Separating the Artist from the Art.

I didn't even know that.

Themoreyouknow.gif

Banjo wrote: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.

The thing about celebs sleeping with underage girls is that while indeed something they shouldn't have done isn't always simply a case of them being perverted predators, maybe the girls lied about their age, maybe drink/drugs were involved and did the accused actually force the 'victm' in any way - unless we know the exact circumstances of each case it's not right to automatically assume the worst.

It also depends just how underage we're talking, obviously someone doing anything remotely sexual with an actual child needs to be prosecuted but when the alleged victim is only just underage then it's a bit easier to forgive as an error of judgment rather than a heinous act of abuse.

Well, even though art may be an expression of the artist, that's not what it has to mean to me.

I wouldn't stop loving my favourite movies and TV shows because the artist behind them would do something terrible. It would make me a lot less likely to keep up with any future work, of course, but it wouldn't spoil the existing content if I already love it.

See, to me that is exactly the kind of defence that bothers me. The artist in question is a grown adult and should be held to account, we shouldn't be moving goalposts and trying to explain how honestly guv, genuine mistake. Underage is Underage, especially when the other half is well into their own adulthood. They should know better and god forbid, be happy to have sex with the almost certainly thousands of individuals above the age of consent that want to have sex with them.

If someone is sleeping with underage boys and girls, I don't give a flying strawberry float how the circumstances may differ, there is a predatory element to that individual. To bring up Bowie's circumstances, he's noted to have slept with famed underage groupie Sable Starr, who reflects positively on that experience compared to some of her other flings (Robert Plant if my memory serves me right, apparently that prick strawberry floating kidnapped her), but is that because she has had that highly negative experience to compare it to? She was known as an underage groupie in the scene, so does that not implicate an intention strawberry float someone below the age of consent, regardless of how willing they may be?

Watch now as I have completely gotten names mixed up.

Look at Anthony Kiedis in that respect as well - he's noted himself that he slept with underage girls at the height of RHCP's fame and had three 17 year old girlfriends. Depending on the state this was not illegal, but the 14 year old he admitted to sleeping with - once when he knew she was fourteen - is DEFINITELY illness inducing. It changes a lot of their songs as well, like Catholic School Girls Rule. The whole RHCP back catalogue feels a bit sleazier now that I know that.