Art, the Artist, and the Implications of Their Prejudices

“Today, we’re going to be listening to one of my favorite pieces, ‘Tristan und Isolde’ by Richard Wagner. Wagner’s music heralded the Romantic Era, and he was an extremely important figure. By the way, Wagner was an anti-Semite.”

As music filled the air of Mr. David Hanna’s AP European History classroom, I couldn’t help but think, “That’s all?” Richard Wagner was a virulent anti-Semite whose scorching work “Das Judenthum in der Musik” (Judaism in Music) attacked not only Jewish composers Felix Mendelssohn and Giacomo Meyerbeer, but also the Jews in general. Some of the characters in his operas, such as Mime in the “Ring” and Klingsor in “Parsifal,” appear to be representations of anti-Semitic stereotypes. Moreover, beyond this personal anti-Semitism, Wagner’s music became the soundtrack for Hitler’s Germany, and was played as the prisoners in the Dachau concentration camp were marched by. “All this, and his music is still being played in my history class?” I thought.

Later that day, Mr. Hanna posted a Google Classroom update to continue his explanation of Wagner’s relationship to anti-Semitism. Though his entire commentary was interesting, one section in particular stuck out to me. It read, “Wagner's music was important, regardless of the ugly prejudices he expressed.”

We live in a time of many “ugly prejudices,” with many people harboring them. However, when artists such as Eminem or directors like Harvey Weinstein harbor such prejudices, they are broadcasted to a much wider audience due to their art. This also applies to Wagner’s music and Roald Dahl’s writing; though these two figures are no longer around, the anti-Semitism that they prescribed to is still prevalent. It is important for us as a society to recognize the inherent connection between an artist and their art, as well as the larger implications of an artist harboring such prejudices. In a time of social justice mechanisms such as cancel culture, it is imperative that we realize where the line should be drawn. Art and the artist can never truly be separated, but using the art educationally is acceptable, as long as the appropriate context is given before the art is shown. However, if an artist is profiting off of a work, that work must not be shown or listened to.

A classic example of an artist with unignorable prejudices is Roald Dahl, whose books remain a staple in children’s literature, despite the inexcusable fact that he was a vicious anti-Semite. He once asserted, “There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity. I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.” Though one could argue that Dahl’s writing is used educationally, it is much different when compared to works such as Wagner’s. Whereas Wagner’s music is essential to understanding the beginning of the Romantic Era, Roald Dahl’s works are directed toward children, filled with fantastical elements and written in an easily understandable style. There is nothing unique about Roald Dahl’s work that cannot be found in other books for children, and the books serve as mere sources of entertainment. It is also important to note that Dahl’s audience is young and impressionable, and should not look up to such a despicable figure. Because of these factors, Dahl’s works should be avoided in order to combat his anti-Semitic views.

Not only limited to literature, a hotly debated example of a modern-day Wagner-esque case is Harvey Weinstein—who, unfortunately, is still profiting from his work. Though he was just sentenced to 23 years in prison for his rape and sexual assault of dozens of women throughout his career, he can still earn money from the films he helped create. Though he no longer receives a formal salary from The Weinstein Co., as he recently resigned as director of the company, he still owns more than a 20 percent stake. Because of this share, which he cannot be forced to relinquish unless the law intervenes, Weinstein will likely make money from movies that are yet to come out, such as “The Current War” and “Paddington 2.” In order to make a stand against the crimes Weinstein has committed, it is imperative to boycott these films in order to avoid Weinstein profiting from them. Watching the movies just for the sake of watching is in order, but not when such a despicable person would profit from it.

This overt prejudice is also evident in modern-day musicians—in fact, some artists, like well-known rapper Eminem, express their discrimination through their work. In his song “Fall,” Eminem raps, “Tyler create nothing, I see why you called yourself a f******, b**** / It’s not just ’cause you like attention / It’s ’cause you worship D12’s balls, you’re sac-rilegious / If you’re gonna critique me, you better at least be as good or better.” These lyrics were very clearly directed at Tyler, the Creator, who has been very open about his sexuality. For Eminem to so overtly attack Tyler for it, as well as use such an offensive term, is cause for us to avoid listening to his music so as to take a stand against his homophobia.

It is important to recognize the profound impact that artists have on their fans. Fans idolize the artists that they love, and it is simply not right to give artists with such negative worldviews this privilege of being looked up to. The only reason why an artist with such prejudices, such as Wagner, should be allowed to have their music showcased is for an educational purpose. However, this has to be done in a very specific manner. The piece of music should only be played after a background on the artist’s prejudices is presented. In the case of Mr. Hanna’s class and Wagner, the issue was not that Wagner was being played, but that he was being played in an admiring context. It is important to provide the context that Mr. Hanna’s Google Classroom post provided before Wagner is played in order to condemn his prejudices. Any other method of presenting the work of a damagingly prejudiced artist would be disrespectful to the group of people that the prejudices are directed toward.

Discrimination, in all its forms, is not a new phenomenon. However, with the rise of technological advances and social media, it is easy for artists to share their works and, by extension, their prejudices with the world. Though one can make the argument that art and artists are independent of one another, it cannot be denied that an artist pours their soul into creating a piece—with it, comes their flaws and discrimination. The issue worsens when the artist profits from their work, providing them with a larger platform to spread their misguided ideas. It is essential for our society to take note of this and take appropriate action if we want to be able to prevent discrimination of all kinds.