Article Found Here.
Recent legislation in Russia banning “propaganda on nontraditional relationships” has caused vast public outcry, especially in the United States. Such was evident on October 10, 2013 when Valery Gergiev, a prominent supporter of Russia’s President Vladimir V. Putin, drew a large gay rights protest on the night that he was performing with the Mariinsky Orchestra in a program of three Stravinsky ballets. The protest lead by activist group Queer Nation, yelled “Gergiev, your silence is killing Russian gays!” (Cooper) and other negative comments towards Gergiev. Before they were escorted out of the performance, several members of the audience cheered for them while others denounced the disruption. Acting in a semi-constructive manner, the group said what they had to say before the performance began and left without confrontation. Although Gergiev does not discriminate in his own theatre in Russia, his decision to support Putin forms infamy, especially amongst the gays rights groups of New York.
Before entering into the specifics of the issue, it is important to examine America’s cultural values and how such protests express these ideals. We, as Americans, feel that a man’s beliefs and actions outside of his workplace ultimately affect his credibility. For example, if a governor or a president is believed to have cheated on his or her spouse, that person has lost all credibility and support. Such was the case for Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and other political giants. Although what they did in their personal lives as no direct connection with their ruling practices, we as a society denounce such impurity. Connecting our ideals to this issue, Gergiev’s performance is now seen in a negative light due to his beliefs. Just like our governors and presidents who have conducted wrongdoings in their personal lives, Gergiev is no longer welcome in the United States by some, until he changes his beliefs.
Gay rights is such a tough issue in that it conflicts with American ideas about freedom of thought and freedom of practice. A large paradox in our society is that we acknowledge different beliefs but rebuke those who are famous and have beliefs against the socially accepted norms. One would argue that there is nothing wrong in this way of life, as we are trying to form a more educated and socially-equal society. Though this may be true when thinking in an ethnocentric mindset, one must realize that our values of human rights is somewhat subjective. When an issue clashes human rights versus freedom of thought, Americans tend to prioritize and say that beliefs on humans rights should be shared worldwide.
Gergiev, I personally have no problem with your performance and would gladly watch it one day. Some might call me ignorant for supporting such a man and his ideas but I would argue that a man’s work and his ideas are two separate entities and should be seen as that. I do not agree with Gergiev’s values but forcing him to change them to make a profit, would make me feel like a monster and nothing greater than the legislators who banned gay rights in the first place.
It is important to understand that for me to come to this conclusion, I had to draw a line between my personal beliefs about a man’s work and his thoughts. If Hitler or Stalin was in Gergiev’s place, I too would probably protest the performance since these men have killed innocent people. Gergiev has not done so nor as he banned homosexuals from entering his theatre. The world is not black and white therefore why does every issue and its subsequent effect have to be so?
I understand that this issue is widely personal and that I may not know all the factors, so I ask that if you disagree with me please have proof, so I can reexamine.
Works Cited:
Cooper, Michael. “Gay Rights Protests Follow Gergiev to Carnegie Hall.” ArtsBeat Gay Rights Protests Follow Gergiev to Carnegie Hall Comments. NY Tmes, 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013.
This is such an interesting issue; I find your take unique and thought provoking. The legal discrimination against homosexuals in Russia has received a lot of attention and the expectation is that many artists, globally and within Russia, will speak in opposition to this. A common assumption is that artists are much more socially liberal and accepting, so a musician like Gergiev seems to go against the grain.
Many people believed that he would and should speak out against Putin’s anti-gay policies and that not doing so is a misuse of influence. Your point that an artist’s opinion should stay separate from their career is well-made but I must disagree. Musicians, painters, actors, and other celebrities wield a disproportionate amount of influence over the rest of the population. In general we as a populace devote more importance and accuracy to the opinions of celebrities on social issues even if we know they are not experts in these issues. I believe that this gives them a social responsibility to advocate for those who do not have a voice. And in the past many famous artists have wielded this power to encourage social action- whether this action was regarding women’s issues, civil rights, or sexual equality.
So, should Gergiev have a strong stance on this issue I personally see it as his responsibility to speak up. If he is staying quiet to appease President Putin than I cannot respect that decision. If, however, he truly feels ambivalent about this issue then he is faultless. If he has an opinion on this extremely important issue he should express it, but if it is something that he genuinely does not care about then that is not immoral. I do agree with you that just because he is an artist doesn’t mean he needs to support gay rights; that is a personal choice and he has the right to support ‘traditional’ marriage even if I disagree with his opinion.
In conclusion this is a very complicated problem and hopefully I was able to express my view coherently enough. I agree with certain parts of your post and disagree with others but I really appreciate that you brought such a controversial article to our attention.
As someone who is gay myself, I disagree with you completely. I refuse to support, give money to, or even associate with anyone who doesn’t support gay rights, or isn’t at least open to supporting gay rights. Maybe that sounds extreme, but gay rights are my rights and I refuse to support anyone who doesn’t think I’m equal to them or deserving of the same rights. This is even more true when money is involved, because I won’t line the pockets of people who might use their money to fund groups and politicians who think I should remain a second-class citizen. For example, to this day I refuse to eat at Chik-Fil-A, because the company donates part of its profits to hate groups that oppose gay rights and gay marriage.
So because of that, I can’t support an artist who doesn’t support me, or who supports a politician that is so radically opposed to my rights as Putin is. Furthermore, artists have a huge influence on culture and society, especially very famous artists with large fan bases. Anyone who perpetuates the idea that me and the rest of the LGBT community are somehow inferior because of who we fall in love with and how we express ourselves, is no friend of mine, and certainly not a person I’d give money to. Although in most cases I can separate personal life from professional, there are some cases where I can’t, and where I think it would be wrong to. This doesn’t just go for gay rights, either, this goes for things such women’s rights and domestic violence too. For example, I found it appalling that even after Chris Brown beat Rihanna, people continued to support him and hold him up as an icon. In fact, a lot of people seemed to excuse his actions and some even blamed Rihanna for what happened to her. If Chris Brown were any regular person, he’d have been raked across the coals by society, but because he’s famous and a celebrity heartthrob, society excuses what he did and claims that it doesn’t change the fact that he’s a talented singer. Be that as it may, I don’t think it’s right to support a domestic abuser just because he’s a famous singer, when you’d hate him if he were a regular person.
I think it’s okay to separate a person’s personal life from professional when it comes to things that don’t harm anyone (for example, who they choose to date/marry, what they look like, their weight, etc.), but I don’t think that we should excuse or ignore celebrities who commit crimes or oppose equal rights for groups of marginalized people.
I don’t think Gergiev’s mere support of Putin’s anti gay policy should be held against him at his operas. If people didn’t want to see his shows because of his position on gay rights then they shouldn’t come to the shows and that’ll be a statement in itself. But they shouldn’t be petitioning inside or outside of the theater, I think that’s over the top and disrespectful towards the artists. I completely agree with your comment about Gergiev’s work being totally separate from his ideas and I don’t think that’s ignorant of you at all. It’s different if he was using his music to promote his political stance on the issue, like many artists do. For example, at the Walls and Bridges Festival, there’s a dance piece choreographed by Jeanne Mordoj where the dancers use eggshells as props to represent symbols of fertility. The piece is discussed in the New York Times article called, “Making a Serious Point With Eggshells”, which is found in http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/arts/dance/jeanne-mordoj-at-new-york-live-arts.html?ref=dance. Because the festival had a gender identity and female representation theme, the dance was centered on that. This is completely different than what Gergiev was trying to achieve with his work. He was in no way using a anti-gay theme in his music, but just trying to entertain an audience, and I don’t think he should be punished for that.
I’m glad you used this article because it directly correlates to the article I used a few weeks ago. To summarize, the Metropolitan Opera House was honoring Russian opera with a performance of Tchaikovsky’s “Eugene Onegin” (Gergiev was in this performance as well, as it’s stated in your article). With the antigay sentiments in Russia, many felt it was only right that the Metropolitan Opera House dedicate the performance to Russian gay rights; many protestors stood outside the opera house, while some even made a commotion indoors prior to the opera commencing. The Metropolitan Opera House refused to dedicate their performance, stating that it would be ”
I think people’s opinion on this really differs based on their own views on gay rights. I agree with Diana in that if people can’t deal with the fact that Gergiev may support antigay laws, then they should completely boycott it. You’re right that how he personally feels on certain things does not change the fact that he is artistically talented.
However, at the same time I agree with Kirsten. For her, gay rights are HER rights; there is no label to it, just as a straight person wouldn’t call his rights “straight rights.” She brings a valid point about people like Chris Brown. I used to be a big fan of his, but after the Rihanna scandal, I just can’t see him the same way. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t produce good music, yet for me his personal life has completely damaged my view on his professional life.
I think it’s tough to say whether you’re right or Kirsten’s right. Both of you bring valid points. This is just something that depends on each person personally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/nyregion/gay-rights-protest-greets-opening-night-at-the-met.html
I think when it comes to supporting politicians, you don’t necessarily have to support everything they do to be considered a supporter. Although I do not like President Putin, it isn’t only because of his nonsupport of gays in Russia. Likewise, if someone does support Putin, it doesn’t mean they necessarily support what he is doing in all aspects. This is why I think it is important to not the line – Your silence is killing Russian gays. Because he supports Putin, he can’t really go against him. Sure, Putin is not Stalin, but protesters have been known to disappear for less. What I found the most distasteful was one part of the law that Putin signed in July about how he “signed a law banning the adoption of Russian-born children not only to gay couples but also to any couple or single parent living in any country where marriage equality exists in any form” that means many industrialized countries. Therefore, not only are homosexuals being prosecuted, but orphan children in Russian will not be able to get a better life because of their stubborn and backwards president http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html
This was an interesting read because I never really realized how much of a strong impact one’s personal life has on their career and the way the public views them. I completely agree with your opinion that an official’s career should not be judged by certain personal life choices he makes. I don’t think it’s fair that people protested during Valery Gergiev’ performance because he supports Russia’s President Vladimir V. Putin’s views on gay rights. It’s one thing if people don’t go to his performances because they disagree with his opinion on gay rights, but it’s another thing if a protest group causes a scene at one of his operas. Because of freedom of speech and freedom of practice, Gergiev can’t be held accountable or blamed for stating an opinion on gay rights. Gergiev shouldn’t have to change his values because he’s scared of losing his business.
I also agree with your reference to Hitler and Stalin because instead of peacefully expressing their values, they killed people. It would have been understandable for people to stop supporting them. However, it doesn’t seem understandable for people to interrupt Gergiev while he’s performing a piece he worked hard on.
Another article on a Russian-themed musical said the play didn’t serve Russian vodka to the audience in hopes of not creating any ties with Russia. By not serving the vodka, the musical protested against Russia’s view on gay people. Since the musical, “Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812”, is inspired by Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”, it seems reasonable that Russian vodka was not served to the audience. The producer’s decision is fair because he was not harming anyone by not serving the vodka. Also, it didn’t impact the audience’s ability to watch the play.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/hold-the-russian-vodka-great-comet-producers-in-protest-against-anti-gay-bias/
This article was similar to another last week in that it discussed a protest against Gergiev’s program because of his association with Putin and Putin’s anti-gay laws in Russia. It’s interesting to note that the articles are talking about nearly exactly the same subject matter but are focusing on different things. In the previous article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/nyregion/gay-rights-protest-greets-opening-night-at-the-met.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=nytimesarts&_r=0
protesters were calling on the Met to dedicate the entire performance to gay rights- something I didn’t exactly agree with because the Met had made a statement that they don’t make political statements, but by choosing to honor the legacy of a gay composer, instead they are making a social statement.
In this article, however, the issue was whether or not there’s a divide between Gergiev’s personal/political views, and his professional career. Again, as other commentators have noted, there is an overlap between personal views and professional life. Although in most cases, personal views should not be mingled with professional life, if people feel that the cause in profound enough, then their dissent is understandable. I know there’s a cliche to compare everything to Hitler, but here is my Hitler comparison. It’s a well known fact that before becoming who he his remembered for, Hitler was an aspiring artist. His paintings were average at best and he ultimately he was rejected to art school. Now, let’s say a museum curator decided to curate his painting and display theme for PURELY artistic purposes. Would it really be unreasonable for people to protest this exhibition?
Particularly in arts this is true, but it also applies to other aspects of life. If a business supports a cause we identify with, we’ll most like support that company. Conversely, if they are against something we agree with, it’s not unreasonable to protest this company. I pointed art specifically because in class we’ve established that art is a means of expression. Art above all (in comparison to business) is a communication and discussion of ideas, and that’s exactly what the protesters were doing.
I agree with many of the points that you brought up. I also believe that generally, a man shouldn’t be judged for his work in conjunction with his beliefs. Although I’m sure there are exceptions to this belief. But we should also consider other factors. Even though Gergiev supported Putin through his Campaign commercial, it doesn’t necessarily mean Gergiev supports anti-gay laws. Even if he did, shouldn’t the public focus more on protesting against Putin? Does one famous conductor’s opinion outweigh the opinion of the masses? Why does his inaction or action make a difference? You also pointed out that forcing Gergiev to change his values (which is a mystery as far as we’re concerned) to make a profit is immoral, but who’s to say that Gergiev didn’t profit at all from his Putin commercial?
Just throwing it out there.