Separating the Artist from the Art.

Art is interesting because you can view things from multiple perspectives. You should be able to look at something both beyond the artists intended meaning and the context their life brings to something AND from what you get out of something personally. It takes some analytical thinking but can be achieved.

Yes. From an art theory perspective, anti authorial readings of artworks has generally been the case since the 70s. It's the scandal and sensationalism and political activism coming from the artist that is sometimes driving the artwork publicly, but that doesn't mean the art doesn't stand on its own: as it is, it can't exist without the audience anyway. Which is why when most artists are dead people forget about what ever dodgy gooseberry fool they got up to when they were alive. This is a problem pretty much exclusive to modern to contemporary work. The news cycle moves on and rarely extends longer than a half a lifetime or so but the art itself exists in some form forever.

Weirdly this subject came up for discussion at work and Michael Jackson in particular.

He has never been proven guilty of anything has he? I should probably read up about it more, especially the Home Alone guy’s story

BID0 wrote:Weirdly this subject came up for discussion at work and Michael Jackson in particular.

He has never been proven guilty of anything has he? I should probably read up about it more, especially the Home Alone guy’s story

No he’s never been proven guilty in court.

Nor was Jimmy Savile.

Green Gecko wrote:Yes. From an art theory perspective, anti authorial readings of artworks has generally been the case since the 70s. It's the scandal and sensationalism and political activism coming from the artist that is sometimes driving the artwork publicly, but that doesn't mean the art doesn't stand on its own: as it is, it can't exist without the audience anyway. Which is why when most artists are dead people forget about what ever dodgy gooseberry fool they got up to when they were alive. This is a problem pretty much exclusive to modern to contemporary work. The news cycle moves on and rarely extends longer than a half a lifetime or so but the art itself exists in some form forever.

On that note I really like the art of Salvador Dali but from what I've gathered he was a bit of a twat in real life, was somewhat perverted, supported facism and had an unhealthy obsession with Hitler.

I'm sure I heard somewhere that apparently he was once given a gift of some artwork by Andy Warhol which upon receiving promptly threw it on the ground and pissed on it.

As far as his actual art is concerned though it is mostly irrelevant that the guy was an unpredictable arsehole.

This forum is going to implode if it ever turns out Miyamoto was a paedo.

Brers sig followed by that post is all kinds of wrong.

rinks wrote:This forum is going to implode if it ever turns out Miyamoto was a paedo.

He's probably the last one from my childhood that would really annoy me after the rumours of John Lassiter came out last year of his continuously inappropriate actions with women in the work place.

I used to really like House of Cards but now I've erased it from my viewing history and frequently tell people how bad it is.

Dual wrote:I used to really like House of Cards but now I've erased it from my viewing history and frequently tell people how bad it is.

That's really easy to do though as it did turn into a steaming pile of shite long before the Spacey stuff came out.

I think it is more difficult to "boycott" films and TV shows based on the actions of one person. Hundreds of people work on movies, which one has to be a banana split for you to stop watching it? The director? The lead actor? The sound guy? The tea lady?

Moggy wrote:
Dual wrote:I used to really like House of Cards but now I've erased it from my viewing history and frequently tell people how bad it is.

That's really easy to do though as it did turn into a steaming pile of shite long before the Spacey stuff came out.

I think it is more difficult to "boycott" films and TV shows based on the actions of one person. Hundreds of people work on movies, which one has to be a banana split for you to stop watching it? The director? The lead actor? The sound guy? The tea lady?

The ones who get paid the most dosh and fame.

Moggy wrote:
Dual wrote:I used to really like House of Cards but now I've erased it from my viewing history and frequently tell people how bad it is.

That's really easy to do though as it did turn into a steaming pile of shite long before the Spacey stuff came out.

True.

Brerlappin wrote:
False wrote:Lost Prophets are a good example.

They would be a good example if they hadn't always been shite

I don't think I could watch a Louis CK special now.

See I think I still could. His comedy doesn't stop being funny just because he likes to wank in front of the ladies. Of all the transgressions to commit, that one's relatively tame (compared to the stuff other artists in this thread have been accused/charged with) and isn't enough for me to stop watching his stuff. I would imagine every single piece of media I've consumed would have had someone in its production chain that liked to do something weird or inappropriate :lol:

False wrote: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

No, if it was a solo project. Thankfully many other people played their part in making it what it is and so it becomes a little easier to stomach. I'll never love it as I once once did, but I won't allow scumbags to spoil the whole thing. That's the mental gymnastics I had to perform upon learning the creator of Rurouni Kenshin fancied girls of a very young age.

Brerlappin wrote:
Preezy wrote:
Brerlappin wrote:
False wrote:Lost Prophets are a good example.

They would be a good example if they hadn't always been shite

I don't think I could watch a Louis CK special now.

See I think I still could. His comedy doesn't stop being funny just because he likes to wank in front of the ladies. Of all the transgressions to commit, that one's relatively tame (compared to the stuff other artists in this thread have been accused/charged with) and isn't enough for me to stop watching his stuff. I would imagine every single piece of media I've consumed would have had someone in its production chain that liked to do something weird or inappropriate

While it's not as bad as flat out raping someone, you still have to think "would I shrug it off and keep watching his specials if it was my girlfriend/sister/daughter/etc he tugged the cock off himself in front of?"

Well of course that would make it completely different, but that's some leap :lol:

Hypothetical situation here:

By pure chance, two songwriters independently come up with the same catchy, likable tune. You are aware of this dual origin. One of the songwriters is publicly convicted of some terrible crime. The tune comes on the radio, but you don't know which version it is. Do you change the station?

OrangeRakoon wrote:Hypothetical situation here:

By pure chance, two songwriters independently come up with the same catchy, likable tune. You are aware of this dual origin. One of the songwriters is publicly convicted of some terrible crime. The tune comes on the radio, but you don't know which version it is. Do you change the station?

Yes because the football is about to start on 5Live.

But no, you keep it on and enjoy it in a state of ignorant bliss :toot:

The song finishes and the DJ informs you it was by the convicted songwriter.

You enjoyed it you sick filth

Buffalo wrote:But if for example Kelsey Grammar (Frasier) ended up being a convicted rapist or whatever, would I still watch Frasier? Yeah. Would I buy all the box sets again if they came out on blu-ray? Yeah. Would I watch anything he was in post-conviction? It would depend on how good it was. Uncomfortable opinion to have.

Whaaa! I never heard of that.

Also it's a tough one. Especially when you have a situation when the peerson in question just has horrible views, like for examplee with Jackie Chan speaking about how great censorship and Communism is. I love his movies but thosse opinions are awful. Obviously he might be pressured into saying this stuff so at leaat there is some comfort there.

We've been talking about this often in work lately, and I've been fascinated by it for a few years now. My standard response is that of "Don't idolise people" but I do think there needs to be some separation needed otherwise you wouldn't be able to enjoy anything.

On a more serious note, what I don't like is how the defense of some individuals is based around the knowledge that there are worse people out there. I find that unsavoury, where transgressions are handwaved away due to their being a bigger baddie. What if there wasn't? Would that defense still hold water? I tend to bring this up whenever there's mention of Bowie sleeping with underage girls. By all accounts he wasn't as much of a predator as some of his peers, but it's still statutory rape that, to me, is uncomfortably pushed aside due to a combination of Bowie being a voice for traditionally voiceless people and because of the aforementioned super disgusting rockstars of the era. It still doesn't make it cool, and even the Bowie tunes I dig have that lingering in the back of my mind.

Then there's cases like Iggy Pop where I'm amazed people still give him the time of day.

Separating the Artist from the Art.

Who is online

Affiliates