Damn, and I was just about to get some work done.
Well, why, exactly? I'm sure there are literally tens of millions of John Lennon fans who, at the very least, aren't inclined to join the peace movement ("pro-war" is probably a description few people would apply to themselves). And in Morrissey's case I really don't see any important emotional disconnect. As far as I know, none of his songs are about fox hunting and only one that I can think of (Meat is Murder) is even about vegetarianism. His points of view on these points are well known, but they aren't exactly dominant features of his work.
You'd be surprised how many people in America are "pro-war." I feel pretty confident when I say that the man who wrote
Imagine (which is sung and quoted at nearly every single peace rally) is anathema to people whose world-view requires extreme aggression, belligerence and a near-complete lack of empathy. Not all Lennon fans are peaceniks, but I'd be willing to bet that there aren't too many extreme nationalists who enjoy Lennon's work.
It is true, only
Meat is Murder is about vegetarianism but, like Lennon, Morrissey is a singer who
stands for something. He may not sing about animal rights all that much, but he is an icon of the movement. Besides, we're not talking about someone who eats meat (plenty of Morrissey fans do that), we are talking about someone who supports blood sports.
And in any case, why is it neccessary to share an artist's personal outlook on politics (or other things for that matter) in order to be a fan? Hamsun was a nazi sympathiser, he nevertheless wrote truly great literature that has been and continues to be read by people of all political persuasions. I can't say I experience that as an emotional disconnect. Sartre perpetrated the most revolting defense of Stalin's show trials, he was still a great philosopher. I don't experience that as an emotional disconnect either. For that matter, even where the art is explicitly dominated by points of view you don't agree with, it may still work for you as art even if it doesn't work for you as politics. You can appreciate someone whose outlook you don't share for their integrity, or their commitment, or for the way their stance infuses their music with passion and energy.
I agree, it isn't necessary to share an artist's political views to enjoy their work. There is a difference, however, between political differences and moral ones, and I see blood sports as a moral issue. I always think of T.S. Eliot or Ezra Pound in cases like this. Great poets, both, but I always hit an emotional road-block when I think of their anti-Semitic tendencies, especially at the time when they were writing, and especially given their brilliance. Honestly, anyone who uses the word
Kike has undermined their ability to appeal to me emotionally. Call me reactionary or simplistic, but I cannot get around that. One should be able to separate the artist from the art, but that is a bridge too far.
As for philosophy, that is an entirely different matter: I expect all great philosophers to be mad.
It can be a very powerful aesthetic experience to encounter the negation of your own outlook in music (or literature, or etc etc). I would even go so far as to suggest that the experience of otherness is a no less frequently occurring element of finding meaning in creative expressions than the experience of self-recognition is.
I agree, absolutely. I seek out aesthetic experiences that challenge me, and shake-up any comfort that I may have left. The experience of otherness is essential to being a whole, functioning person. This is how we grow.
However, there are some absolute moral lines that I cannot cross, and animal cruelty is one of them. There are few things I find as reprehensible as the exploitation, torture and killing of animals for sport or financial gain. I have friends who have hunted (although none will admit to hunting now), and these are people I'm fond of. However, I cannot participate in any enjoyment of that pastime, no matter how many times I've willingly listened to their passionate arguments.
Thirdly, I don't know how advisedly you use the phrase "emotional disconnect", but I think a lot of people have an emotional range that doesn't stop at the limits of their politics. Few things are completely black/white, for most people. You can sympathise with the plight of soldiers who've lost friends in combat even if you're opposed to the Iraq war. I furthermore strongly suspect that more than a few Gang of Fourish types used to hum
Club Tropicana whilst showering, safely out of earshot from the world at large, and would not in the heart of their hearts have minded being transported away from drab Leeds to some tropical shore and hedonistically swill Margaritas for a few hours, though they no doubt would have felt guilty about it afterwards.
Again, this isn't politics, this is morality - two entirely different things.
Music is the most emotional art form. Literature appeals so strongly to the intellect, and painting and sculpture bridge the divide, but music goes straight to the soul.
If I enjoy a person's music enough, and I bother to learn something about them (which is actually somewhat rare), I'm often pleasantly surprised to find that they are both morally and politically very much in tune (literally, you could say) with my beliefs. This is not to say that I cannot enjoy the work of someone across the political divide, but it just doesn't happen all that often. There is a lack of resonance.
So, again, David Cameron is free to enjoy Morrissey as much as he likes, but to me there is an emotional disconnect between advocating for blood sports and being a fan (not just a casual listener) but a
fan of someone whose core moral beliefs run counter to his own.
