With all this sexy assaulting going on (or rather, coming to light) and it impacting famous and respected auteurs of various fields, it makes you wonder if its ok to seperate the artist from the art they created?
Historically, its been easy for people to handwave indiscretions because of the prevailing nature of the age. I mean, why get bumpain about an artist 400 years ago having a record for misogyny for example. Recently though, we all live in the same world - finances notwithstanding - so you cant really dispute the crimes.
For my money, Louis CK has been basically spoiled permanently. He jokes about being a creepy weirdo and it was funny, but it appears to have been a case of too close for comfort. Dont really know how to enjoy what may as well be genuine accounts of being a relentless public masturbator.
Reading the Uma Thurman gooseberry fool about Weinstein its interesting how much of it Tarantino is compliant with and how much he himself is guilty of. I mean, we've always known he was a weird dude, but I dont know if it was sort of endearing in a sense? It seemed to align with his work being (generally) higher quality, he was able to pick out the weird important gooseberry fool because he was an odd chap. But then he seems to think Roman Polanski didnt really rape a kid and he has been known to manipulate his position to get what he really wants (close up shots of feet) and has been complicit with Weinstein crimes. Is it possible to still enjoy Pulp Fiction without attaching it to the man?
Makes u fink hun xx
Last edited by False on Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I guess it depends on the form of the art. With a painting, that's been done by a single person so if they're a Nazi child raper then I don't think I'd want to give their work my attention. But with a film that is the result of loads of different peoples' hard work, it'd be silly to discount it because 1 person involved in it (albeit a major part of it) has done something you disagree with. Having said that I wouldn't watch a Polanski film so I'm also a massive hypocrite
I think a big part of it is when the person is still alive and can still financially profit. Buying a Gary Glitter song (for example) basically means you are giving money to Gary Glitter, that’s something that most people would not be comfortable with.
The difficulty comes from when the artist has produced things that you enjoy. It’s easy for me to not buy/listen to Gary Glitter as I have never been a fan of his music. It was a lot harder when Michael Jackson was accused of child abuse, or if Tarantino is implicated in the Weinstein crimes.
It’s all much easier to justify once the person is dead and will no longer be getting any cash from you listening/watching their stuff. Basically we need to kill our favourite artists now so that we can continue to enjoy their stuff.
As long as I'm not financially supporting a terrible person, then I'll happily enjoy things made by them. When we're talking about films, I feel like there are so many people involved in production that its unfair to boycott one because of a single actor (which is great for me because I adore Baby Driver - it helps that Kevin Spacey is a villain in it)
OrangeRakoon wrote:As long as I'm not financially supporting a terrible person, then I'll happily enjoy things made by them. When we're talking about films, I feel like there are so many people involved in production that its unfair to boycott one because of a single actor (which is great for me because I adore Baby Driver - it helps that Kevin Spacey is a villain in it)
a villain who dies to protect the main character though
I don’t really know how I feel about it - on one hand I tend to find myself enjoying art less if I don’t like the artist(see - Morrissey), but on the other I don’t know if that’s really fair on everyone else involved in the production of said art.
anyone who has actually been convicted of anything really serious i cant deal with their 'art' as it just sticks in the mind: Polanski & Lost Prophets are the best examples i can think of. anyone who has been accused i can just about ignore, but when theyre really 'sick' accusations or widespread then it becomes harder. Woody Allen is a good example where even though he hasnt been convicted of anything the stuff swirling around him puts me off watching his films.
OrangeRakoon wrote:I feel like there are so many people involved in production that its unfair to boycott one because of a single actor
That’s a good point. Even if all of the actors are decent people, there could still be a producer or director that is a banana split. It’s hard to know where to draw the line.
Corazon de Leon wrote:I don’t really know how I feel about it - on one hand I tend to find myself enjoying art less if I don’t like the artist(see - Morrissey), but on the other I don’t know if that’s really fair on everyone else involved in the production of said art.
I have this problem with the Smiths (and some of Morrisey’s solo stuff). I strawberry floating love the Smiths, but I think Morrisey is an utter twat. Luckily he is just a gobby shite and (so far at least!) hasn’t been accused or convicted of anything other than being an arse.
I think it depends on what a particular 'artist' has been accused of or convicted for, for example if it's someone who just holds unpleasant/strange views and opinions about controversial topics like Tarantino then I can still enjoy their work without feeling a sense of guilt as they haven't really harmed anyone, however people like Gary Glitter and the banana split from Lostprophets don't deserve any recognition for their artistic merits as they are morality bankrupt individuals who deserve nothing but utmost contempt.