Separate the Art From the Artist

[Bramblethorn]

People do good and evil, and also they make good or bad art. It's not morally wrong to enjoy art made by people who have done bad things.

However it's worth considering whether the creator will use your money or support to justify or fund more evil shit. J. K. Rowling will use any money you give her to fund transphobia, while H. P. Lovecraft is too dead to spend your book money on racism.

I do read HPL, and there are interesting things happening in his modern-day fandom - but even there one has to be a little careful, because some people are still drawn to that fandom by the racism. I haven't looked at my Call of Cthulhu RPG stuff the same way since learning that the author was chummy with Varg Vikernes :-/

 

[SeraphNocturne]

Same to you on that last bit.

Never did group therapy. Couldn't verbalize anything that went on and even one-on-one therapy was tough. I had to write things down just to let my therapist know what the issue was because I couldn't say it (I was doing therapy from 25-35 so it's not like I didn't have the vocabulary, I physically couldn't say it) and still can't say any of it out loud.

So, my librarian didn't put limits on where I could get books from and I love her for that. She cared that I wanted to read and knew there were never adults with me when I went to the library. I got into some Tales From the Crypt comics and then ventured off to the horror writers looking for more and she didn't steer me away. She did steer me away from some romance novels because she asked me why I wanted to read them and I said the covers looked like they would be about magic. She steered me toward Terry Pratchett and Anne McCaffrey instead. Had to hide them all from my parents but reading was my happy place and I was just as comfortable reading Beverly Cleary as I was IT.

I mean. My favorite movies as a kid were Secret of NIMH and NOES.

I was largely withdrawn in group therapy sessions, I had a lot of involuntary admissions after some really fucked up suicide attempts. But I think in large being around other survivors and hearing their stories and having a space to be vulnerable, even if it was just to cry or be angry helped, a lot.

I leaned on outrageous fantasy and adventure stories, I got super into Tolkien, Jules Verne, and read anything with Merlin in it—awesomely enough, Anne McCaffrey was among my young list of authors. I spent a large part of my young teens really into romantic poetry, gothic literature and studies of the paranormal and occult. My love of horror didn’t sink in until my later teen years. I think if I re-read IT now, I wouldn’t be nearly so bothered.

Your librarian sounds like the best. I think troubled youth being able to funnel their attention into literature is a real saving grace… so kudos to her for being awesome. I loved the Secret of NIHM! Man that one was dark for kids, but it was so good! And thank you for your kind sentiments on the subject. Definitely didn’t mean to derail the thread! If you ever want a kindred spirit to talk with, you’re more than welcome to shoot me a message, anytime.

 

[SeraphNocturne]

I can explain this conundrum super easily.

Within the context of the story... I mean from the perspective of the kids, without even acknowledging the viewpoints of the reader at all... murder is bad, but sex is good (even when the acts in question are being done to/by 12 year olds).

The Library Policeman has an absolutely disgusting child rape scene in it, but within the context of the story it is a bad thing. So as gross as it was, I can (somewhat) give it a pass. The same with all the child murder in IT. It's awful, but it's also painted as awful.

On the other hand, the entire Loser's Club running a train on Beverly? That's painted as a good thing (or at best a necessary evil). Steve King put his main characters in a deadly situation, and he decided arbitrarily that sex was the only way they could get out of danger. That's worse than child murder... because it doesn't even make any fucking sense.

I'm not claiming that King is a pedophile, (although if I found out that he was, I wouldn't be overly shocked) but I am saying that it makes perfect sense that people are bothered by the sex more than the murder.

For the record, I'd be more bothered by the murder, if for instance, the kids were trapped in the sewers, and they suddenly decide that they only way out was to murder Beverly. That would be more fucked than the sex too.

I’m honestly not sure which is more squicky, the explicit content or the violent content. But again the younger version of me had reasons for not being down for it; the kid murder was dramatically less repulsive. At the end of the day, it’s Stephen King, he whacks kids pretty commonly… Pet Semetary? Desperation… Salem’s Lot, it’s almost his calling card for a kid to get offed.

He might be among the no-go authors for me, if anything creepy or disturbing ever comes to light on those facts alone.

 

[Winter_Fare]

I don't think this is even remotely the same thing as, say, asking about whether to separate J. K. Rowling from her books. Because her racism and her visceral malice toward fat people is written into her books. It's not avoidable by just "separating the art from the artist."

Also she is shit at writing. JKR fans, please reread.

She's also cool with slavery, implicitly, based on how the HP books go. Exhibit 48274239: House elves.

Would we have gotten plantation elves if it was set in the Americas?

Obviously she has significant issues with trans people, trans rights and denial of the aforementioned. can't say I was surprised when she doubled down on her hatred, I know to many of her sort personally, she's depressingly part of the majority here. I wouldn't say she's ok with slavery, just that she puts it into the world and the characters react to it. Some love it, some hate it but mostly people ignore it, much like IRL. She is the epitome on banal indifference.

I guess I never answered the question. If someone fucks my moral compass too hard, no, I can't really fuck with their writing. It poisons the well. I don't give a fuck about The Classics~ There is so much to read, write, watch, do, it really doesn't matter. I don't care.

I end up down rabbit holes on project Gutenberg, all different ends of the spectrum on there. I have issues with the idea that because things are old, they're no longer relevant. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I don't like this painting. This is the Neuschwanstein Castle, painted in 1907. It's a real location that the Nazis used to store stolen shit.

But mostly, I don't like it for what the style represents.

Hitler was inspired by Neoclassicism. The people these days who want to saturate today's art world with Neoclassicism and kill modern & contemporary art with it are fascists.

mmm-hmm. So much so that "classical statue in the profile pic" is pretty strongly correlated with that variety of politics these days. (Probably oughta clarify that this is not in any way an observation about an AH member who has a statue PFP. Some people just do like statues.)

I honestly believe that the painting you showed above is devoid of Joy. Okay, he demonstrates, like, the capacity to use value by shading trees and shit. But it's like the precursor to Thomas Kinkade. Just crap.

I didn't respond to that image earlier, because I saw who it was by before the image loaded and so I was second-guessing my reactions. But this was pretty much my reaction. It's not a painting that says "I intend to murder millions of people" but it's... kind of soulless? Most of the artistic value in it comes from the subject matter, a rather pretty castle that somebody else designed and built.

Which is not to say that awful people can never make good art. Oscar Wilde had an essay about that question. But in general, art is a very personal thing and it's unusual that the awful bits of a person are neatly partitioned off from the art-making bits.

Also she is shit at writing. JKR fans, please reread.

She's also cool with slavery, implicitly, based on how the HP books go. Exhibit 48274239: House elves.

Would we have gotten plantation elves if it was set in the Americas?

The slightly-loony-but-nice character was named Luna Lovegood. Her father, best known for his obsession with cryptids etc., was named Xenophilius ("lover of the exotic"). "Remus" is a mythical figure suckled by a wolf, and "lupine" = "wolf-like"; Remus Lupin is a werewolf. "Skeeter" is a contraction of "mosquito"; Rita Skeeter is an annoying person who transforms into insects.

The only prominent Black character in HP is named "Shacklebolt".

I wouldn't say she's ok with slavery, just that she puts it into the world and the characters react to it. Some love it, some hate it but mostly people ignore it, much like IRL. She is the epitome on banal indifference.

I wouldn't let her off quite that easily. JKR isn't shy about letting readers know who the goodies and baddies are; if she felt that the house-elf system was morally wrong, she'd have been pretty clear on the matter. Instead, Hermione's attempts to free house-elves are mocked (beginning with a ridiculous acronym, SPEW) and Rowling establishes that most elves don't want freedom and are happier off being servants as long as they're treated kindly. This was a pretty common rationalisation for slavery back in the day.

 

[Winter_Fare]

If we were to boycott these artists solely based on their actions and words, it would deprive us of a substantial portion of quality art.

My original question is do you know of any stuff that particularly stands out as good art despite the creator being a bad person, what ever that means to you is subjective of course, take is as you will.

You half answered it by naming a few classic authors with well known issues. Are there any particular creations of theirs that you admire, fiction in particular?

 

[MediocreAuthor]

I don't like this painting. This is the Neuschwanstein Castle, painted in 1907. It's a real location that the Nazis used to store stolen shit.

But mostly, I don't like it for what the style represents.

Hitler was inspired by Neoclassicism. The people these days who want to saturate today's art world with Neoclassicism and kill modern & contemporary art with it are fascists. The Nazis were the same, which is why they had a museum exhibition of Degenerate Art where all the modern art they confiscated was put on display as an example of what not to do... compared to their Neoclassical-Nazi architecture and art.

I don't know if I can like... show swastikas in here, so... Just google the following for examples of the Neoclassical architecture:

Albert Speer's New Reich Chancellery (1939).

House of German Art in Munich.

1936 Summer Olympics, nude female and male statues.

I honestly believe that the painting you showed above is devoid of Joy. Okay, he demonstrates, like, the capacity to use value by shading trees and shit. But it's like the precursor to Thomas Kinkade. Just crap.

And it's the precursor to Kinkade, it's boring, because Nazis wanted boring art. Fascists today want boring art. They didn't/don't want art that challenges them and their bland, sterile style in the slightest. Like Matisse's The Blue Window or Lehmbruck's Kneeling Woman. Also why the painting Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue III and IV by Barnett Newman were vandalized.

Anyway, to answer the thread's question...

I think there's a huge difference between who the person is and what they write about or what they fantasize about. You just mentioned rape, for example. It's very common for people to fantasize, write about, and roleplay rape. These fantasies and fictions are very dissimilar to the reality of rape, and to the mentality of actual rapists. Rapists act out of a desire for power over another person, not out of... horniness. We write or RP rape fantasy because it turns us on sexually.

If it was real, that would be a different story entirely!

But that's not a reflection of the actual person. The writer isn't a rapist. This isn't a Denny's.

So I don't think this is even remotely the same thing as, say, asking about whether to separate J. K. Rowling from her books. Because her racism and her visceral malice toward fat people is written into her books. It's not avoidable by just "separating the art from the artist."

Also she is shit at writing. JKR fans, please reread.

She's also cool with slavery, implicitly, based on how the HP books go. Exhibit 48274239: House elves.

Would we have gotten plantation elves if it was set in the Americas?

I guess I never answered the question. If someone fucks my moral compass too hard, no, I can't really fuck with their writing. It poisons the well. I don't give a fuck about The Classics~ There is so much to read, write, watch, do, it really doesn't matter. I don't care.

If you don't like the painting, that's perfectly fine. I don't love it or hate it... It took talent, but it's kinda of boring (I wouldn't like any painting of a castle, unless you put dragons around it. )

I suppose I would be a little surprised if anyone framed this picture and hung it up... But the painting itself (devoid of context) is nice enough (while boring, as previously stated). Acknowledging that doesn't make me a Nazi.

If I formulated my personality around this painting, that would obviously be really problematic... But I wouldn't suggest forming your personality around any work of fiction, etc.

Obviously, looking at a painting is different than reading a story, but if Hitler wrote stories and they were good, I'd consider reading them, (if only so I could speak intelligently on the topic).

The author's personality (and downright evil nature) would almost certainly taint my enjoyment, but if someone told me that it didn't do that for them, I wouldn't hold it against them.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

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!!!"

Obviously, that's just a prank I pull, but the logic behind it stands. You can find art or literature objectively enjoyable and of high quality, without supporting the artist/author.
I enjoy some of HP Lovecraft's work, even though he was a racist xenophobe. I love Buffy the Vampire Slayer even though Joss Whedon was such a sleaze.

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.

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



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

 

[MediocreAuthor]

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

View attachment 2258478

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

I'll be perfectly honest, I'm not certain if your post is sarcasm or not.

I'm no art critic, but I like the castle painting better than that particular abstract piece.
I'm not saying I prefer everything representational, but I'm far more likely to appreciate conventionally realistic art, rather than abstract art that requires an explanation.

Perhaps that makes me an ignorant neanderthal?
¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I'll be perfectly honest, I'm not certain if your post is sarcasm or not.

I'm no art critic, but I like the castle painting better than that particular abstract piece.
I'm not saying I prefer everything representational, but I'm far more likely to appreciate conventionally realistic art, rather than abstract art that requires an explanation.

Perhaps that makes me an ignorant neanderthal?
¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Rumor has it that Wilma Flintstone is jealous of your new club.

Also, abstract art is the peak of pretentiousness.

 

[Euphony]

Perhaps that makes me an ignorant neanderthal?
¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Nah.

(Conventional) art is same as all the more mainstream friendly media "art" we consume these days, there are a multitude of genres, styles, intents, etc., and plenty of art is best suited to a narrow focus or particular mood than your average multicam pablum we throw on in the background as a bit of distraction from our insane lives.

A Fincher film and a Pixar film serve very different audiences but, to anyone but the most pretentious, can have cultural significance.

It was music snobs before that. Book snobs before that.

No doubt some Neanderthal thought the "Bison on cave walls" thing was very kindergarten (before the invention of kindergarten )

 

[Euphony]

Also, abstract art is the peak of pretentiousness.

I simply won't stand for this.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Bipods and bilobes can spend hours in front of this nonsense, analyzing it. Now, replace the drawing with the ratings...

My personal taste runs more to Rothko and Pollock, but I was trying to find something lovely that was more contemporary with Hitler's oeuvre.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I'll be perfectly honest, I'm not certain if your post is sarcasm or not.

I'm no art critic, but I like the castle painting better than that particular abstract piece.
I'm not saying I prefer everything representational, but I'm far more likely to appreciate conventionally realistic art, rather than abstract art that requires an explanation.

Perhaps that makes me an ignorant neanderthal?
¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

I assure you I'm utterly serious. I love Kandinsky. Abstract art doesn't require explanation. Just look at and let it wash over you. One of the cruelest tricks art critics have played is to give people the notion that art is a puzzle to be solved to find the "hidden meaning".

Sometimes it's worth analyzing your naïve aesthetic respond to a piece, but "What does it mean?" is the most boring way to engage with art imaginable.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

View attachment 2258493

I simply won't stand for this.

I've seen Fountain up close at the Menil in Houston. It doesn't pack the punch it did when it was first exhibited, because it's become rather cliché, but it's still worth looking at.

 

[Euphony]

I've seen Fountain up close at the Menil in Houston. It doesn't pack the punch it did when it was first exhibited, because it's become rather cliché, but it's still worth looking at.

Concept v. actual object, which was sort of its point.

Feels like why a lot of experimental/concept art loses its luster after the society shifts (which it was a part of nudging into happening) but we generally can appreciate people looking generally like people or fruit having an realism to it.

I can understand the why of a thing and yet be disappointed in a way.

It's like micro gastronomy. Ooo ahh... food deconstructed and reconstructed as foam.

If I go in to the experience having already eaten, I'm good.

But F me if I expect to satiated.

Poor experience is often just mismatched expectations.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Concept v. actual object, which was sort of its point.

Feels like why a lot of experimental/concept art loses its luster after the society shifts (which it was a part of nudging into happening) but we generally can appreciate people looking generally like people or fruit having an realism to it.

I can understand the why of a thing and yet be disappointed in a way.

It's like micro gastronomy. Ooo ahh... food deconstructed and reconstructed as foam.

If I go in to the experience having already eaten, I'm good.

But F me if I expect to satiated.

Poor experience is often just mismatched expectations.

Seeing Fountain in person was more affecting than just seeing a photo. In a photo you can be like “yeah I get the concept … done” but in a museum you can take the time to assess it as an aesthetic object, which is kind of the point.

In general I’m not a big fan of Walter Benjamin, but he was onto something with his notion of the “aura”.

 

[alohadave]

Seeing Fountain in person was more affecting than just seeing a photo. In a photo you can be like “yeah I get the concept … done” but in a museum you can take the time to assess it as an aesthetic object, which is kind of the point.

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.

https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2021/classic-photographs/memphis-tricycle

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

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.

https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2021/classic-photographs/memphis-tricycle

I usually don’t experience Benjamin’s aura with photographs. But I’d love to see that one in person. It’s a great image.

 

[Euphony]

In general I’m not a big fan of Walter Benjamin, but he was onto something with his notion of the “aura”.

I'm down with that so long as it's a true internalizing of the experience and not yet another Mona Lisa type sell job.

When I'm in one of my moods, I sometimes roam whatever museum's notable X piece's room more to people watch than be with the art.

My favorite wings/rooms are ALWAYS the Far Eastern exhibits and I'm not particularly fond of the eras/period/countries, etc. It's just where curators really seem to put in significant hours to explain the work b/c we are heavy anglo'd and that "commonality" does a ton of heavy lifting in the average American museum. (So. Cal, SF especially, isn't afflicted by this)

I could also go about 9 lifetimes without seeing another British equestrian themed room. Yes, a significant period but trust me, we've more than covered it.

How 'bout some more Pre Columbian love? European, even proto-European buries just about anything else. South America is woefully underrepresented unless you seek it out.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I'm down with that so long as it's a true internalizing of the experience and not yet another Mona Lisa type sell job.

When I'm in one of my moods, I sometimes roam whatever museum's notable X piece's room more to people watch than be with the art.

My favorite wings/rooms are ALWAYS the Far Eastern exhibits and I'm not particularly fond of the eras/period/countries, etc. It's just where curators really seem to put in significant hours to explain the work b/c we are heavy anglo'd and that "commonality" does a ton of heavy lifting in the average American museum. (So. Cal, SF especially, isn't afflicted by this)

I could also go about 9 lifetimes without seeing another British equestrian themed room. Yes, a significant period but trust me, we've more than covered it.

How 'bout some more Pre Columbian love? European, even proto-European buries just about anything else. South America is woefully underrepresented unless you seek it out.

My favorite museums are idiosyncratic.

I mentioned seeing Fountain at the Menil. Part of the reason it’s a great collection is it has two wings—surrealism and traditional African and Native American art. The juxtaposition of the two makes you look closer at both.

 

[SimonDoom]

Abstract art doesn't require explanation. Just look at and let it wash over you. One of the cruelest tricks art critics have played is to give people the notion that art is a puzzle to be solved to find the "hidden meaning".

Sometimes it's worth analyzing your naïve aesthetic respond to a piece, but "What does it mean?" is the most boring way to engage with art imaginable.

This is something I didn't get for a while when I was young. I wanted to figure out the meaning of everything. But the "trick" with a good work of art is that there's no trick; the art IS the message.

 

[Bramblethorn]

This is something I didn't get for a while when I was young. I wanted to figure out the meaning of everything. But the "trick" with a good work of art is that there's no trick; the art IS the message.

It's weird in that a lot of music is non-representational, at least to the same degree that most "abstract art" is, and yet many people who are fine with that in music can't deal with it in other forms of art.

 

[Bramblethorn]

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.

Not an artwork, but some years back I went to a museum, I think it was the Udvar-Hazy Center, a great big hangar full of aircraft and spacecraft of historical significance. Some I'd never heard of, some I knew of, and there in among them all - not particularly large, overshadowed by the Concorde and Space Shuttle or whatever else they had in that hangar - there was the Enola Gay. I'd seen photos, of course, but seeing it in person gave me chills.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

"I don't know much about art, but I know what I like!"

I've never seen that before; that was hilarious. But I was really expecting to hear this joke:

"I already painted a table for 24."

"24? Well there were only 12 disciples!"

"FINE! I guess I'll only paint them on one side of the table."