Podcast Summary:
New Books Network – Interview with Mary Beth Willard, "Why It's Ok to Enjoy the Work of Immoral Artists" (Routledge, 2021)
Host: Alison Lee
Guest: Mary Beth Willard
Date: September 22, 2025
Topic: The ethics of engaging with art and entertainment produced by artists who have acted immorally
Overview
In this episode, Alison Lee interviews Mary Beth Willard, associate professor of philosophy at Weber State University, about her provocative book, Why It's Ok to Enjoy the Work of Immoral Artists. The conversation explores the challenging ethical terrain of appreciating or engaging with the art (from music and comedy to painting and film) of creators whose personal conduct is considered objectionable, especially in the wake of the #MeToo movement. Willard argues for a moderate, context-sensitive view: that it is generally permissible to engage with the work of immoral artists, but that this judgment depends on numerous factors including context, institutional responsibility, and individual virtue. Through thoughtful back-and-forth, Lee and Willard probe the philosophical, practical, and emotional aspects of these dilemmas.
Guest Bio and Book Genesis
Mary Beth Willard’s Academic Journey
- Willard grew up near Pittsburgh and initially pursued chemistry at Notre Dame before discovering philosophy (03:39).
- She studied at Yale for her Ph.D., focusing on metaphysics and aesthetics, and has always had one foot in each discipline (04:30).
- The impetus for this book emerged in 2017 during the #MeToo movement, after a collaborative blog post co-written with Matt Strohl questioning the logic of artistic boycotts. The idea snowballed into a Routledge series book, initially focused on Michael Jackson before broadening in scope (08:02).
How the Book Came About
- The book's origin traces to a 2017 conference and subsequent online debate about MeToo and immoral artists (08:02).
- The Routledge series ("Why It's Ok to…") shaped the final title—though "enjoy" is somewhat broader than Willard's intended "engage" (17:33).
- The book draws from popular culture and headline #MeToo cases (Michael Jackson, R. Kelly, Weinstein, Cosby, Louis C.K., Gauguin) to create relatable scenarios for wide audiences.
Main Themes and Key Discussion Points
The Book’s Central Claim
- Willard maintains that in most contexts, it is ethically permissible to enjoy (engage with) the works of immoral artists, though with contextual caveats (15:44).
Quote:
"In most contexts, yes." — Mary Beth Willard on whether it’s OK to enjoy the work of immoral artists (15:44).
Defining "Enjoy" and "Artist"
- The title’s use of “enjoy” is broader than mere pleasure—it’s about "engagement," which includes appreciation, sharing with others, or even creating derivative works (fanfiction, discussion, cooking along to Game of Thrones). Art consumption is often communal (17:33–20:54).
- “Artist” is used broadly to encompass entertainers, producers, comedians, not just painters and sculptors (22:59). Willard aims to avoid gatekeeping or limiting the term to “fine artists.”
Quote:
"Engage is probably closer to the spirit of a lot of what I'm talking about. But I think it's often really bound up with enjoyment because that's why we're into art and other aesthetic practices in the first place. They're fun, right? They bring people together." — Mary Beth Willard (19:05)
Why Is This a Problem Now? (#MeToo Context)
- The #MeToo movement spotlighted recent artists (often men) where immoral conduct surfaced alongside widely beloved works.
- The public is more likely to question present-day entertainers where there's a feeling of possible consumer impact, unlike distant historical cases (25:00–26:57).
Separating Art and Artist: When Is This Possible?
Philosophical Approach
- Willard addresses two kinds of cases:
- Where the artwork itself is not immoral, but the artist is (e.g., Michael Jackson’s music, Cosby’s standup).
- Where the content reflects the artist’s immoral behavior (e.g., Gauguin painting the young girls he exploited).
- She notes that in the first instance, there's little in the content that demands ethical rejection unless recontextualization makes the work itself problematic (28:30).
Contextual Ethics
- Interpretation and judgment may change as new information about the artist’s life comes to light, as with Woody Allen or J.K. Rowling (31:00).
"Maybe we're all making a mistake. But as I argue, I don't think we are. I think you can look at what the artist is doing and reinterpret the work. And I think sometimes the work comes out worse for that." — Mary Beth Willard (33:10)
The Hard Case: Gauguin
- Contemporary artists and communities sometimes "need" Gauguin as a point of reference, making institutional responses especially fraught (35:02–37:25).
Individual vs. Collective Responsibility
On Boycotts
- Willard contends that individual boycotts—especially of wealthy or deceased artists—are unlikely to have meaningful ethical impact ("They matter to us, but we don't matter to them." 38:52).
- The real task is institutional reform (legal, cultural, financial incentives) rather than symbolic individual abstention (40:25).
Quote:
"It's an extra. Like, think of how small your contribution is, you know, the 4,000ths of a cent that your listen would give to Michael Jackson. And it's so tiny in most cases that unless you have some kind of assurance, I think, that your action will meaningfully be part of a larger collective action, right? That there's no requirement for you to do it, right? So it's a fairly narrow claim." — Mary Beth Willard (40:25)
Dangers and Limits of This Argument
- Alison worries this reasoning could be misapplied to excuse bad behavior ("danger, danger" 45:48). Willard agrees the risk exists but insists the point is about the limitations of individual action in complex, institutional problems, not a justification to do harm (46:26).
Virtue Ethics and Context: Chapter 3 Insights
- The most technical chapter argues that individuals have a responsibility to cultivate virtues (such as epistemic justice) that make them sensitive to the impact of their actions and the perspectives of victims (53:59).
- The ethical problem lies less in engaging with "bad" art per se, more in what our engagement expresses—especially publicly or semi-publicly.
- The same act (listening to Michael Jackson or teaching Gauguin) can be ethically permissible or problematic depending on context (public vs. private, supportive vs. dismissive, critical engagement vs. endorsement).
Quote:
"What you express by the action that you undertake isn't entirely up to you, right? It's determined by context, by what other people think, by how this normally goes in your culture, for example." — Mary Beth Willard (61:10)
Public vs. Private Enjoyment
- Willard distinguishes between private engagement (listening alone, engaging critically) and public endorsement (playlist at a campus dance, uncontextualized recommendations).
- Most ethical weight falls on the public expression, because of what it communicates to others (61:05–66:27).
Institutional Solutions and Real Change
- The problem of abusive, unpunished artists would best be prevented by strong, functional institutions—legal systems, industries, and professional cultures that credibly address abuse (46:26).
- Boycotts, for many listeners or viewers, are more a gesture of frustration at failed institutional justice than a direct means of change.
Notable Quotes and Moments
On Enjoyment vs. Engagement
"I think most of us enjoy art or engage with art often in the community of others.” – Mary Beth Willard (19:06)
On Artists vs. Entertainers
"I was thinking that when we're talking about the MeToo movement, we are talking pretty broadly about Hollywood. We're talking about celebrity culture. And that's mixed in with this." – Mary Beth Willard (23:15)
On Individual Impact
"They matter a lot to us, we don't matter much to them." – Mary Beth Willard (40:25)
On Institutional Solutions
"A lot of these problems are institutional problems. And institutional problems require institutional solutions." — Mary Beth Willard (46:26)
On Public vs. Private Appreciation
"I think most of the ethical issue is about what it expresses, right?...I don't think you'd be harming anybody or necessarily even harming your own soul if you were listening to R. Kelly on your headphones. But I think you'd have a very hard time playing it in a public context while being able to control what you express by it." — Mary Beth Willard (62:35)
Timestamps for Key Segments
- [03:39–08:02] – Willard’s background and how the book was conceived
- [08:02–13:45] – The origin story: #MeToo, Michael Jackson, and expanding the project
- [15:44] – Willard states her central thesis
- [17:33–20:54] – Defining “enjoy” and the scope of “artist”
- [22:59–26:57] – Why the focus is on contemporary entertainers and not only “fine artists”
- [28:30–34:19] – Philosophy of immoral content vs. immoral creators
- [35:02–37:25] – Gauguin as a hard case; art history, legacy, and institutional context
- [38:52–45:10] – The ethics and (im)practicality of individual boycotts
- [45:48–52:14] – Alison’s concern: collective action, institutional agency, and the worry over moral abdication
- [53:59–59:13] – Virtue ethics, becoming a better person, and contextual engagement
- [61:05–66:27] – Public vs. private appreciation; the nuance of ethical expression
- [66:44] – Willard’s upcoming research and reflections
Takeaways and Closing Thoughts
- Willard advocates for reflective, context-aware engagement with the work of immoral artists, acknowledging both the limits of personal action and the greater importance of institutional reform.
- The ethical complexity of enjoying, engaging, or teaching such works cannot be resolved with simple prohibitions; much depends on what the engagement expresses and the context in which it occurs.
- The conversation urges both consumers and institutions to wrestle honestly with these issues, aiming not for easy rules but for virtuous, critically alert participation in art and culture.
Summary by [AI Podcast Summarizer]. For any further questions, visit [original episode link].