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

If we were to disregard every piece of art through history that originated from questionable characters by today's standards, then we wouldn't have much to appreciate.

Society is evolving, and things that were tolerated a few years ago simply won't be tolerated in a few years to come. I'm actually amazed that the music industry has remained pretty much unscathed these past few weeks. A cabinet minister brushed a journalist's leg you say? I'm sure Mick Jagger or Freddie Mercury could trump that one. :p

However, having said all that when you get to the level of Polanski/Glitter/Watkins then you're in another ball park altogether. Some things can never be forgiven or forgotten.
 
To take this to a different level, I drove my sister-in-law home today, and after dropping her, I put the radio on.
There was a phone-in show going on, precisely about “can you separate art from the artist.”
I only heard one call, as after it, the host went to a commercial break, and I switched channels.
The caller actually asked, “How can anyone seriously say that they appreciate the music of Wagner, when they must know that the Nazi regime used his music to “glorify the heroic Teutonic nature?”
Rarely do words fail me, but that was one time.
 
AHarvey said:
some crimes, sex abuse, child abuse, murder etc then no, not really.
Click to expand...
IMO, about the only crime I can never imagine mitigating circumstances for is rape.
Even kiddie fiddling I can (very tenuously, I might add) perceive as a mental illness requiring treatment, with the potential for recovery.
But the point is that, until you find out the artist is secretly rapist scum, most people like their work just fine.

Now while I may agree with not supporting said criminal by buying their art form(s), perhaps as a form of punishment, I still don't believe it has anything to do with how good that art may be.

dowie said:
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...
Click to expand...
He hasn't really paid for his crime yet, though, has he?

amigafan2003 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Firstly - How far does one have to go in investigating the context, particularly when the artist is long since dead and did not leave us with a comprehensive guide as to the context? Too often art critics base their criticism on what they think the artist was trying to say... and I'm of the opinion that art should not need to come with a background explanation. It should stand on its own and convey its message (if there is one) without needing any assistance - Same way food should just taste great without the chef telling you how you should eat it, or music should appeal to you without teh artist having to explain the lyrics.

Secondly - How does this stack up with things like films, where numerous different people have creative input or influence? Whose particular context do you use to evaluate the film? There are some amazing films out there that absolutely tanked because some studio exec with no idea of film but a firm hand on the purse strings pushed an executive decision that completely changed the end product.
 
if you look through history generally the real very creative genius are screw balls or a bit mad, odd.

it weird often how faces though can give such a view into what people are like.kevin spacey always looked dodgy :p
 
people have already mentioned his name....but do you think people still listen to gary glitter in secret? do radio stations have a list of artists they wont play anymore?

so of somebody requested a gary glitter song or a lost prophets song they wouldnt play it? its even harsher when its a band as all those band members now suffer as they will never get anymore royalites on music never played again even though they are innocent of any wrong doing

its the same with old top of the pops shows on bbc4...you never see Jimmy Saville or DLT
 
ttaskmaster said:
Same way food should just taste great without the chef telling you how you should eat it, or music should appeal to you without teh artist having to explain the lyrics.
.
Click to expand...

Now you see, I don't agree with that. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have enjoyed the food that l'enclume created two weeks ago if I'd have eaten it in my local beef eater. In fact, it was the novelty of having the chef come out and talk about their inspiration that made it scan enjoyable experience.
 
ttaskmaster said:
He hasn't really paid for his crime yet, though, has he?
Click to expand...

I don't think he has, others do because of some argument about standard sentencing back then and some comments the judge apparently made. Though tbh.. even if he came back and served a sentence in addition to time served I'd still not be happy... I think raping a 13 year old girl is rather too far gone.
 
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...

Came in to say this exactly with this opinion on this artist. I saw LP live back about 9 years ago and they were pretty good. Regardless of what Ian did, the rest of the band members were not complicit with his crime that were skilled in their field and product. I won't abandon one band based upon 1/6th of their behavior. The songs are still the same, some good some bad but that's it

- GP
 
amigafan2003 said:
In fact, it was the novelty of having the chef come out and talk about their inspiration that made it scan enjoyable experience.
Click to expand...
That might have made it very special for you... but it should still taste as good to you at your local Toby Carvery.

Also - Ban for sneakily ^mentioning a competitor!! :p

dowie said:
Though tbh.. even if he came back and served a sentence in addition to time served I'd still not be happy... I think raping a 13 year old girl is rather too far gone.
Click to expand...
There has to be a general agreement on the price for each crime, though.
Now I agree, the penalty for such crimes should be properly severe and payable for each count seperately.

But unless that is life-long imprisonment (ie proper Life without parole, early release or anything) or outright execution, there has to be an end to the paying for it.
So - Can someone who commits such heinous crimes still not produce great art?
Moreover, would (or even should) you forsake the work of others who were involved in the project?

Case in point, would you swear off all Ike and Tina songs?
What about the musical influence of Chuck Berry or Johnny Cash?
Would you avoid an Alien film if one of teh actors was a convicted murderer?
Would you let your kids watch a Tom Hanks film if his co-star was a convicted cocaine trafficker and drunk driver?
 
ttaskmaster said:
So - Can someone who commits such heinous crimes still not produce great art?
Click to expand...

yup, I don't see why the crime changes that

Moreover, would (or even should) you forsake the work of others who were involved in the project?
Click to expand...

yes, he drugged and anally raped a 13 year old, I'd question their judgement for continuing to work with him... thankfully these days the tables seem to be turning and even allegations of sexual assault are enough for people to be dropped (though perhaps the pendulum has swung too far the other way in some cases)

Case in point, would you swear off all Ike and Tina songs?
What about the musical influence of Chuck Berry or Johnny Cash?
Would you avoid an Alien film if one of teh actors was a convicted murderer?
Would you let your kids watch a Tom Hanks film if his co-star was a convicted cocaine trafficker and drunk driver?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of all the contexts of those but I'd not compare being a drunk driver to someone who anally raped a 13 year old girl, my argument isn't that I'd shun the work of anyone with a criminal record.

I'll give another example though, I think Mark Warburg is a massive douchebag and though I watched and enjoyed entourage (where he was a producer) I did so in a way that doesn't give him any revenue... I'll not clarify that further as it could involve discussions that break forum rules but I watched some episodes round at a friends house etc.. essentially I wouldn't personally pay for a DVD though where he then earns money. Likewise I wasn't interested in paying to watch say the pianist.

On the other hand the film Casino had real life mobsters giving advice to the director etc.. the big difference there is that say Warburg as the show runner/executive producer and those guys as playing a very minor role in consulting for the movie etc..

essentially the severity of the crime and level of involvement in the production are important IMO

Person who drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl & being put in the position of director - that is a big fat no from me regardless of time served
 
Last edited:
ttaskmaster said:
IMO, about the only crime I can never imagine mitigating circumstances for is rape.
Even kiddie fiddling I can (very tenuously, I might add) perceive as a mental illness requiring treatment, with the potential for recovery.
But the point is that, until you find out the artist is secretly rapist scum, most people like their work just fine.

Now while I may agree with not supporting said criminal by buying their art form(s), perhaps as a form of punishment, I still don't believe it has anything to do with how good that art may be..
Click to expand...

I agree that it could be a mental illness, and maybe if it was recognized as such more people would step forward for treatment before it got acted upon, however, I think with art it really depends on the subject of the art as well.

Food can be art, if you were enjoying a really great meal and then discovered it was made with rat or roadkill meat, you might still be able to eat it and like it but it is going to be tainted slightly.
 
dowie said:
yup, I don't see why the crime changes that
Click to expand...
Which is what I was driving at.

dowie said:
yes, he drugged and anally raped a 13 year old, I'd question their judgement for continuing to work with him...
Click to expand...
That'd be a lot of actors who never worked again, though. Not everyone is Harrison Ford and able to choose what roles they get. Also, many cast and crew get signed up to projects before they get a director committed and there are severe penalties for breaking that contract. It's not always so simple.

dowie said:
I'm not sure of all the contexts of those but I'd not compare being a drunk driver to someone who anally raped a 13 year old girl
Click to expand...
Drunk driver *and* convicted cocaine trafficker. Time served. Essentially supplying the drugs that went into that 13 year old... potentially. Obviously not the actual drugs, as this bloke got caught instead... but someone supplied them.

dowie said:
my argument isn't that I'd shun the work of anyone with a criminal record.
Click to expand...
Just certain crimes, then, no matter what price they may have since paid for it?

The context is that some very great people have done very great work, with the involvement (knowingly or otherwise) of some very seedy other people. Kevin Spacey was an awesome actor before the latest news broke. Now "he's scum and no-one will ever buy his films (new or old) again"... which then punishes a lot of other innocent cast and crew.

So would you swear off anything Tina Turner has ever done, because some of it involved Ike?
Would you swear off everything Tom Hanks has done, because he did Toy Story with Tim Allen?
How far does this go?

dowie said:
I'll give another example though, I think Mark Warburg is a massive douchebag
Click to expand...
Being a douche ain't actually a crime, though, even on this forum... However, racism, assault, getting hopped up on coke and beating someone unconscious are crimes, which is why he'll never be a cop or own a gun. ;)

dowie said:
essentially I wouldn't personally pay for a DVD though where he then earns money.
Click to expand...
But you did still watch it..... You gave your time and are telling me about it, which only adds to their fame. The more people talking about you, the more famous you are and that is what gets you your jobs in Hollyweird.

amigafan2003 said:
Would it? Don't underestimate the impact that sight and smell have on taste.
Click to expand...
Smell, sure, but again, it should carry that with it. Sight - Debatable, especially when some people actually close their eyes during the tasting. Plus, if it were about sight, none of my cooking would see repeat customers!!

If you mean external input - I went to the Fat Duck, did all that and was unimpressed.
So in direct answer - It would and it should. Certainly my opinion of a restaurant can be completely changed by how good or bad their food actually tastes.

String said:
You don't see "kiddie fiddling" as rape? :confused:
Click to expand...
Not always, no.
Rape is often about exerting control over a non-consenting victim and is a form of abuse.
Kiddie Fiddlers, as I understand it, generally favour consent from their victims and want anything but to be abusive.
Criminal researchers are often quite insistent that child abuse and paedophillia are usually totally separate, with abusers rarely being attarcted to their victims and vice-versa.

Now the law defines it as statutory rape only because the child is not legally permitted to give consent, the age for which was historically established mostly to prevent child prostitution, back when it was 13. However, like many other crimes this one can be a lot more complex than just what the law says.

For example, I knew of a guy who was on the Sex Offenders register for paedophillia. He had consentual intercourse with a girl the night before her birthday when she became legal. Her parents later complained and he got banged up for it.
Meanwhile, they've been happily married for many years and have three kids together, but in the technical eyes of the law he's forever a dirty evil paedo rapist and should be chemically castrated... and that's how many people still see him.

It's more complex because some children can and have (such as above) given their personal consent, going so far as to lie about their ages and even fabricate proof, often with disastrous results for an offender who had thought themselves quite innocent (which was perhaps the intention behind the lying), so from a moral perspective it was perfectly consentual and just illegal in law...
Then you've got the whole 'forbidden love' fantasy thing, which is very complicated - There are many stories (romantic fiction and real life types) about teachers falling for pupils and so on, whole websites with scenes roleplaying incest and underage encounters, adult schoolgirl uniform outfits, as well as legal-age performers who specialise in looking well underage, all of which suggest some very questionable basis to these fantasies...

Personally it's always struck me as weird when people say the whole, "Who's your daddy?" thing, as I'd have thought it'd be an instant mood-killer!!

But from the perspective of the knowing offender, ie the creepy mac-wearing type hanging around outside the primary school... merely having the attraction is not illegal - Acting on it is, with a different and long moral debate behind it.
Whether this is also a morality vs law vs biology thing, given how we're physically able to reproduce from about 13, is yet another debate entirely.
Of note, there are now mental health communities for people who have paedophillia but wish to refrain from acting upon it. They acknowledge that they are perhaps messed up in the head and seek to find ways past this issue.

But most know full well what they're doing is wrong and the process of grooming is long enough and deliberate enough that they have ample time to stop. The fact that these individuals knowingly do wrong and cannot stop themselves, despite ample opportunity, suggests a mental problem.

Drugging a child and forcing them to do things is most definitely child abuse and nothing to do with a sexual attraction to kids.
 
DrToffnar said:
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?
Click to expand...

Im not defending Polanski BUT that guy had a rough time with his wife and child being murdered by those Manson nutcases. Im not surprised some people might think that affected him mentally and want to give him a break. Almost like he did the time before he did the crime, if you get me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom