millions of hero-worshipping fans around the world, and people inexplicably still buy Chris Brown records. Is it ok for me to dance to 'Get On Up', knowing that Brown may have had his wife's blood on his knuckles when he recorded it? Can I listen to 'Enter Sandman' knowing that my purchase probably contributed to the death of some poor bear. Am I still ok to listen to 'Stan', knowing that the man behind it is promoting backwards attitudes towards gay people? Sadly, I think the answer is yes. Time, it seems, is a great healer for better or for worse. I'll never be a Beatles fan but trying to imagine (pun intended) pop music without their legacy is difficult. Try to imagine the man who wrote 'Twist and Shout' smacking a woman around a hotel room.

Maybe it's the severity of the crime that drives the moral compass away from the record needle. You come across as a racist and people will rightly shun you, ostracise you from the community and as in the case of Anselmo promoters will refuse to have anything to do with you. Good. However if you beat your wife up, they'll make films of your life story and name airports after you. The weight of cultural legacy, it seems, outweighs social concern over treatment of women. Likewise, selling 100 million albums with Metallica means animal rights activists are quickly shouted down by 100 million voices, and being the world's foremost hip hop artist means you can be as homophobic as you like. Does this say more about social attitudes towards women, or did John Lennon just have a better publicist?

Take a look at another medium: director Roman Polanski is wanted for statutory rape in America and would be arrested were he ever to return. Does that dampen my enjoyment of Rosemary's Baby? Not one bit. Orson Welles was by all accounts a monster, particularly towards women; Alfred Hitchcock, a terrible misogynist, depending upon who you ask. Does this stop me marvelling in the artistry of Citizen Kane or Strangers On A Train? Not even slightly.

Does producing memorable art (however you cut it; I'm not getting into an argument about heavy metal being art) outweigh the crimes of the artist? It seems that our desire to be moved and entertained, to be made happy, outweighs our outrage. One thing to learn from these incidents is that generally the less you know about your heroes the better; you find something out about them that you don't like and it's harder to worship them. The example might seem a little trite but watching the Metallica documentary Some Kind Of Monster (Joe Berlinger, Bruce Sinofsky, 2004) made me realise that one of my favourite bands in the world is at least 50% comprised of petulant, spoiled, arrogant brats. Does that make me love them any less? No, but I do have to apply a degree of cognitive dissonance to forget who the people are behind the music.

Ultimately, we want to be entertained, or we wouldn't be buying the records to begin with. Personally, I find it difficult to overlook that the work I love may have been created by somebody I would hate, but if it's good enough, if I connect with it on the right level, that of, say, Master Of Puppets or Rosemary's Baby, then I can get over it. It may sound like a cop out, but quality goes a long way: John Lennon, Jimmy Page, James Brown, Pete Townsend are all beloved musicians, talented in their own way, and have made a difference to countless lives. Oddly enough, I haven't had the same moral dilemma when it comes to Lostprophets. Is this because of a 'worse' incident? No, I think it's just that hearing about it made me realise they were shit to begin with. Pantera weren't. For the time being at least, I'll miss the music, but not the man.