Separating the Artist from the Art.

Moggy wrote:
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?

I've never liked that banana split anyway, and would hardly call the gooseberry fool he served up "art". I really like Polanski's films, and saying so doesn't mean I condone his appalling actions.

Blue Eyes wrote:
Moggy wrote:
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?

I've never liked that banana split anyway, and would hardly call the gooseberry fool he served up "art". I really like Polanski's films, and saying so doesn't mean I condone his appalling actions.

That's why I deliberately said "someone like" him and not him personally.

Would you buy an album of music that you liked from somebody that was guilty of child molestation?

I pirate everything so I'm free to enjoy all the best art from all the worst humans 8-)

Moggy wrote:
Blue Eyes wrote:
Moggy wrote:
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?

I've never liked that banana split anyway, and would hardly call the gooseberry fool he served up "art". I really like Polanski's films, and saying so doesn't mean I condone his appalling actions.

That's why I deliberately said "someone like" him and not him personally.

Would you buy an album of music that you liked from somebody that was guilty of child molestation?

Only if I was absolutely blown away by whatever they produced, like with Polanski. I've never liked Glitter, Michael Jackson, LostProphets etc but I suspect a lot of artists I do like have done terrible things. All those musicians from the seventies probably had sex with under-age girls.

???

Blue Eyes wrote:Only if I was absolutely blown away by whatever they produced, like with Polanski. I've never liked Glitter, Michael Jackson, LostProphets etc but I suspect a lot of artists I do like have done terrible things. All those musicians from the seventies probably had sex with under-age girls.

It doesn’t matter if you liked Glitter, Jackson or Lost Prophets, that is not the question. And there is a big difference between what Ian Watkins did and what a lot of musicians probably did in the 70s with underage girls.

How blown away would you have to be to buy music from a child rapist?

Elvis was a shithead probably, and Priscilla was like 14 when he started going about with her? Allegedly he was a fan of the young ladies in general. King of Rock and Roll still?

David Bowie had well accounted forays with underage chicks didnt he? Maybe just a product of his time..?

Moggy wrote:
Blue Eyes wrote:Only if I was absolutely blown away by whatever they produced, like with Polanski. I've never liked Glitter, Michael Jackson, LostProphets etc but I suspect a lot of artists I do like have done terrible things. All those musicians from the seventies probably had sex with under-age girls.

It doesn’t matter if you liked Glitter, Jackson or Lost Prophets, that is not the question. And there is a big difference between what Ian Watkins did and what a lot of musicians probably did in the 70s with underage girls.

How blown away would you have to be to buy music from a child rapist?

It would have to be the best music I've ever heard.

False wrote:Elvis was a shithead probably, and Priscilla was like 14 when he started going about with her? Allegedly he was a fan of the young ladies in general. King of Rock and Roll still?

David Bowie had well accounted forays with underage chicks didnt he? Maybe just a product of his time..?

I'd still have Elvis over Michael Jackson all day long.

False wrote:Elvis was a shithead probably, and Priscilla was like 14 when he started going about with her? Allegedly he was a fan of the young ladies in general. King of Rock and Roll still?

David Bowie had well accounted forays with underage chicks didnt he? Maybe just a product of his time..?

While it doesn't excuse them, Glitter was found guilty of obscene acts with a 10 year old, the Lost Prophets guy was planning on strawberry floating a baby. It's quite a bit different from getting with a groupie and not checking ID.

Elvis was a gooseberry fool head though. But as he is dead, there isn't as much of a moral quandary.

Moggy wrote:Elvis was a gooseberry fool head though. But as he is dead, there isn't as much of a moral quandary.

...or is he?

Moggy wrote:It was a lot harder when Michael Jackson was accused of child abuse

I bet it was, you dirty boy.

Poser wrote:
Moggy wrote:It was a lot harder when Michael Jackson was accused of child abuse

I bet it was, you dirty boy.

False wrote:Morrisey is a bellend but The Smiths are a work of beauty

Morrissey is a complete bellend. I've always thought he was the weakest link in that band. The guitarist and bassist are so strawberry floating good that they can kind of carry him.

I remember reading about Stallone a while back, he was accused of sexual misconduct, I'm not sure what came of that. That one probably annoyed me the most as I love the Rambo and Rocky films.

Squinty wrote:I remember reading about Stallone a while back, he was accused of sexual misconduct, I'm not sure what came of that. That one probably annoyed me the most as I love the Rambo and Rocky films.

Well it's like when all those women came out about Arnie being "a bit gropey" when he was running for office (or divorcing his wife, I can't remember which? Maybe both?). None of that has removed any enjoyment I have for his films or admiration I have for his achievements as an athlete and actor.

Arnie :wub:

I remember seeing and enjoying Jeepers Creepers then learning the guy responsible for it was a director who had been found guilty of sexually abusing young cast members during the making of a previous film this sucks and of never want to give him any of my money, but then apparently in the third film in the Jeepers series there is dialog about abused people asking for it, if that's true he needs shooting in the head.

I guess in general it depends what they've done , how much of it I really believe etc....

I don’t take as much of a moral obligation as most, but I doubt I’d support anyone proven guilty in any future endeavour.
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.

I think the most conflicting celebrity is Jacko. The guy was undoubtedly dodgy as strawberry float with kids, which is one of the worst things you could ever do. He still made some of the best pop music, and I still admittedly enjoy his stuff. It's so uncomfortable to think about him any further than his music, honestly.

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.

Separating the Artist from the Art.

Who is online

Affiliates