Can you separate the art from the artist?

[phart010 | 1,707]

Every now and then it will become undeniably  apparent to the public that a well known artist was engaging in behavior that is socially unacceptable. I won’t give specific examples, but feel free to discuss examples in this thread.

Some people at that point will decide to divorce themselves completely from all of that artists work, past, present and future (be it movies, tv shows, music or whatever). 
 

Others will say that their art up until that point of conviction is still as good as it always was, but from that point forward, they will boycott any new works from that artist..

Still some others will say that the art is a separate entity entirely from the artist and it’s ok to hate the vile actions and character of an artist while enjoying their artistic productions.

What do you say?

[ThePhleo | 2,185]

Finest modern example is Hitler.

His art was at best, above average for someone who calls themself an artist. However, given his notorious status second only to Satan himself, his art is praised.

There’s also extremely famous art by unknown artist like ancient cave paintings, the architects of ancient world wonders, and various other things.

Art has nothing to do with the people who made it...unless the person who made it made it relevant.

Art just is.

Also regarding Hitler, I’m a Romani (or “gypsy”) and I can still appreciate his art despite what he did to about a million of my distant ancestors and relatives.

Edited June 4, 2020 by ThePhleo

[Reed Rothchild | 9,544]

I own a couple Polanski movies, Bryan Singer movies, Kevin Spacey movies, Victor Salva movies, tons of movies Weinstein was involved with, one L. Ron Hubbard book, multiple albums by The Who, and God knows what else.

So I guess the answer must be yes

[Tabonga | 2,320]

We forgive politicians all sorts of sins - and that is not just a right/left thing (so please don't go there since this is not the place for it) other than that either side will accept things from "their" people whilst simultaneously lambasting the other side's "people" for much the same (if not identical) thing. Which muddies the water immensely if one wants to assume a stance of any sort involving moral standards.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I actually was going to start a thread similar to this - I am going to get a switch soon (when more become available) and have been picking up physical (I am just that kinda guy) games in anticipation of that.  One of the games I was interested in was one called "A Night In the Woods" which was going to be released by Limited Run Games.  It got put on hold when one of the developers accused another developer of harrssment and sexual abuse.  From what I can tell neither was playing with a full deck emotionally and the accused got fired and had any future career ruined by the episode,  Then he committed suicide.  From what I can tell there was some evidence backing the claim and some that contradicted it. 

In any event if the game is released and I bought it some of my money would likely be going to support both of them (or the estate of one of them) - which I find somewhat problematic since someone is getting money I would not like to give them. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am also somewhat conflicted by the film output of the Third Reich - some of it is historically important since it shows the power of propaganda and has a place in history.   On the bright side if I were to buy any more (I only have "Triumph of the Will") no money is going to the Nazis.

 

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

That's a hard no from me. No Roman Polanski. No Chris Brown. No money for people I consider scum.

If they are dead, I think an argument can be made either way. I will listen to Michael Jackson's music, for instance. If he was alive though, I absolutely would not.

[JamesRobot | 5,804]

9 minutes ago, DoctorEncore said:

I will listen to Michael Jackson's music, for instance. If he was alive though, I absolutely would not.

Michael Jackson was acquitted.  So is the mere accusation argument enough to taint an artist's works?  (At least while they're alive.)

[NEET.dreams | 49]

post removed.

Edited June 20, 2020 by NEET.dreams

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

36 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

Michael Jackson was acquitted.  So is the mere accusation argument enough to taint an artist's works?  (At least while they're alive.)

No, one accusation is not enough. But ten accusations coupled with an overwhelming amount of evidence is enough.

An acquittal means nothing. People are acquitted on technicalities all the time. Your reasoning is the exact kind of argument that allows people like Harvey Weinstein to continue to assault dozens of victims over a long period of time.

Edited June 5, 2020 by DoctorEncore

[Tabonga | 2,320]

40 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

Michael Jackson was acquitted.  So is the mere accusation argument enough to taint an artist's works?  (At least while they're alive.)

He was acquitted in the 2005 trial.  In the 1993 trial the prosecution was unable to proceed after Jackson gave the main witness a bunch of money via a "settlement" -  almost immediately thereafter said witness decamped the country IIRC.

And I don't know about anyone else - but I find this piece of testimony from the 1993 trial more than a little discomforting:

Jackson: No. But I have slept in a bed with many children. I slept in a bed with all of them when Macaulay Culkin was little: Kieran Culkin would sleep on this side, Macaulay Culkin was on this side, his sisters in there.... We all would just jam in the bed, you know. We would wake up like dawn and go in the hot air balloon, you know, we had the footage. I have all that footage.^[13][14]

[Reed Rothchild | 9,544]

He slept with children.  Name one adult stranger you'd let sleep with your children.  One.

Hell, name a close family friend.

[NEET.dreams | 49]

post removed.

Edited June 20, 2020 by NEET.dreams

[Reed Rothchild | 9,544]

Just now, NEET.dreams said:

No, he didn't. Watch the Razorfist video, all of this is debunked in it. 

There's nothing to debunk.  Even (former) defenders like Corey Feldman have made it clear they slept with Jackson, even if they weren't themselves personally abused.

[NEET.dreams | 49]

post removed.

Edited June 20, 2020 by NEET.dreams

[Reed Rothchild | 9,544]

Name one celebrity where if it came out tomorrow that he was sleeping with strangers' children, it would be okay.  One.  And why it would be okay.

The fact that he was merely sleeping with Caulkin and Feldman is supremely fucked up in itself.

[Tabonga | 2,320]

6 minutes ago, NEET.dreams said:

So why hasn't Macauly Culkin ever said one bad word about him? Or Corey Feldman, who is very vocal about his molestation by Hollywood pedos?

I am not a mind reader -and because they said it neither makes it false nor true.   And I didn't say that that admission by Jackson made him a molester - just that it was at the very least a problematic statement.   Face it  - he was twisted to an incredible degree whether he molested children or not.

[NEET.dreams | 49]

post removed.

Edited June 20, 2020 by NEET.dreams

[JamesRobot | 5,804]

46 minutes ago, DoctorEncore said:

Your reasoning is the exact kind of argument that allows people like Harvey Weinstein to continue to assault dozens of victims over a long period of time.

Weinstein was found guilty.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,544]

19 minutes ago, NEET.dreams said:

Everything is thoroughly covered in Razorfist's video. If you're not willing to listen to the opposing side with an open mind then there's no point in arguing. 

It's gonna take a lot to convince me to watch a 36 minute YouTube video by some guy.  Especially one with a clickbait thumbnail.

[NEET.dreams | 49]

post removed.

Edited June 20, 2020 by NEET.dreams

[Tabonga | 2,320]

12 minutes ago, NEET.dreams said:

Everything is thoroughly covered in Razorfist's video. If you're not willing to listen to the opposing side with an open mind then there's no point in arguing. dede

I watched about 10 minutes of it before I had to shut the rant off,  Let's rant and make suppostions (like Jackson died because of allegations - nope sorry but he was a walking pharmacy (including  rohypnol - a truly nasty drug if there ever was one) and his body (like Elvis's) just gave out. 

I knew this was going to be sad when he started when he said Jackson never deflowered a child. Dude - get your facts right - as far as I know Jackson was never accused of hanky panky with a girl - and by definition you can not deflower a male. The rest of the rant (at least as far as I could stomach) was just a series of heated emotional statements wherein everything thing that was remotely exculpatory (often only through very twisted reasoning) was to be treated as gospel.  Guy obviously is way overinvested in this (for whatever reason)  - so much so that he has very little in the way of credibility IMHO. 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,544]

1 minute ago, NEET.dreams said:

Great. Don't watch it then. Just don't expect anyone to value your opinions on subjects you're not even willing look into for half an hour.

I have an uninformed opinion on a subject because I haven't watched a YouTube video that was linked to me an hour ago?  I don't think that's how it works.

[NEET.dreams | 49]

post removed.

Edited June 20, 2020 by NEET.dreams

[Tabonga | 2,320]

Just now, NEET.dreams said:

Oh damn. I guess I concede defeat. Good talking with you guys.

Doesn't mean you are wrong in your suppostions - just that your proof is more than a bit suspect in this case,

[Scrobins | 1,727]

For some people I think this is too hard to have a solid answer, especially when the art has significant cultural value. We know now that Bill Cosby was a horrible predator. But he also was responsible for an important TV show that portrayed an upper middle class black family without a sort of minstrelsy that networks previously thought imposed on black-led shows and representation of black people that made the black community feel seen beyond gimmicky tokenism that has had a massive impact in black representation on TV.

Cosby doesn’t get a pass for the horrible things he did just because he also did something good and important, and the show shouldn’t be relegated to the dumpster because the man behind it was a monster. Maybe the show gets a big fat asterisk, so it can still be appreciated for its value in spite of Cosby’s evils. 

But then again, I liked The Cosby Show. I look at Woody Allen movies and think they’re all the same movie, just dropping a neurotic man into a mildly different situation and not being particularly good.

[Hammerfestus | 3,852]

 

I was gonna say I’m not gonna stop watching the movies with Jeffrey Jones in it and that guy is definitely a pedo.  But MJ fight is way better.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Hammerfestus