Can we seperate the art from the artist? Is that OK?

DrToffnar

DrToffnar

DrToffnar

Permabanned
Joined
25 Jan 2013
Posts
4,277
As pretentious as that thread title sounds, it's something a lot of us have been thinking about these past few weeks.

With all of these accusations flying around Hollywood at the moment (and indeed many of the upper echelons of western society), many of whom have made unquestionably great contributions to the arts, is it possible to take those works purely as they stand?

Roman Polanski is one of the greatest Directors to have ever lived. His impact on film history is tremendous. His movies are unquestionable works of art. Yet, he is a convicted child rapist with people coming forward to accuse him even now.

Does a piece of art stand as a single entity, unshackled from the crimes of it's creator? Or is forever tainted?
 
MickeyFinns said:
Depends how severe the crimes are I guess. I certainly don't listen to Lostprophets anymore.
Click to expand...

It also depends on how front facing the artist is, right? Say if a comedian where to be accused, it'd be a lot harder to appreciate there material after that. Is there an inherent hypocrisy in that? I dunno... it's questions like that which make my head hurt...
 
I think this is much easier to rationalise posthumously. When an artists work is sold or consumed after their death there's a level of separation, the background of the artist or actor becomes a nuance related to the piece of work. For instance in 50 years time people will likely view Polanski's work with a mind towards his tendency (alleged, well some alleged some proven one convicted) for young girls, that will be a window through which to view his films.

The trouble with someone like Spacey is that he's alive and visible, any involvement in his work, even just buying a dvd, directly benefits him and then you're left with that taste in your mouth related to funding a man who, on a base level you probably disagree with violently. And then there's the inability to separate the person he is, walking around, interacting with people, from the work he's doing on screen, and that's because you've grown up with him, and to an extent still are growing up with him because he's still kicking about.

Distance tends to cool emotion, then people can be objective. I'll still enjoy Spacey's work, but every time I see him in film I will be subconsciously linking him to the accusations against him. I like the music of the Lost Prophets, but I feel a bit dirty listening to their songs after the revelations about Ian Watkins.

On further reflection I wonder if some of that is placing blame on the person for tarnishing your memories. E.g. if you've always loved the Usual Suspects, it's your favourite film, it's provided good memories but now those memories are linked to something unsavoury.
 
There was a number of actors and actresses who singed an open letter to authorities to not arrest Polanski if he turned up at award ceremonies. It's disgusting to me, just because they are rich and famous they think he should be able to get away with it.
 
FortuitousFluke said:
I think this is much easier to rationalise posthumously. When an artists work is sold or consumed after their death there's a level of separation, the background of the artist or actor becomes a nuance related to the piece of work. For instance in 50 years time people will likely view Polanski's work with a mind towards his tendency (alleged, well some alleged some proven one convicted) for young girls, that will be a window through which to view his films.

The trouble with someone like Spacey is that he's alive and visible, any involvement in his work, even just buying a dvd, directly benefits him and then you're left with that taste in your mouth related to funding a man who, on a base level you probably disagree with violently. And then there's the inability to separate the person he is, walking around, interacting with people, from the work he's doing on screen, and that's because you've grown up with him, and to an extent still are growing up with him because he's still kicking about.

Distance tends to cool emotion, then people can be objective. I'll still enjoy Spacey's work, but every time I see him in film I will be subconsciously linking him to the accusations against him. I like the music of the Lost Prophets, but I feel a bit dirty listening to their songs after the revelations about Ian Watkins.
Click to expand...

Basically summed it all up perfectly there...

/thread

xD
 
What does feeling guilty about enjoying a film with (insert disgraced celebrity here) acheive? Its still the same work and by definition actors are pretending to be someone else anyway.

Its not even a case of them profiting from their work post-act, if they deserve a financial penalty for their crimes then that's for the justice system to fine them as appropriate. Boycotting their work is just a pointless attempt at mob justice
 
It's like the saying 'Greed is Good'. A lot of these artists tap into a creative spirit from depravity. In a truest sense you should watch carefully if you have to, but don't fully succumb to it. A lot of deception involved.
 
I try to be subjective about the whole thing, i still enjoy Spaceys work, although possibly "tainted", it dosnt take anything away from them. but i think the below quote also plays a big part in it,
MickeyFinns said:
Depends how severe the crimes are I guess. I certainly don't listen to Lostprophets anymore.
Click to expand...
I really enjoyed a couple of Lostprophets albums back in the day and some of the songs held some special memories, but i can no longer bring myself to listen to them because of Ian Watkins.

I guess my issue with this whole situation, I mean if these people did indeed commit sexual assaults/harassment then rightly so they should be shunned/vilified etc etc, but as it stands, with these recent cases both Hollywood and parliament, these are more often than not purely accusations/allegations/alleged actions, nothing proven, just he said, she said. Yes patterns are formed and multiple allegations against one person suggest where there is smoke there is fire. but its a horrible precedent to set where someone 20-30 years ago said something a little inappropriate to have there life fall down around them and stripped of career and potentially family and friends.
Dont get me wrong, i dont really have an answer to this situation its just I simply dont feel comfortable with the whole thing, I just dont think its being handled correctly.
 
adolf hamster said:
What does feeling guilty about enjoying a film with (insert disgraced celebrity here) acheive? Its still the same work and by definition actors are pretending to be someone else anyway.

Its not even a case of them profiting from their work post-act, if they deserve a financial penalty for their crimes then that's for the justice system to fine them as appropriate. Boycotting their work is just a pointless attempt at mob justice
Click to expand...


It's not guilt, it's the subconscious linking of the individual to the act and then some kind of negative feeling related to that. I don't think the majority would feel guilty but connotations around sexual abuse/harassment being linked to somebody like Spacey isn't a conscious thing, you don't turn it off.

Also choosing not to watch a film because you don't approve of the star isn't mob justice, that's pure nonsense. It doesn't even have to involved more than one person. People make decisions based on their own value systems every single day, how many people do you think go out of their way to download Gary Glitter's music these days? That's not mob justice, there hasn't been a committee meeting or a teleconference, a bunch of people have independently decided that, even though they might like his music, his status as a convicted paedophile is a good reason not to pay for it.
 
MickeyFinns said:
Depends how severe the crimes are I guess. I certainly don't listen to Lostprophets anymore.
Click to expand...

I never understood this view. I like the music and will continue to listen to it because it is:

1. Not any worse now i know Ian Watkins is a sicko
2. Not benefiting Ian Watkins
3. Boycotting it dismisses the work of the completely innocent members of the band and does not really achieve or protest anything

:confused:
 
I doubt I could listen to any of their work without the memory of a sick singer who made a deal with a mother to rape a baby.
I'd prefer never to be reminded of such.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
I never understood this view. I like the music and will continue to listen to it because it is:

1. Not any worse now i know Ian Watkins is a sicko
2. Not benefiting Ian Watkins
3. Boycotting it dismisses the work of the completely innocent members of the band and does not really achieve or protest anything

:confused:
Click to expand...
I guess some people, myself included, just cannot disassociate the particularly heinous crimes of the lead member. I dunno, its not easy to explain, if he was the drummer or something i might have felt different, but when it is such a prominant figure theres just something that dosnt feel right, hearing his voice, being able to easily identify someone you know is so sick and twisted. I dunno its just how it makes me feel.
Dont get me wrong i still like the songs but just dont feel right listening to them
I feel so sorry for the associated artists, it cant be easy for them, all the work, effort and emotion put into creating this work to have it tarnished through no fault of their own.
 
Maybe it is because i don't associate the singer with the music every time i listen to them. I know who he is and what he has done but it is not like i am reminded of it all every time i hear a song like Last Summer.

To be honest, i didn't know what he looked or even his name until allegations were hitting the news.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
I never understood this view. I like the music and will continue to listen to it because it is:

1. Not any worse now i know Ian Watkins is a sicko
2. Not benefiting Ian Watkins
3. Boycotting it dismisses the work of the completely innocent members of the band and does not really achieve or protest anything

:confused:
Click to expand...

If you enjoyed them before would you still watch Jimmy Savile TOTP's re-runs if they still broadcast them?
 
Dunno, i have never seen one ever. Not my generation I am afraid.

That said, it would be harder to not be reminded of it with Savile. He has become the face for celebrity child abuse cover ups. It is easier to listen to music and not think of the crimes of an individual in the band, than it is to watch a video of the said criminal.
 
DrToffnar said:
is it possible to take those works purely as they stand?
Click to expand...
It's definitely possible. But people often cannot separate them.

Look at this painting. Listen to this song. Watch this film.
Is it awesome? Does it capture your imagination, or deeply engage you, or inspire you, or do any of the things proper art usually does?
Then that's all there is to it.
Same as if you get an architect in, who designs and builds you the most stunning house you've ever seen. Or the mechanic who fixes up to mechanical perfection your car that no dealership would touch.

What difference does it make if you later find out that they have committed some sort of crime? Does it change a thing about the work itself? Is it in any way different to how it was yesterday when you didn't know?

If Pele and Ronaldo are later shopped for kiddie-fiddling, will we go back and disallow every one of their goals, re-awarding the trophies and cups to other teams?
What about the guy who runs the shop from which you bought some cutlery? Do you stop using it if you find he's evading tax?
What if I told you that one of our former employees murdered his fiancee - Would you stop using the water taps at home, or flushing your toilet?

DrToffnar said:
Does a piece of art stand as a single entity, unshackled from the crimes of it's creator? Or is forever tainted?
Click to expand...
Unless that work directly concerns the crimes of the creator, ie a watercolour of their rape victim being raped, then it's nothing to do with it.

It's kinda the same for many of the 'great' figures from history - They're celebrated for their great deeds, but many will have also done some pretty nasty things, too. Henry VIII is probably one good example - If you're a Catholic in a monastery he's probably Satan's Little Helper, but if you're a Protestant who doesn't read Latin then he's not all bad... and if you're in the Royal Navy, he was an alright dude.

People don't lose their **** over perfectly good work done by any non-famous person they later find is banged up for something. Why should a famous person's work be any different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom