Art Vs. Artist

[Rhoda 6,607]

I'll put this simply at the top to avoid a TL;DR, and partly because I don't know how long I'll be going on for - is it truly possible to separate the art from the artist? Is it okay to enjoy art from bad people? Why or why not?

 

For as long as there have been artists, there have been people committing atrocities, and I don't say that lightly. Through-out history, we've seen scores of gifted, talented and otherwise revered individuals that have behaved badly to the point that they've completely demolished their reputation, their careers and their life. You can pick almost any avenue of art, and you'll be met with examples that challenge how you feel about their work going forwards.

 

The question is, do the crimes by artists diminish their work? Michael Jackson, Rolf Harris, Ian Watkins, Harvey Weinstein, Gary Glitter, Roman Polanski, Phil Spector... to what degree do their crimes alter our enjoyment? How is it we can be completely aware of what they've done, but also be completely on board with enjoying their music, movies or product? I'm not saying this because I think we shouldn't, but I'm very curious as to how you feel. You could argue that their legacy has nothing to do with how they are as a person, and that just because somebody is a bad person it doesn't mean their work is. You might feel guilty for supporting them knowing everything that they've done, but this is softened when you learn often the artist isn't entitled to a single penny - in fact, in rare cases you'll find their material completely hidden from popular consumption.

 

How do you personally separate the art from artist? Is it wrong to form an opinion of a work of art from somebody who is a paedophile, a murderer, a rapist, an abuser, a racist? Where do we draw the line?

 

[Awful Waffle 311]

48 minutes ago, Rhoda said:

How do you personally separate the art from artist?

it's pretty easy.

you just don't think about the "bad" stuff. why would you think about it? what does that serve?

 

Michael Jackson made great music.

The Pianist was a beautifully directed film.

Miramax produced unforgettable movies.

Spector's footprint on the 1960's and 70's is indelible.

 

the music is still great.

the film is still beautiful.

the movies are still unforgettable.

the influence cannot be undone.

 

it is what it is.

you don't have to approve of the individual in order to consume their work. especially when the work has nothing to do with the individual. if listening to Thriller reminds you of pedophilia it's likely because you were a victim. nothing about the song makes you think about it otherwise. does watching Adrien Brody run through a bombed out WW2 hellscape remind you of anal sex? there's no connection here unless you're going out of your way.

 

the real question is not whether or not it's ok to enjoy the work.

the question should be whether or not it's ok for them to profit from it. maybe all the money they made should've instead gone to victim's charities. that's an argument we can actually have.

[Eutyphro 2,970]

You can't seperate the art from the artist. But every one of us has a dark side. A lot of art is exactly an exploration of the dark side of human nature. In rock music this is obvious.

 

The pyramids were built by slaves, but we still respect them as great pieces of art. There is nothing that is unambiguously beautiful without at the same time being complex or dark in some way. Extreme demands of moral purity are oppressive and destructive. Moralization and politicization are often hostile to beauty.

[uq7451 62]

i enjoyed the first five seasons of house of cards

then the allegations came forward

do i now have to un-enjoy it? I suppose so.

Well, im not watching it again, anways, since i cant watch things where i know the plot. 

Edited May 4 by uq7451

[Graven 2,957]

On 4/27/2020 at 7:36 PM, Eutyphro said:

The pyramids were built by slaves

The pyramids were built by paid labor unlike the alternate Hollywood history tells. Search and be surprised.

 

I've never heard anyone banning their Ford, just because he was one of the biggest funders of Hitler.

 

 

Edited May 22 by Graven

[Eutyphro 2,970]

I'm not an expert on ancient civilizations really, but definitely up until the 19th century slave labor was the norm. That's a historical fact. It's highly unlikely that any large ancient construction project was not built with slave labor. For most of human history people were expendable means to an end. The idea that beauty or greatness is necessarily moral is historically false. And by moral, I mean moral according to our 21st century experience of civilized life. You can have a whole seperate discussion about to what extent morality is historically or culturally relative.

[ilovebender.com 127]

 

 

If that movie was anything to go by, NWA were producing art that reflected their world, and the FBI/authorities said it was disturbing the peace, or something.

[Awful Waffle 311]

On 5/22/2020 at 12:54 PM, Graven said:

I've never heard anyone banning their Ford, just because he was one of the biggest funders of Hitler.

don't forget Walt Disney supported the Nazi party.

guess it's time to dismantle all of the Disney theme parks and throw all of the Disney movies into a lake of fire.

 

come to think of it... destroying all Disney media might actually be a good thing for our culture in general 

Edited Monday at 01:56 PM by Awful Waffle

[GhettoJesus 1,033]

3 hours ago, Awful Waffle said:

don't forget Walt Disney supported the Nazi party.

guess it's time to dismantle all of the Disney theme parks and throw all of the Disney movies into a lake of fire.

 

come to think of it... destroying all Disney media might actually be a good thing for our culture in general 

Also Hugo Boss made uniforms for the nazis.