Separating the Artist from the Art.

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
False
Member ♥
Joined in 2008

PostSeparating the Artist from the Art.
by False » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:45 am

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.
Image
User avatar
jawafour
Member
Member
Joined in 2012

PostRe: Seperating the Artist from the Art.
by jawafour » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:52 am

When I was a young kid I used to sing* along with one or two Gary Glitter songs including I Love You Love Me Love. Can't really play those songs nowdays :( .

* Or, rather, mumble and screech.

User avatar
Frank
Member
Joined in 2009

PostRe: Seperating the Artist from the Art.
by Frank » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:55 am

Lost Prophets had some “sound of my childhood” bangers, but they’ve been ruined by that whole “Ian Watkins (not H from Steps) is a paedophile” thing :(

Image
User avatar
False
Member ♥
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Seperating the Artist from the Art.
by False » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:57 am

Lost Prophets are a good example.

Image
User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: Seperating the Artist from the Art.
by Preezy » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:58 am

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 :lol:

User avatar
False
Member ♥
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Seperating the Artist from the Art.
by False » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:58 am

Woody Allen did some really creepy gooseberry fool and people seem to like his films..

Image
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Seperating the Artist from the Art.
by Hexx » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:00 am

False wrote:With all this sexy assaulting


Um..

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Seperating the Artist from the Art.
by Moggy » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:05 am

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.

User avatar
OrangeRKN
SONM Sec.
SONM Sec.
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: Seperating the Artist from the Art.
by OrangeRKN » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:50 am

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)

User avatar
Corazon de Leon
Doctor ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Deadpool / sntaa

PostRe: Seperating the Artist from the Art.
by Corazon de Leon » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:22 am

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 :slol:

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.

Image Image
User avatar
<]:^D
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Seperating the Artist from the Art.
by <]:^D » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:28 am

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.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Seperating the Artist from the Art.
by Moggy » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:40 am

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.

User avatar
False
Member ♥
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Seperating the Artist from the Art.
by False » Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:10 pm

Morrisey is a bellend but The Smiths are a work of beauty

Image
User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: Seperating the Artist from the Art.
by Oblomov Boblomov » Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:17 pm

Thread title spelling error correction request. I can't get involved while something so important is hanging over us, reminding us of Errkal.

Image
User avatar
False
Member ♥
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Separating the Artist from the Art.
by False » Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:19 pm

sorry, I have fixed it and will now commit sudoku

Image
User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: Separating the Artist from the Art.
by Oblomov Boblomov » Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:22 pm

That was very quick, so I'll let you off with a 40 year prison sentence instead.

Image
User avatar
Ironhide
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Autobot City

PostRe: Separating the Artist from the Art.
by Ironhide » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:18 pm

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.

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Separating the Artist from the Art.
by Moggy » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:30 pm

I did notice that just before Christmas that "The Glitter Band" were performing at the Fleece in Bristol.

I understand that they are not to blame for Gary Glitter, but strawberry floating hell lads, change your name!!

User avatar
Blue Eyes
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: Separating the Artist from the Art.
by Blue Eyes » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:37 pm

You have to separate the art from the artist. If you didn't, you'd never enjoy anything ever.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Separating the Artist from the Art.
by Moggy » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:40 pm

Blue Eyes wrote:You have to separate the art from the artist. If you didn't, you'd never enjoy anything ever.


Would you buy an album by somebody like Gary Glitter?


Return to “Stuff”