Separate the Art From the Artist

[lovecraft68]

Plenty of people value Tarentino even though he openly admitted to knowing exactly what Harvey was doing and said nothing, which makes him complicit and at the least an enabler, if anyone decided to actually push it, accessory could be used. He also has some allegations of his own from Thurman and others.

But the same people who condemn Weinstein flock to his movies and rave over him.

People are funny, but not in a humorous way.

I can abide personality defects or opinions of people from prior times who reflected those times, example HPL who its popular to call a racist even though that wasn't quite the case, it was deeper than that, but there's some things in his stories that reflect the general opinion of society in his day and in todays world are pretty ignorant, but it falls under viewpoint and despite what today's loud mouthed self righteous flakes think, if they lived back then...they'd be the same. But if someone were to come out today and write those things, I feel I'd have a different view of it, we should know better now.

but when someone has hurt someone or allowed it to happen--as my example above, I don't care if its my all time favorite movie, book, etc...its in the trash if I find out about it and there's evidence to conform it. I'm a die hard horror fan, but tossed my copy of Rose Mary's baby when I found out what Polanski had done. I loved Natural Born killers, but will never watch it again when I realized Rapist-tino wrote the story. I have the 'dead to me' switch and can easily move on from people, let alone entertainment.

I gave up football after 40+ years because of all the criminals on the field. I recently decided I no longer need to support Marvel movies and shows as they currently have a man who sent dick pics to under age girls in one of their upcoming movies and the asshole who plays Kang assaulted a woman...but its no problem. In fact last I heard in that case, the defense was showing camera footage of the woman who was wearing a slinky out fit and dancing around....at a club, and their defense was she had it coming. The judge's response was it will go to court, but I doubt she'll get justice because movies are more important to people than someone being hurt.

 

[lovecraft68]

Sometimes the separation is difficult. Take Tom cruise as an example. He is an arrogant prick, he generally plays an arrogant prick. I’m not supporting him nor his art as neither he nor his characters appeal to me.

A lot of hollywood types are arrogant, but with Cruise its more than that. Look up the Kati Holmes situation where he all but kidnapped his young bride and he and his cult tried to brain wash her, and didn't want to let her go. That's a crime if any regular person did that, but makes him a legend in the ever sicker world of Hollywood.

Kidnap? Brainwash? Pffffttttt Yay Maverick!

 

[SimonDoom]

I have the 'dead to me' switch and can easily move on from people, let alone entertainment.

That states the difference with me pretty well. I don't have that switch. I'm more inclined to think, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Peel back the layers, just a bit, and many of our heroes are deeply flawed, and perhaps even immoral and criminal, people. Far more than we are aware, I suspect. If an artist has done evil, I'll condemn the evil they've done, but I'm not going to cancel the art they've created, if I otherwise like it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I can abide personality defects or opinions of people from prior times who reflected those times, example HPL who its popular to call a racist even though that wasn't quite the case, it was deeper than that, but there's some things in his stories that reflect the general opinion of society in his day and in todays world are pretty ignorant, but it falls under viewpoint and despite what today's loud mouthed self righteous flakes think, if they lived back then...they'd be the same. But if someone were to come out today and write those things, I feel I'd have a different view of it, we should know better now.

I have an enduring soft spot for some of HPL's stories, but the "man of his time" argument really doesn't apply here. He was racist enough that even his contemporaries found his views extreme and sometimes called him out on it back in the day. Have a look at his correspondence with Charles D. Isaacson, or what his friend Wilfred Blanch Talman had to say about his racial views, or his wife Sonia Greene's recollections: "Whenever we found ourselves in the racially mixed crowds which characterize New York, Howard would become livid with rage. He seemed almost to lose his mind."

Some quotes from HPL illustrating his views on race. I'm going to spoiler the text so people have a moment to decide whether they want to click through and read it:

(edit: spoilers didn't work on first posting, apologies to anybody who got hit by that before I fixed it)

A poem published by HPL in 1912:

On The Creation Of Niggers

When, long ago, the gods created Earth
In Jove's fair image Man was shap'd at birth.
The beasts for lesser parts were next design'd;
Yet were they too remote from humankind.
To fill the gap, and join the rest to man,
Th'Olympian host conceiv'd a clever plan.
A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure,
Fill'd it with vice, and call'd the thing a NIGGER.

- H.P. Lovecraft, 1912

In 1922 he wrote to Maurice W. Moe about his impressions of New York:

"Gawd knows what they are—Jew, Italian, separate or mixed, with possible touches of residual aboriginal Irish and exotic hints of the Far East—a bastard mess of stewing mongrel flesh without intellect, repellent to eye, nose, and imagination—would to heaven a kindly gust of cyanogen could asphyxiate the whole gigantic abortion, end the misery, and clean out the place."

In 1926, to his aunt Lillian Clark:

"The mass of contemporary Jews are hopeless as far as America is concerned. They are the product of alien blood, and inherit alien ideals, impulses, and emotions which forever preclude the possibility of wholesale assimilation . . . . The fact is, that an Asiatic stock broken and dragged through the dirt for untold centuries cannot possibly meet a proud, play-loving, warlike Nordic race on an emotional parity . . . . Two elements so discordant can never build up one society–no feeling of real linkage can exist where so vast a disparity of ancestral memories is concerned–so that wherever the Wandering Jew wanders, he will have to content himself with his own society till he disappears or is killed off in some sudden outburst of mad physical loathing on our part . . . . Superior Semites . . . can be assimilated one by one by the dominant Aryan when they sever all ties of association and memory with the mass of organized Jewry."

In 1931, to James F. Morton:

"Now the trickiest catch in the negro problem is the fact that it is really twofold. The black is vastly inferior. There can be no question of this among contemporary and unsentimental biologists—eminent Europeans for whom the prejudice-problem does not exist. But, it is also a fact that there would be a very grave and very legitimate problem even if the negro were the white man’s equal. For the simple fact is, that two widely dissimilar races, whether equal or not, cannot peaceably coexist in the same territory until they are either uniformly mongrelised or cast in folkways of permanent and traditional personal aloofness. . . . . Just how the black and his tan penumbra can ultimately be adjusted to the American fabric, yet remains to be seen. . . . Millions of them would be perfectly content with servile status if good physical treatment and amusement could be assured them, and they may yet form a well-managed agricultural peasantry. The real problem is the quadroon and octoroon—and still lighter shades. Theirs is a sorry tragedy, but they will have to find a special place. What we can do is to discourage the increase of their numbers by placing the highest possible penalties on miscegenation, and arousing as much public sentiment as possible against lax customs and attitudes—especially in the inland South—at present favouring the melancholy and disgusting phenomenon. All told, I think the modern American is pretty well on his guard, at last, against racial and cultural mongrelism. There will be much deterioration, but the Nordic has a fighting chance of coming out on top in the end."


As that last letter shows, Lovecraft himself was aware that his views on race-mixing were stronger than the standards of the 1930s South! He would probably have been insulted to be described as "a man of his times"; he saw himself as a forward-thinker.

 

[lovecraft68]

In line with this the recent movie Sound of Freedom has been a wake up call.

This movie, which is about a group dedicated to rescuing young children from sex traffickers has been labeled controversial and a lot of Hollywood has been condemning it.

Which has me thinking that if you have an issue with a movie showing the ugly truth about the child sex trade, then you're all but telling me you're supporting it. Gervais wasn't just blowing smoke at the Golden Globes when he called them all pedophiles

 

[djrip]

In line with this the recent movie Sound of Freedom has been a wake up call.

This movie, which is about a group dedicated to rescuing young children from sex traffickers has been labeled controversial and a lot of Hollywood has been condemning it.

Which has me thinking that if you have an issue with a movie showing the ugly truth about the child sex trade, then you're all but telling me you're supporting it. Gervais wasn't just blowing smoke at the Golden Globes when he called them all pedophiles

I'm under the impression that real people who work against human trafficking don't like it because they consider the guy and organization it's about a bunch of photo-op hunters who don't do the real work. But that's just what I've read. I'm not doing the real work either so I don't know who's right.

 

[jehoram]

I love to prank people with this particular problem.

"Do you like this painting?"
View attachment 2257965

"Why, sure." They will generally say, "It's alright."

"Well it was painted by Hitler, you monster!!!"

The painting doesn't suck because it was painted by Hitler. It sucks because it's derivative, lifeless, and mechanical... the product of a third-rate artist. But I get your point. If Hitler had been a good artist, the painting would probably hang in a prestigious gallery somewhere.

Also, on the flip side, I write rape stories. If any of you actually think I'm a rapist, or support rape in any way outside of fiction, please PM me. I'd love to straighten that misunderstanding out.

My friend Athalia has often commented on how readers automatically assume that the characters in her erotic stories can be equated with her, and how shocked they'd be if they found out the truth.

I completely agree with this. Seeing a physical copy in person is a lot different than on a screen or in a book. My personal example is Eggleston's Memphis Tricycle.

It's one of his more famous works, and it wasn't until I saw it in person that really appreciated it. I liked it before that, but I liked it even more after that.

Some time back, my local art museum had an exhibit of many Norman Rockwell covers of popular magazines of his day. Although I'd seen copies of them everywhere, including some of the original printed covers, nothing prepared me for seeing the actual originals. They showed a control of color and artistry that couldn't have shown up in anything but first-hand viewing.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The painting doesn't suck because it was painted by Hitler. It sucks because it's derivative, lifeless, and mechanical... the product of a third-rate artist. But I get your point. If Hitler had been a good artist, the painting would probably hang in a prestigious gallery somewhere.

I think part of GC's point, though, was that in this case the "derivative, lifeless, and mechanical" is connected to the things Hitler is better known for. Fascism is an ideology that leans very heavily on past glories - the idea that once "we" were great, and we should return to that, yada yada. That's not a mindset that fosters creativity.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think part of GC's point, though, was that in this case the "derivative, lifeless, and mechanical" is connected to the things Hitler is better known for. Fascism is an ideology that leans very heavily on past glories - the idea that once "we" were great, and we should return to that, yada yada. That's not a mindset that fosters creativity.

I'm not so sure about this generalization. One could say similarly of Richard Wagner that he drew inspiration from a glorified Germanic past, but he was also one of the great creative geniuses of all time.

Just from my own personal experience, and the people I know who have musical, visual, and witing talent, I'd say there's no connection at all between talent and ideology. My impression is it's much more like those few who were blessed with real talent were hit by random bolts of lightning that hit with no regard for politics or decency.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm not so sure about this generalization. One could say similarly of Richard Wagner that he drew inspiration from a glorified Germanic past, but he was also one of the great creative geniuses of all time.

The existence of an occasional exception doesn't disprove a generalisation. For every Wagner who found a niche within that ideology, there were dozens of equally talented creators who fled it — Weill, Schönberg, Rubinstein, Hollander, Waxman, the list goes on, even if you don't recognise the names you'll have heard their music — and thousands of mediocre hacks churning out Party-approved pap.

 

[SimonDoom]

The existence of an occasional exception doesn't disprove a generalization.

It doesn't, but I don't see the basis for the generalization in the first place. I just don't see any correlation between particular political, moral, or religious beliefs or habits and artistic skill or achievement.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It doesn't, but I don't see the basis for the generalization in the first place. I just don't see any correlation between particular political, moral, or religious beliefs or habits and artistic skill or achievement.

Even those political systems which explicitly have platforms around defining, suppressing and destroying "degenerate art"?

Just from my own personal experience, and the people I know who have musical, visual, and witing talent, I'd say there's no connection at all between talent and ideology. My impression is it's much more like those few who were blessed with real talent were hit by random bolts of lightning that hit with no regard for politics or decency.

Noting that GC and I were talking specifically about fascism, I'm a little disconcerted by the apparent implication here that you're personally acquainted with a large enough sample of fascists to allow for such a conclusion to be drawn. Is that really what you're saying? Or are you extrapolating from acquaintances of other ideologies?

 

[MrHereWriting]

The world is filled with examples. In the musical vein, consider Wagner. The man was as nasty an anti-Semite as one could imagine, yet I am unwilling to discard some of the most magnificent music in history because of a deep flaw in the composer.

Got to side with Larry David on this.

I'm a little disconcerted by the apparent implication here that you're personally acquainted with a large enough sample of fascists to allow for such a conclusion to be drawn. Is that really what you're saying?

Yes, that's exactly what he's saying.

 

[SimonDoom]

Noting that GC and I were talking specifically about fascism, I'm a little disconcerted by the apparent implication here that you're personally acquainted with a large enough sample of fascists to allow for such a conclusion to be drawn. Is that really what you're saying? Or are you extrapolating from acquaintances of other ideologies?

You're not engaging in good faith, so this isn't worth responding to.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You're not engaging in good faith, so this isn't worth responding to.

I'm not sure what leads you to that accusation, but you are mistaken.

There are only two readings I can see for the passage I was replying to there. One is that you're speaking about fascists from large personal acquaintance. You will note the "Is that really what you're saying?" which is my way of flagging that I find it rather unlikely.

The other is that you're speaking about personal acquaintance with people who, mostly, aren't fascists, and therefore aren't relevant to the topic you were replying to.

If there's a third interpretation that I've missed, I'd be happy to hear it.

 

[Winter_Fare]

Good art has its roots in struggle, internal, external, doesn't really matter. An eye sensitive and observant enough to make something that speaks beyond itself, beyond its own circumstances, is not destined to live without suffering.

Now, you add funding from state or private sponsorship, commission, and what not, and that suffering need not be deprivation, but my point stands. If the artist isn't driven somehow, it shows.

State sponsored art, whether fascist, communist, royalist, democratic, is by it's nature soulless. I don't think it belongs in the same league as personal art.

 

[jehoram]

In stark contrast, we encounter the second group: the creators. They possess the remarkable ability to construct entirely new worlds, completely detached from their personal reality. They seldom dictate which stories to put down on paper; instead, it is the stories themselves that beckon them. They follow the lead of their characters, listening attentively rather than coercing their presence into the characters' psyche. These characters are rich with viewpoints, thoughts, and emotions entirely unique to them. In this context, an artist serves as a mere conduit for storytelling.

My first reaction upon reading this was: Has there ever been a writer anywhere who has not crafted their worlds in some way upon their life experiences and their knowledge of human nature, and used their personal reality as templates for shaping their work? Your distinction would be valid in what used to be called the "new journalism," where the journalist inserted himself into the narrative (Hunter S. Thompson and Tom Wolfe come to mind), as opposed to that form of journalism which tries to weed out any personal bias on the part of the writer. But I don't think you can divide fiction into such neat little categories.

Perhaps you could help us by listing some of the writers you think represent the narcissistic aspect and which ones you think represent the creative aspect.

 

[jehoram]

Good art has its roots in struggle, internal, external, doesn't really matter. An eye sensitive and observant enough to make something that speaks beyond itself, beyond its own circumstances, is not destined to live without suffering.

Which is why AI generated fiction is always going to be deficient, because it can only reflect a general view based on its assessment of what's already been published. It can't truly describe a pain it hasn't felt.

State sponsored art, whether fascist, communist, royalist, democratic, is by it's nature soulless. I don't think it belongs in the same league as personal art.

Although there have been some examples of good art that was subsidized by government programs. The Works Progress Administration funded all sorts of writers, muralists, and musicians. The trick is to let the subsidized artist create what they want, rather than specifying in some form what the artist should be creating.

 

[alohadave]

My first reaction upon reading this was: Has there ever been a writer anywhere who has not crafted their worlds in some way upon their life experiences and their knowledge of human nature, and used their personal reality as templates for shaping their work?

That is the essence of "write what you know".

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm not sure what leads you to that accusation, but you are mistaken.

There are only two readings I can see for the passage I was replying to there. One is that you're speaking about fascists from large personal acquaintance. You will note the "Is that really what you're saying?" which is my way of flagging that I find it rather unlikely.

The other is that you're speaking about personal acquaintance with people who, mostly, aren't fascists, and therefore aren't relevant to the topic you were replying to.

If there's a third interpretation that I've missed, I'd be happy to hear it.

OK. On the assumption that you want to engage in this dialogue in good faith, I'll try to explain. I think sometimes terrible people create great art. I also think great people often create bad art, because relatively few people have much artistic talent, and the majority of people, good and bad, cannot create great art no matter how hard they try. I don't think the distribution of talent has much if anything to do with political or religious background or orientation. The bottom line is I don't think the greatness of an artist has much to do with his/her greatness as a human being, and I don't care. So I allow myself to appreciate great art even if I find out that the artist is a terrible person. In that sense, I separate the artist from the art.

You talk about fascism. Of course, political intolerance in general tends to run counter to good art. You can find many examples of oppressive political systems that suppress art because the art doesn't fit the desired political narrative. That's no less true of extreme left politics than of extreme right politics. One can find all sorts of examples of communist regimes suppressing art and writing. Same thing with fascists. Art thrives when artists are given freedom.

But that doesn't have much to do with the original post, as I understand it. Perhaps you understand it differently. The way I understand it, the issue is whether, if you find out that someone who has created art you have admired is a bad person, can you separate the two? Does knowing an artist is a bad person affect the way you look at the art? And in my case, it by and large does not. I can condemn the artist for their badness and appreciate their art for its goodness. For instance, Woody Allen's personal life troubles me a great deal, AND I see reflections of his personal attitudes in some of his movies, like Manhattan and Husbands and Wives. Knowing what I know (or think I know) of his personal life, there are elements in those movies that are creepy and disturbing to me. But I still think he's a comic genius, and I'll continue to watch his movies even while at the same time I'll say to anyone who cares to hear it that I believe the women who accuse him. Same thing with Richard Wagner. Same thing with Roald Dahl. Same thing with Dalton Trumbo. I don't care. I can, and do, appreciate art without regard to whether I admire the artist who created it.

For the record, I have no special familiarity with fascists or how they think.

 

[Winter_Fare]

[Emphasis mine.]

I'm really not an expert on literature. But I do know a thing or two about medical history and how huffy other medical historians get over it! This comment reminded me about it, so I thought I'd comment because it's a very similar concept.

In both literary analysis and historical analysis, many historians accuse others of presentism. This is a pejorative for using present-day ideas or values to interpret past works or events. The accusation of presentism is often used by traditionalist historians (the type that oppose any form of revisionism, AKA introduction of new interpretations to their Victorian-born narrative). You'll see it used against just about anything from people trying to interpret historical pieces as evidence of queer identity, to people criticizing the institution of American slavery. "But it was a different time!"

Same for the internment of the Japanese, or for robbing their properties once they were taken from their homes, despite the fact that there were White Americans who decided not to or who even went out of their way to care for these properties while waiting for their Japanese neighbors to return.

Back to the medical history. J. Marion Sims is often a subject of debate in the medical community, at least in the texts I've read. He innovated treatments for vesicovaginal fistulas (VVFs), an opening between the vagina and the bladder. VVFs back then were cited in enslaved women to have been caused by prolonged obstructed labor (these days in industrialized countries, it is more common to be a complication of pelvic surgery). So Sims is lauded by L. Lewis Wall, an OB/GYN and bioethicist, for this innovation and excused for his time period for the use of enslaved women in his studies.

The problem is that we were most likely producing this problem. In the antebellum South where Sims was conducting his surgeries, slave owners forced Black women to become pregnant. That's also a very ginger way of putting it. The slave trade was abolished by the time a more advanced obstetric / gynecological science was developed, so it's no surprise that they did develop OB/GYN so rapidly, that they produced so much literature, and that they trafficked the cadavers, specimens, and even live bodies of the enslaved to experiment on and reproduce. It was in large part to facilitate slave breeding. Black women would be left to die in darkness and filth, often unattended to, struggling through labor. Or their care was significantly poor compared to that of White women. They weren't given antiemetics, but White women were. They sat in their own shit and vomit for hours, and died.

And the lack of emotion in the medical journals, let me tell you, is astounding. Occasionally, you get a glimpse of it. Just a glimpse. But you know that they probably don't care about Black women as a whole, but perhaps they worked up some sympathy for that particular patient that one time, and then their carelessness with these enslaved people who are spared no humanity rendered that one big nothing.

Besides, it doesn't matter. Physicians made money off of slave owners' cruelty. Hospitals trafficked these bodies, too, and trafficked their own enslaved people.

So I don't buy the argument against presentism. It ignores the realities of the present and the weight of the present. "But it was a different time!" Well, was it? Obviously, we don't have institutionalized slavery anymore... except in our prison system. Of course, we don't have slave breeding anymore... but we do have forced sterilization. And yes, we don't have slave patrols anymore... but we do have police! I don't think I need to touch that one.

So there really isn't a massive separation between the past and the present with many of the things we criticize, because society hasn't moved that far from ~160 years ago. That's an extremely short period of time.

I treat books the same way. Because that last thing you said, that people should know better now...

A lot of people don't. That's why they excuse the past. And still, today, write insane things. And pass insane laws. Like banning AP Psychology in schools or something like that cough-cough we live in idiocracy--

Being the kinky bitch that I am, the first time I encountered Sim's speculum all I could see were the possibilities...

But once I read about it the whole thing turned my stomach. Thank goodness for solid modern ethical research practices. There are quite a few controversial skeletons in the medical closet, fair to say progress took far longer than it should.

 

[alohadave]

Thank goodness for solid modern ethical research practices.

Ask Henrietta Lacks about that.

 

[ChloeTzang]

I'm hoping to dig up some forgotten gems because "controversial" art sometimes gets buried by search algorithms. You get the same stuff churning over, only the popular stuff gets a hearing.

Arthur Ransome, the author of the Swallows and Amazon's children's series. The entire series remains in print (I have 2 sets of the books), and Swallows and Amazons is the basis for a tourist industry around Windermere and Coniston Water, the two lakes Ransome adapted as his fictional English Lake District lake.

Ransome himself was a supporter of the Bolshevik Revolution, becoming personally close to a number of its leaders, including Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Karl Radek. His second wife, Evgenia Petrovna Shelepina, was Trotsky's personal secretary. He was suspected by MI5 of being a Soviet spy. It's hard to reconcile his time in Russia and his support for the bolsheviks with the rather pastoral English middle-classness of Swallows and Amazons, which grew from his own adventures and friends in the Lake District as a young man. A fascinating dichotomy in some ways.

 

[ChloeTzang]

There is no doubt that Lewis Carroll had some strange and eccentric interests, and some of his writings have been interpreted as having sexual undertones. Should we consider boycotting his work?

His strange and eccentric interests included nude photos of at least one of the Liddell sisters

 

[Winter_Fare]

Ask Henrietta Lacks about that.

I'm very familiar with this, and it's awful, but consent is now fundamental to the research process. It's awful how her family have been dismissed over the years, and on an entirely separate note, hela cells completely derailed cell culture science for years. Bad science rarely yields usable data.