{"id":94529,"date":"2019-01-31T09:42:03","date_gmt":"2019-01-31T08:42:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=94529"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:23:12","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:23:12","slug":"should-we-still-dance-to-r-kelly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2019\/01\/31\/should-we-still-dance-to-r-kelly\/","title":{"rendered":"Should we still dance to R. Kelly?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kevin Spacey was fired from House of Cards <\/em>and Louis C.K. is shunned by fellow comedians. People are now being called on<\/a> to completely deplatform R. Kelly. Would such a boycott be justified? Or should we be able to separate the artist from their art? Culture scholar Niels van Poecke: \u201cArtists have enjoyed an exceptional position for a very long time.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBas van der Schot<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\t

\n\t\t

Niels van Poecke is university lecturer Art Theory and Sociology of Arts and Culture at the Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication. He specialises in art philosophy, sociology of pop music, culture and social inequality, and the role of authenticity<\/a> in Western culture.<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n

After it became known that R. Kelly \u2014 who had previously been accused of sexual abuse \u2014 was suspected of involuntary imprisonment, brainwashing and sexual abuse of women, social media called for a complete boycott of his work. Since the revelations about Harvey Weinstein became public and the birth of MeToo, countless musicians, filmmakers and comedians have been publicly accused. What\u2019s going on?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWe live in a society that demands transparency about everything: from the way Facebook uses our privacy to how politicians make their decisions. This particular topic concerns gender inequality; it\u2019s about the abuse of power by men. Something seems to be shifting in that regard. We\u2019re witnessing a post-feminist wave. For a long time, criticisms on the unjust relations between men and women were mainly theoretical. Now there\u2019s this widespread consensus on the need to enforce change. The criticisms must lead to a next step. Heads will have to roll.\u201d<\/p>\n

The sentiment: they\u2019re not getting away with it anymore.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThat doesn\u2019t just apply to the arts, of course. Abuse of power by men, but by women too, is being challenged everywhere. This applies to the private sector, as well as to all of us here at the university.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/svg>\n\t\t<\/button>

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBas van der Schot<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>

It\u2019s striking that it\u2019s mainly artists who bore the brunt of the accusations in recent years \u2014 as if they were allowed free rein for too long. Is that true?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cYou might say that artists have enjoyed an exceptional position in our society for a very long time. This has something to do with our understanding of authenticity, which has its roots in historical romanticism. The concept of the artist \u2014 and especially the concept of the genius artist \u2014 stems from that period.<\/p>\n

\u201cDuring the romantic era the notion arose that individuals are not just governed by external morals, rules that are enforced by church or state, but that there is something as a morality in ourselves that might help us determine what is good and what is evil; beautiful and ugly. That authenticity can guide our lives. We assume that artists are unrivalled in their capacity to let that source in themselves, their inner feeling, emotions and imagination, run wild. As such, we looked to them to explore and represent new worlds. They were viewed as visionaries, people who allowed us to practise thinking about different realities. You could say that this implied that they were held to different standards than other people.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn art everything is possible and allowed, even things that are not possible or allowed in everyday life. The German writer and philosopher Friedrich von Schiller describes this as \u2018play\u2019. Art allows people to play with instinctual processes, just like in a football match: animalistic behaviour \u2014 such as competitiveness, the need to attack and dominate another \u2014 are allowed, even sublimated, within the rule of the game. The same process applies to the arts. It\u2019s close to Aristotle\u2019s definition of catharsis: the way in which you can convert certain instinctual matters \u2014 violence, sexuality, whatever perversion you might have \u2014 into something artistic. This is something we\u2019ve been doing since Greek tragedies at least. Those are all about incest, killing your loved ones or even your children.\u201d<\/p>\n

Isn\u2019t it hypocritical for us to want to strongly condemn the people who help us deal with our forbidden instincts \u2014 by channelling and sublimating them into art \u2014 when it turns out that some of those forbidden instincts manifest themselves in their daily lives?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t think so. There are limits to what is allowed and what you can do within a democratic state under the rule of law. And everyone should adhere to those limits, even artists. What makes an artist great is their ability to turn forbidden instincts into something artistic. I do think it\u2019s hypocritical when people too quickly \u2014 without doing any research beforehand \u2014 characterise artists as perverts. In that context, I was highly interested to see the video<\/a> that Kevin Spacey posted online last Christmas. Obviously, I am not privy to all the facts of his particular situation<\/a>; the trial against him is still ongoing, I want to make that clear. It might be the case that he screwed up and needs to be sentenced for that. I do feel it\u2019s justified, however, for him to say that we should wait and see which facts come to light before firing people from shows and pillorying them.\u201d<\/p>\n

When was the last time you listened to R. Kelly?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThat must\u2019ve been in secondary school, I think: I Believe I Can Fly.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Would you still listen to his music now?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cNo. But that has nothing to do with the accusations surrounding him. I just think it\u2019s bad music.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/svg>\n\t\t<\/button>

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBas van der Schot<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>

Comedian and publicist Micha Wertheim wrote that the transgressions of Louis C.K. wouldn\u2019t make him boycott that performer\u2019s oeuvre. Do you understand that decision?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cYes. If I think a musician is truly great, I tend to steer clear of their personal life, as finding out more about them might get in the way of my enjoying their music. I got a chance to meet Bonnie Prince Billy for my dissertation research; he truly is one of the greats of American folk music. After his concert in WORM, we were having a beer together. In that moment I realised: I shouldn\u2019t be doing this. What if the interview turns out to be really uncomfortable or he turns out to be jerk? That might make me appreciate his music less.\u201d<\/p>\n

Why would that have to be the case? Can\u2019t you just separate the artist from their work?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThis is all about how we look at authenticity today. The romantic definition of authenticity \u2014 which revolves around not <\/em>adhering to societal norms \u2014 is increasingly giving way to \u2018sincerity\u2019. In the now classic book from the 70s, Sincerity and Authenticity, <\/em>the American culture scholar Lionel Trilling describes sincerity as the coincidence of your personal behaviour with what society expects of you. These days, a certain type of audience prefers that sincerity in artists to the transgressive \u2014 authentic \u2014 behaviour of before.\u201d<\/p>\n

Is it a bad thing that so many creators are being judged publicly?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a good thing that this type of abuse of power is brought to light and that people are punished for sexually transgressive behaviour. I also think it\u2019s valuable that we\u2019re having a debate about the role of the artist. It\u2019s a shame that the arts in general are being cast in an unfavourable light by this type of excess. I believe that there is a lot of strength to be drawn from the imaginations of artists and the experiments they conduct with regards to the excesses within our society. Artists create a kind of space that is necessary for a healthy democracy, I think.\u201d<\/p>\n

The arts will survive, right?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cOf course. These are excesses. It\u2019s similar to the situation in the private sector and in schools: abuse of power occurs, but most managers and teachers don\u2019t abuse their employees or pupils.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

De redactie<\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t