Separate the Art From the Artist

[Athalia]

My father would buy me LPs of Bill Cosby's comedy, because he was good wholesome fun, and his early stuff is brilliant. I grew up on his stories of Old Weird Harold and Fat Albert and growing up in Philly. I could recite entire bits from memory. Noah! How long can you tread water? He was Cliff Huckstable, America's dad. I loved his work and what I thought he stood for.

The day I realized he was a fucking rapist, my heart broke. I still love his comedy, but it's hard to listen to now. It comes up on my Pandora comedy station and I try to enjoy it for what it is. But it's so, so hard.

My reaction was the same. I don't know which I mourn more.. Cosby's fall from grace or my own loss if innocence, and the transformation of the girl who loved his work into the woman who can no longer see it with those same innocent eyes.

It's kinda meh, compared to a masterpiece like this!

View attachment 2258478

A lot of people like anything representational, no matter how dull or amateurish.

I don't know if you meant it ironically, but I find this picture far more interesting than Hitler's castle. That would could have been a painting of a castle or the painting of a model of the castle. Both would have the same play of light on it, and the same pretty clouds in the background. But there's really nothing of the solidity or the majesty of the castle.

On the other hand, I can hear music when I see the second picture. It's like the interplay between to jazz musicians, with your attention darting from one side to the other. It's dynamic, it pops. It invites interaction.

We live in a world of consequences. Some people enjoy a Chick Fil-A dinner, and some even embrace the fact that devoted Christians run it, and observe the Sabbath and feed the hungry. Others are appalled at the fact that these same Christian owners financially supported a group that sent a bunch of lawyers to Africa for the purpose of helping draft laws that make homosexuality a capital crime. At some point, it becomes more than an issue of flavor.

As somebody pointed out earlier, those people who were putting up statues of Confederate generals weren't as interested in the glorious history of the Confederate South as they were for perpetuating racism in the face of the emerging struggle against Jim Crow laws and discriminatory practices in education and voting. They were trying to enshrine a myth rather than a history, since the function of myth is to educate a culture in its traditions.

We want purity in our art, the way we want apples without blemish and picnics without rain. But artists are more cantankerous than that, and insist on being human with human blindness and frailty and hatred. We accept that, and acknowledge the virtue of that art without conflating it with the sins of its creators.

 

[bestkeptsecret678]

If someone said this already, apologies; I skipped to the end of the thread.

It depends on whether one had a personal interaction or relationship with the artist.

If I’d met the artist, and they called me a <insert artistic insult>, then I’d likely disapprove of their work. But reading about how awful Wagner was as a human doesn’t deter me from enjoying Ride of the Valkyries.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

Adolf Hitler?

Dolphy (or Dolfy) was an artist. Yet try telling somebody a certain painting is by Dolphy, and they'll immediately say it's utter garbage.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

Adolf Hitler?

Dolphy (or Dolfy) was an artist. Yet try telling somebody a certain painting is by Dolphy, and they'll immediately say it's utter garbage.

In this very thread, people were critiquing Hitler's art and calling it crap. You can call me a dumb-dumb internet lady if you want, but I don't know enough about visual art to insult it. I think it looks like it required skill, although it's a little boring. (I'd rather see it with a dragon on the keep or something) lol

That said, the creator was a vile monster, but I can appreciate the quality of the art wile still despising everything about the artist.

 

[Voboy]

In this very thread, people were critiquing Hitler's art and calling it crap. You can call me a dumb-dumb internet lady if you want, but I don't know enough about visual art to insult it. I think it looks like it required skill, although it's a little boring. (I'd rather see it with a dragon on the keep or something) lol

That said, the creator was a vile monster, but I can appreciate the quality of the art wile still despising everything about the artist.

Dude was a better painter than I'll ever be. That's about the most I feel qualified to say about his art.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

My point is not that Dolfy was a great painter.
My point is that most people conflate the art with the artist. They don't separate. Not when it comes to poor Dolfy.

I'd say people are willing to separate the two in some case, while in others they don't.

It's not a position I take or defend. I just point it out.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

My point is not that Dolfy was a great painter.
My point is that most people conflate the art with the artist. They don't separate. Not when it comes to poor Dolfy.

I'd say people are willing to separate the two in some case, while in others they don't.

It's not a position I take or defend. I just point it out.

He's a terrible example because by definition he's the worst person who has ever lived.

There's a legal euphemism, bad cases make bad law, and this is an example of it.

I think Tim Robbins is an utter shit heel, but he was still really good in Shawshank Redemption.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

He's a terrible example because by definition he's the worst person who has ever lived.

There's a legal euphemism, bad cases make bad law, and this is an example of it.

I think Tim Robbins is an utter shit heel, but he was still really good in Shawshank Redemption.

What definition is that?

And are you actually making my case? That we should have different rules, that we apply arbitrarily? Dolfy is bad, but Timmy is alright? Who decides where to draw the line? What if we differ on where to draw the line? Who's right, then? Me or you?

 

[samhasstories]

Wherever the line is, seems reasonable to put it somewhere short of genocide.

Hitler's a weird example anyway. He's not a famous painter who happened to exterminate millions of people and plunge the world into war. The only reason anyone's taken a look at his paintings is because they know him for a monster already. It's a little different from finding out Picasso maybe wasn't a great hang after you already love his work.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

What definition is that?

And are you actually making my case? That we should have different rules, that we apply arbitrarily? Dolfy is bad, but Timmy is alright? Who decides where to draw the line? What if we differ on where to draw the line? Who's right, then? Me or you?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I'm simply saying when you shouldn't argue the extreme cases.

 

[Comshaw]

Interesting, verthy interesting. (points if you get the source of the quote)

Humans are fallible, that's a fact. There has and never will be a "perfect" human being. For me how I see things comes down to a sliding scale of good/bad. Everyone is going to have some of each of those. It depends on which one (good or bad) makes up the majority of a person.



As has been mentioned, I listened to Bill Cosby's LPs way back and loved them. Stories about linoleum guns and soles of shoes that are loose and lick along the pavement as you walk. As a poor kid I could commiserate with everything he said. I also loved his TV show. Cosby was the quintessential husband/father...right up until all the bad stuff broke. The feeling is like your wife/husband cheated on you, then laughed at you when you found out and they tried to convince you it was your fault. And deep down it hurt. Not the hurt of a scratch, or even a smashed finger, but a deep and abiding wound of the inner me that takes a long time to heal, if it ever will.

Because of that I can't and will never again listen to or watch his work. I will not support a person who can do that, not just the bad things he did to women, but to all those like me who looked up to him.

But, I hope his work survives and after he is dead and gone, other people who weren't so affected can enjoy his work. It is good, it's fun, it makes the heart light and I'm sure others will enjoy it. After he is gone people can look at his life and work dispassionately, logically without feeling the hurt of the betrayal he fousted on his fans. I can't. I won't. Not because of the work, but because of the unmasking of the evil in the creator of it.

and that is my little double pence worth.

Comshaw

 

[VerbalAbuse]

What about good ole Jimmy Savile?

Sixteen victims reported being raped by Savile when they were under 16 (the age of heterosexual consent in England) and four of those had been under the age of 10.

No genocide on his part. Just fucking four under 10.

What do we do about his "art"?

 

[Emilymcplugger]

Here’s a great example.

Caravaggio.

Master of Chiaroscuro.
Murderer.
Still produced great art.

Dali.
All sorts of political bollocks
Still worth looking at.

Picasso
Awful to women.
Come on. Its Picasso FFS.

Finally…

Gary Glitter, music performer extraordinaire.
Also…complete nonce.
Who?

I think it very much depends not only on the size of the artist but also the type of crime.

Thoughts?

 

[Bramblethorn]

In this very thread, people were critiquing Hitler's art and calling it crap. You can call me a dumb-dumb internet lady if you want, but I don't know enough about visual art to insult it. I think it looks like it required skill, although it's a little boring.

I think you just did insult it, and quite accurately. Certainly enough to get you in trouble in 1938 Munich!

One could fill a gallery with technically competent paintings of Neuschwanstein. Alongside Hitler's version, here are some by Ilya Zhernyak, Jean Walker White, and Nataliia Zhekova, some cropped for comparison:



A Google search will bring up many, many more. Most of the examples will be post-1914, because Google hits skew towards recent stuff that's been digitised, but there were plenty in Hitler's day too.

For comparison, a 1945 photo (unknown photographer):



If I took all those technically competent paintings and hung them side by side, about the most distinctive thing I could say about Hitler's is "it's the greyish one". Even there, I'm not sure whether that was an artistic choice, or the weather when he visited, or just ageing of the painting.

 

[AchtungNight]

My usual reply to questions like this is to say that John Travolta, Erika Christensen, Marisol Nichols, and other celebrity Scientologists are inspiring people and their philosophy can have some positive effects when you apply it based on a free framework with your own perspective rather that of a fanatic, greedy, or hateful person. I wrote some erotic satire fanfics about the listed celebrities espousing that viewpoint on the net a while back.

I also consider Seth McFarlane, Kevin Smith, Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Robert Jordan, David & Leigh Eddings, and CS Lewis gifted writers despite certain flaws in their personal philosophies. You have to take their work with a grain of salt.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Would I financially support a 'bad' current artist or writer by purchasing their work? Possibly not, depending on the 'crime'. I don't have to worry about an extreme like der Fuehrer in any case; he wasn't really enough of an artist to make me have to weigh his art against his deep evil. (It might be interesting in a philosophical sense to consider an absolute monster who topped a creative field as well, but I cannot think of a single IRL example.)

All that said, I think it the height of arrogance to judge long-ago people by present standards. That assumes that we today are the height of perfection, that we ourselves are unflawed, with no need of improvement, and that's simply ridiculous. Moreover, it leaves us, we people here today, open to the same flawed criticism 100 years from now. Society develops, improves, evolves; so do its members.

 

[Voboy]

That assumes that we today are the height of perfection, that we ourselves are unflawed, with no need of improvement, and that's simply ridiculous. Moreover, it leaves us, we people here today, open to the same flawed criticism 100 years from now.

Yep.

It's not just art, either. Thomas Jefferson is revered by many in the US because of his authorship of the Declaration of Independence, his contributions to the Constitution, and his handling of France and Britain while he was President, during the Napoleonic Wars.

And yet? He owned many slaves and raped more than one of them. He could have manumitted every one of them with the stroke of a pen, thus putting his rhetoric into practice, and chose not to do so.

At some point, our society has weighed his pluses and minuses and decided he was more plus than minus. Same with Washington, a more-brutal-than-average slaveholder who also ordered a genocide once upon a time and then lost most of his battles. You can name any number of other flawed people we've never canceled, for every Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein.

At a certain point, it's all very arbitrary.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I’ve not read the whole thread, but two people come to mind. Jos Whedon and Woody Allen. Now I like both of their work. The allegations against Allen are obviously far more serious. But… they were also investigated and he wasn’t prosecuted. I don’t know what happened and nor does anyone else.

I know what it’s like to not have your version of events believed by the police. But I also don’t subscribe to the idea that the alleged perpetrator is guilty unless they are actually proven guilty. I don’t like the court of public opinion much.

With Whedon. He admits to sleeping with actresses on his shows. There is a power dynamic there for sure. The accusations of bullying, I think he’s kinda said “yeah” to that, but “it wasn’t as bad as claimed.” The things he said to Charisma Carpenter were reprehensible. But the most worrying is this rumor that the set team on Buffy had a rule not to leave him alone in a room with Michele Trachtenberg. If true, then he deserves opprobrium and worse. But, it’s a rumor. Isn’t true? I have no idea.

Have I stopped watching work by either director / writer? No. But I guess I view their work differently. I no longer buy Whedon’s claims of feminism for example.

But I appreciate the work done by the other writers and the cast. As far as I know, they haven’t done anything wrong.

Em

 

[EmilyMiller]

Obviously my appreciation of Woody Allen is not at all influenced by having Penelope Cruz and Scarlett Johnson in a lesbian scene (and a threesome with Mr Cruz).



Em

 

[lc69hunter]

Since I'm a fantasy reader, I can pull two more specialized examples that most people outside those circles might not know, but are pretty well known to fans of the genre:

1) Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote The Mists of Avalon (a retelling of the Arthurian myths from the POV of Morgan Le Fay) which was long considered a milestone feminist work in fantasy. Bradley also edited the anthology Sword and Sorceress, which she created to address what she saw as the lack of female protagonists in fantasy, from 1984 until her death in 1999. In 2014 (I think) Bradley's daughter accused her of child sexual abuse. Bradley's husband, Walter Breen, was convicted of several such counts and the daughter said she was also one of his victims, that Bradley knew and did nothing (on top of her own acts).

I've read a lot of fantasy. I knew of Bradley but had never read her. I don't think I ever will now.

2) David Eddings (along with oft-uncredited wife Leigh) wrote several fantasy series in the 80s and 90s, most notably The Belgariad, which is pretty widely-read, especially by teenaged readers. After the Eddings died (her in 2007, him in 09), clippings of trials emerged from the early 70s that they had both served a year in prison for child abuse.

I read some of his work when I was a teenager, enjoyed it, and had fond memories of it. I didn't find out about their crimes until many decades later. I didn't run out and throw away my books ... but I am also reluctant to recommend their books to others. In theory, they served their time and never reoffended. It's a judgment call every reader would have to make for themselves.

Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote some awesome stuff. I read her growing up

 

[UnquietDreams]

Since I'm a fantasy reader, I can pull two more specialized examples that most people outside those circles might not know, but are pretty well known to fans of the genre:

1) Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote The Mists of Avalon (a retelling of the Arthurian myths from the POV of Morgan Le Fay) which was long considered a milestone feminist work in fantasy. Bradley also edited the anthology Sword and Sorceress, which she created to address what she saw as the lack of female protagonists in fantasy, from 1984 until her death in 1999. In 2014 (I think) Bradley's daughter accused her of child sexual abuse. Bradley's husband, Walter Breen, was convicted of several such counts and the daughter said she was also one of his victims, that Bradley knew and did nothing (on top of her own acts).

I've read a lot of fantasy. I knew of Bradley but had never read her. I don't think I ever will now.

2) David Eddings (along with oft-uncredited wife Leigh) wrote several fantasy series in the 80s and 90s, most notably The Belgariad, which is pretty widely-read, especially by teenaged readers. After the Eddings died (her in 2007, him in 09), clippings of trials emerged from the early 70s that they had both served a year in prison for child abuse.

I read some of his work when I was a teenager, enjoyed it, and had fond memories of it. I didn't find out about their crimes until many decades later. I didn't run out and throw away my books ... but I am also reluctant to recommend their books to others. In theory, they served their time and never reoffended. It's a judgment call every reader would have to make for themselves.

Bradley is the one that always hits hardest with me. I grew up on Marion Zimmer Bradley. Many a day I spent hunting down Darkover novels. "Secrets of the Blue Star," part of the Thieve's World shared-world series, is very close to a perfect story for me. Without being aware of it, she was one of my first in-depth introductions to feminism in fiction. The House Between the Worlds, The Mists of Avalon, I could keep going. I loved her work, and it had a profound effect on my life and my writing. Her, Bradbury, Emma Bull, and Zelazny were on my Mt. Rushmore of Speculative Fiction. She was incredibly influential, and not just to me.

Then, after her death, everything came out. She was a monster, and aided a monster, in doing horrible things to children. I hoped beyond hope it wasn't true, but everything showed that it was. Throwing out or selling my books wasn't an option, so I had a bonfire and burned all of my collected Darkover books (I had over twenty of them in paperback) as well as my signed, first edition hardback of Mists of Avalon.

Another one for me is Polanski. Chinatown is arguably the finest film ever made. Rosemary's Baby is an amazing example of what low key horror can be. But the fact that he is the unrepentant rapist of a 13-year-old child who he drugged as well, and I don't watch anything he has done anymore. Even the ones I loved.

So there is a line that I don't cross. I don't expect everyone to adhere to my line, but I try to.

The other side of that line is someone like Joss Wheedon, as Em brought up. He is a bad person. I don't buy anythign new from him that he will benefit from. That said, I am an unrepentant Browncoat, and I am currently taking my eighteen-year-old daughter through her first viewing of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel (currently watching 6/3 concureently). I have talked to her about him, and what he did and was. But I don't consider him a monster. An asshole, but not a monster. If there turns out to be more to the issues between him and Michelle other than "the thirty-something man was not allowed to be in a room alone with the 15-year-old minor" (which, honestly, seems reasonable no matter what), I will reevaluate. But nothing has come of that.

So we make judgements. There are some artists who I can separate (Hitchcock, Picasso, Bacon, Jim Morrison, and others) and those I cannot (Cosby, who raised me more than my father did; Eddings; Allan, who went from being an icon of the powerless to a predator, even if you do not believe in Dylan's statements. Man, Woody just pissed me off).

But the lines are mine, and I don't require anyone else to hold to them.

 

[Winter_Fare]

What about good ole Jimmy Savile?



No genocide on his part. Just fucking four under 10.

What do we do about his "art"?

I didn't think he'd created anything noteworthy?

 

[TheRedChamber]

I didn't think he'd created anything noteworthy?

The weird thing about Jimmy Saville in retrospect is that everyone now says that while they'll liked the show Jim'll Fix It as a kid, they always found Jimmy himself deeply creepy, or at least very annoying.

Which I'd normally say was making excuses post-revelations, except, well, that is exactly how I felt as a child.

 

[XerXesXu]

The weird thing about Jimmy Saville in retrospect is that everyone now says that while they'll liked the show Jim'll Fix It as a kid, they always found Jimmy himself deeply creepy, or at least very annoying.

Which I'd normally say was making excuses post-revelations, except, well, that is exactly how I felt as a child.

His art was con-art. He was good at his art but he wasn't a good person.

I almost bumped into him when running around the Outer Circle of Regents Park. I looked at him, he was standing behind a vehicle in the roadway, he gurned/smiled at me and moved onto the pavement/sidewalk into my path. I sidestepped around him and continued, he called 'Oooh a rugby player', I raised a hand but didn't look back. The thing that struck me was that he was quite small. I knew the Royal Marines had awarded him an honourary green beret for completing the final c/t/c test, and in acknowledgement of his charitable works. When it turned out his charitable works facilitated his child sex abuse and necrophilia I felt I'd made the right call.

He was never caught and was buried with his green beret.

 

[HordHolm]

All that said, I think it the height of arrogance to judge long-ago people by present standards. That assumes that we today are the height of perfection, that we ourselves are unflawed, with no need of improvement, and that's simply ridiculous. Moreover, it leaves us, we people here today, open to the same flawed criticism 100 years from now. Society develops, improves, evolves; so do its members.

An absolute classic example of this is Napoleon. During his lifetime, in most of Europe, he was regarded as The Monster, a man addicted to war whose campaigns were bigger than anything seen since the Roman Empire. In Spain, Italy and Russia in particular his campaigns (and the opposition to him) were brutal, and the number of French dead was devastating for the time. It is possible that more than 6 million people died during the Napoleonic Wars, and he was the root cause of all of it. But... look at what we think of him today. He is a French hero, he wrote laws that are still on European statute books today, many people see elements of genius within him. And he is most certainly not The Monster of our imaginations now, mostly because for all the terrible effects of the Napoleonic Wars, we've had far worse subsequently. The other obvious candidate here is Julius Caesar.

It seems weird to write this, but one day some generation in the future might well shrug their shoulders in indifference when considering the horrors of the 20th century dictators, their attitude being 'yeah, but look at this fucker we had to deal with, he was the worst person ever, much worse than anyone in the past.' I hope this doesn't happen, but it probably will.