Are You Judging the Work, or Its Maker?

Bölüm metni

A song you have loved for eleven years is playing, and a piece of news arrives about the person singing it. The chorus comes around — the same chorus, the same frequencies, nothing in the air has changed. So what exactly broke: the note, or the ear?

It is getting close to midnight, you are washing dishes in the kitchen, and in your headphones a song you have loved for eleven years is playing. You met a summer through that song, you went through a breakup with it, you played it for a friend. Then your phone buzzes. A news story. About the person singing the song, something serious. The song keeps playing while you read. The chorus comes around. The same chorus.

Something very strange is happening here, and we usually pass over it without stopping. Nothing in the air has changed. The frequency of the sound waves is the same, the melody walks the same path, that second voice you love enters at exactly the same moment. Physically, nothing in the world has happened. But something has happened. The chorus now grates on you. Your finger moves to those three little dots on the screen, and they say: remove from playlist.

The question is this: what spoiled? The note, or the ear?

When this question comes up, the first reaction is always the same: you have to separate the work from the artist. It sounds mature, cool-headed and fair. And besides, we all already do it. Carlo Gesualdo, prince of Venosa, killed his wife and her lover in fifteen ninety. He never stood trial, because he was a nobleman. The madrigals he wrote are still sung today, still counted among the boldest harmonic discoveries in the history of music, still silencing concert halls with a shiver. Nobody walks out. Caravaggio killed a man in Rome in sixteen oh six, fled the city with a death sentence hanging over his head, and went on painting as a fugitive. His paintings still hang in churches, directly above the altar. Nobody in the church feels uneasy.

So we do know how to separate the work from its maker. But notice: we do it not as a skill but as distance. We did not forgive Gesualdo, we simply do not live on the same street as him. The name of the woman he killed is a footnote to us. Four hundred years did the separating on our behalf. Part of what we take for maturity is actually time.

That is why the principle of separation reaches four centuries back without effort, yet falls apart in our hands when it comes to last night's news. Because as we get closer we start laying two different questions on top of one another, and the moment they blur, the argument is poisoned.

The first question is this: is this a good work? The second is this: can I keep up my relationship with this work? The first is a judgment about the work, the second is a decision about you. And the two are not the same thing.

Because the human mind loads objects with the trace of whoever has touched them. In psychology it is called contamination. The experiments of Paul Rozin and his colleagues showed something simple: people do not want to wear a sweater that has been worn by someone they dislike, someone they find morally disgusting. They do not want it even once the sweater has been washed. Washing reduces the reluctance but does not zero it out. There is nothing in the sweater. The cotton is there, the thread is there. The trace is in us.

A song is a sweater in this sense. While you were listening you opened yourself to it, you let someone in, you carried their voice around inside your head. What spoiled when the news arrived was not the note, it was that openness. And admitting this is a more honest starting point than repeating the sentence you have to separate the work, because it finally makes visible why separating is so hard.

So did philosophy meet this question for the first time yesterday? No. It has two great answers, exact opposites of each other, and both are surprisingly radical.

In the third book of the Republic, Plato describes a poet arriving at the ideal city he has built. A master poet, able to imitate anything, produce any sound, bring any emotion to life, comes to the gate. Plato does not beat him, humiliate him or throw him in prison. Quite the opposite: he pours oil on his head, crowns him with a garland, and respectfully sends him off to another city. The politest expulsion in the history of philosophy. He walks him to the door and sends him on his way.

Why? Notice, not because the poems are bad. Plato's problem is the reverse: because they are too good. What he says in the tenth book is this: the one who imitates does not know the thing he imitates. The painter draws a horse's bridle but never learned from the harness maker what a bridle is for; the poet tells of heroism but does not know how to command a war. The work is brilliant, the maker is ignorant. And brilliance is dangerous precisely because it carries that ignorance, because it enters the soul directly, without asking reason's permission.

So Plato's criterion is, directly, the maker's relationship with truth. He looks at the maker in order to judge the work. Anyone who says today that they cannot listen without thinking about the artist is standing, without realizing it, in a camp two thousand four hundred years old.

Now cross over to the opposite camp. In nineteen forty-six two American critics, Wimsatt and Beardsley, described what they called the intentional fallacy: what the poet wanted to do neither can be nor should be used to measure what the poem is. Even if the poet explains his intention, that explanation is a new text, not the poem itself. The moment the poem is finished it has left the poet's hands; it is public, it is in the language.

In nineteen sixty-seven Roland Barthes said this far more harshly, and killed the author outright. In the short essay he titled The Death of the Author, what he describes is this: a text is not an original message gushing out of a single person, it is a fabric woven from countless citations; meaning is born not where it is written but where it is read. To place the author behind the text and say, look, this is what he really meant, is to close the text, to sentence it to a single meaning. For Barthes, when the author dies the reader is born.

In nineteen sixty-nine Foucault entered the same place from somewhere entirely different. He did not ask who the author is, he asked what the author's name does. His answer was this: a name is a classifying device that groups texts, assumes consistency among them, and determines which of them is to be taken seriously. The author is not the source of the text but a border drawn around it. He opened his essay with the question, what does it matter who is speaking.

Two answers, two extremes. Plato says you cannot separate the work from its maker, because the work carries the maker's ignorance. Barthes says you cannot bind the work to its maker, because the work no longer belongs to the maker.

So what happens when these two extremes are put to the test in the middle of life?

In eighteen fifty Richard Wagner published a text under a pen name: Jewishness in Music. It argued that music had been corrupted by a people. Seventy years later his music, long after his own death, became the ceremonial music of the Nazi regime; the regime used him like a flag. From nineteen thirty-eight onward, orchestras in Palestine, and later in Israel, stopped playing Wagner. It was never banned by law, nobody took a written decision, but for seventy years nobody played it.

In July two thousand one Daniel Barenboim gave a concert in Jerusalem. The program had been changed. He was originally going to play Wagner, and after objections from camp survivors and discomfort from the government he changed the program and played Schumann and Stravinsky. At the end of the concert he turned back to the hall and offered to play the prelude to Wagner's opera Tristan und Isolde as an encore. And he did not simply play it, he opened a discussion. In a hall holding roughly two thousand eight hundred people, from the stage, arguments were made for and against. In the end he said this: I am going to play it, and anyone who is uncomfortable may leave. Some left. The rest listened, and gave a standing ovation.

In that hall both philosophical answers collapse. Plato's answer, look at the maker, silences that music completely; you bury one of the most fragile beauties in the world because of a pamphlet. Barthes's answer, the author is dead, cannot be said to the face of a person sitting in that hall whose grandfather's name appears on the lists; telling him this music has nothing to do with anyone is an insult. What Barenboim did was not to choose a theory. It was to ask the people in the room.

And this shows us the real thing: this is not a question of rules, it is a question of the room. The answer changes according to who is in the room. That is an uncomfortable conclusion, because everybody here wants a principle, a criterion they can put in their pocket and apply to every situation.

Is there such a criterion? Another tradition has a remarkably clear distinction on exactly this point.

Ninth-century Baghdad. Al-Kindi, the first great philosopher of the Islamic world, writes in his book on first philosophy that we should not be ashamed to accept the truth from wherever it comes, to take it even if it comes from distant nations and foreign peoples; that for the seeker of truth nothing is more valuable than truth, and that what is shameful is to belittle it. He writes this at a moment when Greek philosophy is only just being translated into Arabic, when it would have been very easy to reject this knowledge as the knowledge of those who are not ours.

There is a saying settled deep into the language of that same tradition: wisdom is the believer's lost property, and wherever he finds it he takes it. Scholars of hadith consider the chain of transmission of this saying weak, meaning its attribution to the Prophet is disputed; but the meaning has settled in as a principle. Alongside it circulates a sharper sentence attributed to Ali: truth is not known through men, men are known through truth. In other words, if you are trying to deduce the correctness of a statement from the standing of whoever said it, you are holding your scales upside down.

Al-Ghazali pointed to the error at the very other end of this matter. He is the man who settled accounts with the philosophers most harshly; he tried to refute their metaphysics line by line. But in the book where he tells the story of his own life, while listing the sciences of the philosophers, he set mathematics and logic apart and said this: if someone finds the truths of geometry in a philosopher's book and, out of his anger at the philosopher, rejects those truths along with him, he believes he is serving religion but in fact harms it. Because a person who denies something plainly true for the sake of his faith has announced to the one across from him that his faith cannot make peace with the truth. So al-Ghazali's warning is about the price of throwing out the work together with its maker, and that warning is made by the very man who criticized those makers most.

Ibn Rushd said the same principle in the language of a jurist: if someone who came before us has spoken the truth, we take it with gratitude, and which faith he belonged to does not change that exchange.

Now let us come to the finest point of this tradition, because the real criterion is there. The same tradition that says take wisdom wherever you find it also built the most detailed system of source scrutiny in history. In the science of hadith there is a branch called ilm al-rijal: the biographies of those who transmit reports, their memories, their honesty, from whom they heard and to whom they passed it on. Al-jarh wa al-ta'dil, the weighing of whether a transmitter is to be counted trustworthy. The names, the characters, the strength of memory of thousands of people were put on record. Here, who is speaking is everything.

This is not a contradiction. It is a precise distinction. Because the two are talking about two different things.

The first is burhan, that is, demonstrative proof. The man who says two times two is four may be a liar, a tyrant or a murderer. The result is four. Because proof carries its own evidence inside itself; you can erase the name on the paper and check it from the beginning. Proof has no source, proof has steps.

The second is khabar, that is, testimony. In the words of someone who says I saw it, there is nothing to be checked from the inside. The only thing you have is that person. In testimony, judging the source is not a right but a necessity, because if you separate the testimony from the witness nothing is left standing.

There is the criterion. Who is speaking gains its weight according to whether the thing you are taking is proof or testimony.

So which is art? And here we have to face an uncomfortable answer: art is neither, but it stands closer to testimony. A novel proves nothing; you cannot check it step by step. What it does is this: it says, look at the world from here. It shows how a person is loved, how a pain is carried, who is worth taking seriously. It offers you a gaze, and it asks a trust of you so that you will adopt that gaze. Wherever trust is asked for, who is asking makes the question legitimate.

This is why a mathematics book written by a murderer and a love story written by a murderer are not the same thing. From one you take the formula and leave the man behind. In the other, what you are taking is not a formula but a gaze, and knowing what the owner of that gaze did with the very same gaze becomes part of reading the text.

In the last year of his life, in sixteen fifty-six, Kâtip Çelebi wrote the Mîzânü'l-hak, a name meaning the balance of truth in choosing what is most correct. Throughout the book he enters the quarrels of his age and, interestingly, criticizes both sides: those who reject knowledge as irreligion, and those who defend the matter without thinking about it at all. His scale is always the same: look not at the camp, but at the matter itself.

The thing is, the scale alone is not enough, because in life this question also comes with a bill.

In practice there are two things people do, and the two are often taken for the same thing: boycotting, and separating. In fact three different things are tangled together, and the moment you untangle them half the argument goes out.

The first is aesthetic judgment: is this work well made? The second is personal relationship: can I listen to this? The third is material support: when I watch this, when I listen to it, when I buy the ticket, who am I giving the money to?

Notice, only the third of these is a real lever. You cannot change the aesthetic judgment; you cannot forget that something well made is well made simply by wishing to. You cannot force the personal relationship; if it grates, it grates. But you can direct the money. And right here things do not turn out the way you think.

Listening to Gesualdo earns nobody a penny; there is no one there left to be paid. With the living, the money you pay most often does not go where you imagine it goes. The biggest music streaming services say they pass on roughly seventy percent of their revenue to rights holders; but the rights holder is often not the artist but a company that has bought the catalogue. When you boycott a film, where you think the number of people you are punishing is three or five, it is three hundred people whose names you have never heard: the lighting technician, the editor, the woman who wrote the music, the costume assistant. Your staying away is not a verdict, it is an arithmetic, and if you do not know who the arithmetic lands on, believing you have passed judgment is fooling yourself.

People actually found intuitively what can genuinely be separated out, and what they have done in recent years was exactly about that: separating the name from the object. In the summer of two thousand nineteen the Louvre in Paris, after protests, covered over the Sackler family's name on the walls of one of its wings; the museum's management recalled that the naming rights were limited to twenty years and that the donation had been made in nineteen ninety-seven. In December two thousand twenty-one the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Met, removed the same name from seven of its galleries. Notice: nobody touched the works. The Temple of Dendur stayed where it stood, not a single display case was emptied. What came down was honor; what remained was the work.

Because standing can be taken back, the work cannot. You can pull a name off a wall; you cannot pull out and throw away what a sentence written a hundred years ago did to you. Most of what people do under the name of boycott is in fact this: not destroying the work, but withdrawing the honor given to it. And separating these two from one another changes the way you see the whole argument.

But here there is the reverse question of this entire subject, the one nobody asks, and that is the genuinely hard one.

We always ask whether the maker contaminates the work. Yet sometimes the work gives the maker away. Heidegger joined the party in nineteen thirty-three and became rector at Freiburg. For decades the debate ran in this form: does a thinker's political choice invalidate his philosophy, or do the texts stand apart? From two thousand fourteen onward, once the Black Notebooks were published, the debate changed, because the issue was no longer the man's biography; the flaw itself was speaking from inside the texts. There, the move of separating the work fails not for moral reasons but for philological ones: there is no place left at which to separate.

This is the criterion we were looking for. Not a rule, but a reading. The question is not whether the maker was bad, but whether the flaw is inside the work or beside it. There is no murder in Caravaggio's painting. There is no blood of jealousy in Gesualdo's madrigal. If a text contains the refusal to count a human being as human, that text is no longer the maker's private life, it is the text's own claim. The first you can separate; if you separate the second, it means you are not reading.

And today this question weighs more than it used to, because the distance is gone. In the seventeenth century a work reached you already purified of its maker; you would see the painting, you would not know the man. Now every maker's face, voice, yesterday's sentence, quarrel and court case stands in front of it. The default condition is no longer separation but entanglement. And so the skill to be developed is not purification.

Purification means this: cleaning out the list, emptying the shelf, arranging everything around you so that you will never be uneasy again. Its opposite extreme is just as easy: saying nothing matters, placing aesthetics above everything and refusing to see what happened. Both exits rescue a person from the same thing: from carrying the weight.

Carrying is this: being able to hold two things at once in the same sentence. This is well made. The person who made it did that. And neither of those two sentences cancels the other. When you say the first you are not absolving the second; when you say the second you are not erasing the first. The human mind does not like this; it wants consistency, it wants a single emotion, it wants all or nothing. Most of what we call maturity is learning not to resolve this discomfort but to carry it.

And there is one final asymmetry, and it explains why this whole matter never closes. To judge a person you have to know them: what they did knowingly, what they were forced into, what they came to regret. To judge a work, looking at it is enough; it stands there and lays out all of its evidence in front of you. Of these two we only ever hold one. The work is in front of us, the maker is not. That is why judging the work is easy and judging the maker is cheap. And most of the time, when we delete something from the playlist, we do not know ourselves which of the two we are deciding.

Nöron Philosophy'de bugünkü bölümün sonuna geldik. Yeni bir hikâyede yeniden buluşmak üzere.