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

[MikeTheNative]

At the end of the day just because I or somebody else are uncomfortable with material produced by a dubious individual it doesn't make it wrong if you still enjoy/consume it.

 

[AHarvey]

Past art before the crime = fine by me, nothing you can do about it.

Future work after the conviction = in some cases we shouldn't be allowing druggies, alcoholics etc to work in the public eye. Bad examples.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Future work after the conviction = in some cases we shouldn't be allowing druggies, alcoholics etc to work in the public eye. Bad examples.

If they've done the time and paid the price for their crime, are they forever unforgivable, or something?
Can they not atone, make amends, get straightened out and still make good stuff?

Robert Downey Jnr?

 

[AHarvey]

If they've done the time and paid the price for their crime, are they forever unforgivable, or something?
Can they not atone, make amends, get straightened out and still make good stuff?

Robert Downey Jnr?

I think it depends on the crime. Drugs/alcohol etc then dealing with it and coming back clean wouldn't be an issue. Smaller crimes as well then yes, some crimes, sex abuse, child abuse, murder etc then no, not really. Regardless of how good a director/performer etc they are somethings are unforgivable regardless of the time spent in prison.

 

[FurryLemon]

I'd maybe consider not buying/watching something if that person was convicted, but until then I'd carry on as normal.

 

[fez]

Its a load of rubbish. The same as the delicate flowers at universities that want to remove any historic figures that were racist or didn't live up to their current hypocritical standards.

Its up to people to decide if they want to avoid watching or listening to peoples music they don't agree with.

I really dislike the way things are going where the "powers that be" decide what we can't see and what is acceptable. The BBC seems to be a market leader in explaining how everything is racist, sexist or discriminatory in some way.

Its annoyed me in the news recently that a couple of black women have cried racism because a magazine has removed some of their hair in a cover shoot. Firstly, one of their hairs was so large that it would literally shrink the size of her face down to about 1/3 of the size the editors wanted and the other was the same. They wanted a large portrait of these "celebrities". They weren't being racist they were doing their jobs and making a magazine cover that they thought was best.

My favourite is when a film star or actor complains about not getting work anymore or being replaced by a younger model. Why do you think you got your job in the first place! You were once young and good looking. Honestly most actors, actresses etc are not very talented they are just attractive or striking. Don't be surprised when your career doesn't last forever when its based on transient beauty.

 

[dowie]

If they've done the time and paid the price for their crime, are they forever unforgivable, or something?
Can they not atone, make amends, get straightened out and still make good stuff?

it depends... I mean if they've drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl then it is a bit galling to watch the Hollywood elite award them oscars and continue to work with them... even though they're a wanted fugitive and they'll be arrested if they ever set foot on US soil... even more galling to see those same people who will give an ass raping pedophile a standing ovation then later lose their **** and start virtue signalling like crazy over say Trump coming out with his "grab em by the pussy" comment

I mean those stars all know why he couldn't accept the Oscar in person, they know that he drugged and raped a 13 year old and he's still wanted by the US government for that crime... and they stand and applaud him. Perhaps, hopefully, things have changed now... but it is amazingly hypocritical of some of them.

 

[Slam62]

Yes that's fine by me, just leave me alone.

 

[Malevolence]

These are the same people who call you a nazi because you're white. There's no reasoning with them.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

I still enjoy Michael Jackson’s music and he was a kiddy fiddler (allegedly).

 

[dowie]

I still enjoy Michael Jackson’s music and he was a kiddy fiddler (allegedly).

he was a bit weird, I'm not sure if he was a full on 'nonce' who actually abused the kids but rather a very disturbed individual with those sleepovers etc.. he had and his rather unhealthy interest in young boys

 

[Yaayuh!]

Of course we can separate the art from the artist, and probably should. Though I can understand why some cannot, though it is narrow-minded.

Whilst we're on the subject, I still think Kevin Spacey is a fantastic actor, and him supposedly doing what he has been accused doesn't stop him being a damn good actor, nor does it stop me from wanting to watch him act.

 

[Yaayuh!]

On the other hand, Hollywood seems to have 'forgotten' what Polanski did - look who gives him a standing ovation near the end:

I get who you mean, but i have to respond with: Most people?

 

[southernorth]

I get who you mean, but i have to respond with: Most people?

Exactly, basically everyone is clapping him.

Even big names who campaign against sexism in Hollywood are standing up for him.

 

[Jokester]

I get who you mean, but i have to respond with: Most people?

Weinstein.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

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?

Bad people can produce greatness and I can separate their badness from their output. That doesn't excuse their behaviour.

e: And yes, that is such an awfully pretentious thread title.

 

[LabR@t]

It's all getting rather boring now.

 

[LabR@t]

jesus!

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I still enjoy Michael Jackson’s music and he was a kiddy fiddler (allegedly).

When you make 2x multi million dollar payments to keep people quiet there's something going on.

I still enjoy Gary Glitter and The Who songs.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Does a piece of art stand as a single entity

No.

You can't critically evaluate a piece of art without considering the artist, the motivation or the manner in which it was conceived and created. Simply analysing the form without considering the context makes for a poor evaluation.