The political evolution of the “New Atheist” polemicist Christopher Hitchens was once described as “the first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly back into a slug.” The intervening years have supplied no shortage of comparable specimens, with America’s very own anti-cancel-culture icon, Matt Taibbi, among the more tenacious. Yet, as with Hitchens, the description may be too generous about the creature’s origins. Especially in Taibbi’s case, it is not at all clear whether there was ever a butterfly to begin with.
Last week, this fine specimen published an article on his blog titled “Art is More Important than Politics.” At first glance, the reader might expect a discussion of, say, French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and his famous essay, “What is Literature?” Or maybe a half-decent review of German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s account of “disinterestedness” in aesthetic judgment, and whatnot. Taibbi’s article, however, is far more modest in depth, despite its frequent references to great artists – references that are, in any case, either misconceived or simply irrelevant.
Taibbi’s main theses are that “a) art speaks to something higher than politics, and b) the enemy of all good art is certainty.” Yet he never even attempts to argue for either of these extremely contentious positions, nor does he explain exactly how they are relevant to the controversy he is discussing. Worse still, he fails to clarify the terms of his argument. To make any sense of his claims, then, it is necessary to understand what he is responding to. For it is only in that context that we could hope to establish what art and politics mean to him and try to see just how “even heavy metal is more important than causes.” As fantastical and outrageous as this last claim may sound, Taibbi is firm in its defense.
What led him to write the article turns out to be his perception that “every activist on the planet lined up to denounce” Metallica, whose frontman, James Hetfield, told his audience at a recent concert that his band was not there, “like some other entertainers, to influence you with their b*******.” Metallica was there to prescribe “love, energy, and heavy music” instead. Of course, Taibbi would never regard Hetfield’s rather patronizing intervention as an attempt to “cancel” those who, in their capacity as artists, dared to make what he takes to be “political” statements.
On the other hand, the same Taibbi is quite comfortable framing criticism of Hetfield in precisely those terms. When his former co-host Katie Halper called Hetfield “a loser and a coward,” Taibbi rushed to the heavy metal star’s rescue. He pushed back against that unconscionable exercise in “cancel culture” of pressuring artists to take a particular political stance, drawing his conviction from the supposed transcendence of art over politics (though, admittedly, even if art were indeed so transcendent, the artist as a person would nevertheless remain subject to moral judgment).
The problem with Taibbi’s argument, however, is that no one was pressuring Hetfield to take any particular political stance. In fact, no one was really thinking or talking about him until he decided, completely unprompted, to address the subject himself, implicitly targeting others, including American rapper Macklemore, for speaking up about the genocide in Gaza. Macklemore had been dropped from British musician Ed Sheeran’s tour following pressure from stadium owner Robert Kraft, who has been heavily invested in the cause of Israel all his life. This high-profile case of “cancellation” naturally sparked a controversy, with Sheeran’s remaining supporting acts withdrawing in protest. It was in this context that Hetfield made those disparaging comments.
It appears, therefore, that the “political” for Taibbi extends far enough to encompass purely moral judgments. If that is the case, however, it is hard to see how art can indeed be more important than politics. Besides, who is really demanding that artists create their art with political considerations in mind anyway? If art is as “universal” as Taibbi says it is, then surely, it should be possible to detach the art from the individual artist, and the individual artist from the art. Detached from his work, Hetfield is simply a man with considerable influence, and everyone is perfectly entitled to ask him to use that influence for what they perceive to be the good – or, at least, not to use it to belittle those who do so.
If Hetfield were truly apolitical, he would simply have refrained from making any comments. Apart from a couple of accusations of nihilism, that would have been the end of it. Yet he chose to chime in, just like Taibbi subsequently did to rescue him. The latter’s entire brand as a journalist has been anti-cancel-culture, yet he was stubbornly silent as Kraft “cancelled” Macklemore for his speech. And the moment Halper and others criticized Hetfield for essentially promoting Kraft’s message, he decided to engage. He mentioned the Kraft scandal only in passing in his article and added, quite shockingly, that Halper’s attitude was “just as bad, if not worse.” Characteristically, he offered no argument for his radical positions.
There is a recent parallel. Many distinguished individuals in France expressed deep sadness that a number of historical buildings were set on fire. They did not care nearly as much, however, about children being set on fire in Gaza, as has been widely noted. For they thought, presumably, that preserving human life was simply a matter of politics, whereas preserving art was an urgent task.
