Then a Ted Nugent Song Came On, or the Art vs. the Artist

Personal Perspective: Do we support artists' ideals when we consume their art?

Reviewed by Gary Drevitch

I was in the car the other night driving home from a somewhat long and trying day at work. At such times, I usually want to listen to some "self-care" music to help me unwind. And for me, that is usually the guitar-driven rock and roll that I grew up with. It just takes me back, takes me away, and soothes my soul: It's perfect escapism. I was listening to Classic Rewind on Sirius/XM, jamming out to the likes of longtime favs like Rush, Cheap Trick, and Foreigner, it was as if it was 1982 again, and I was driving home from school in my black Trans Am. (Yep, I was very cool then.) Not a care in the world. Perfect.

And then ... on came "Cat Scratch Fever" by Ted Nugent—a staple of rock radio back in the day—I owned the album of the same name—and I immediately tuned to another channel.

This is not intended to be a political post but when I heard that somg come on, I immediately thought of the recent Ted Nugent. And I just didn’t want to listen. If you don’t know about Ted Nugent's activities lately, you can look him up. He has very strong opinions—not just political—with which I don’t agree. Part of me was dismissive, maybe a little angry. Part of me didn’t want to support this single "play" he was getting on satellite radio, and, yeah, part of me was also feeling, admittedly, a little holier than thou—like, I’m above his BS. I’m better than that.

But that song is still perfect in that genre. It was a staple of my youthful listening, part of my teenage angst and desire to play rock-and-roll guitar. If music shapes you in your teens, then that song helped shape me. And at that time, Ted Nugent and I probably shared some of the same values as long-haired rebels against authority. But in this moment, as an adult living in a hyper-emotional, divided world, I just could not separate the art, or the artist, from the person.

I know that this is not a new subject but it was new for me. I don’t ever remember just turning something off because I felt all of the things that I was feeling. And part of me was angry at myself, like now I was pulled in to all of the division on another level. And it made me ponder. First, if we are to really look at all artists, there may only be a handful that we are fully in line with in terms of values and political stances. On the other hand, prominent artists do have a platform and are free to promote their ideals—some do, some don’t—so is supporting their art supporting their ideals? And what harm would it have done to just keep listening to that song in that moment? On a purely aesthetic level, it would have been a perfect part of my ride home. Where do we draw the line? Perhaps there is a spectrum, but why do we generally seem to accept some—Michael Jackson, perhaps—and not others—say, Woody Allen?

It's one thing if the "art" itself was purposefully making a statement. If the art is supporting something that does not align with our values or spews hate, homophobia, racism, etc., then there is no conflict in not listening, watching, or supporting. But what about art that is outside of all that? What if the "art" is just that, art—and you happen to like it—but the purveyor has "issues" with which you don’t agree? What if you suddenly found out that your favorite band’s frontman was arrested for, or said something in their personal life that has nothing to do with their music, but that you strongly disagree with? Would that change things? Would you stop listening?

And what if, as in my recent case, the art was created well before the artist seemingly went "off the rails"? Is that art OK because it was before all of "that" but anything new would now be off limits? When do you become hypocritical? I certainly don’t agree with governments banning books of any kind; I support freedom of expression. So why would I want to be the morality police?

Should we just appreciate all art for what it is—art—or do we hand-pick our art and stay in our little sheltered zones?

We all have our own comfort levels with what we consume; that's how it should be. No one should be forced to consume any art that they don’t like or feel uncomfortable with. Art is subjective. But this particular incident made me look into myself and my own ideas and prejudices. And really, isn’t that what art is supposed to do: Make you think? Make you feel something? And sometimes make you feel uncomfortable because you don’t agree with everything that comes with it?