The Work or the Artist?

The Artist and his work.

Peter Handke is one of the most important Austrian authors.

He received the Nobel Price for Literature for 2019 for his impressive output and his sophisticated use of the German language.

I have only read one of his books (The Goalkeeper's Fear of the Penalty Shot).

For this reason alone I cannot agree or disagree with the Nobel Committee's finding.

The other reason, of course, is that I have not read any of the books of other Authors who were considered for this honour. There was a Chinese, and a Spanish and a Canadian Author in consideration. Each, naturally, wrote in his/her native language.

I do not speak Chinese, nor Spanish, am therefore unable to read their books and although I have read several of Margaret Atwood's books I still lack comparison to those other language authors.

Let me therefore not argue about the merits of the Nobel Committee's selection.

Let me explore a different aspect of the entire issue:

Peter Handke is not only a successful author, but also a politically interested and engaged man.

In 2006 he gave an impassioned speech at the funeral of Slobodan Milosevics.

Slobodan was the right-wing leader of Serbia and stood accused of causing an unprecedented Holocaust during his wars against Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

By the International Court of Justice he was charged with 66 counts of crimes against humanity.

So, it is clear that Slobodan was not a very nice guy by any standard of comparison.

Yet, Peter Handke refused to accept the facts which were presented in abundance during Slobodan's trial. So, it could be stated, Handke was, or is, an apologist for one of the big killers after World War II- and therefore morally not equipped to be awarded such a culturally important price.

And this is the crux of the matter:

Should the work of an artist be judged solely upon the merits of his creation, or should we refuse to honour the creative output of an individual because he/she has shown to be morally inferior.?

In other words: Does the work stand alone and should it be judged as the work itself, or, should the work of a person be considered as simply part of the whole: Work plus Creator.

It is my considered opinion that a work of Art must be judged on its own merits and the moral attitude of the creator should not be considered at all.

Let me assume that some documents are found describing one Michael Angelo as a drunkard wife beater, evader of taxes, horse thief, brake and enter specialist, perjurer and defiler of the Sacrament inside of the Sistine Chapel and that is was proven beyond a doubt that this was the same Michelangelo who created the ceiling of the same chapel, would it be just to claim that this work was no longer to be considered a “Great Work of Art”? What would we think about the “Last Supper” by this same “Nogoodnick”? Would we now consider it the work of a dilettante house painter?

Of course not! We would still think of these two creations as outstanding art of all times.

Quod Errat Demonstrandum.

Bertstravels