Separating art from the artist

[LallyH]

A few weeks ago, I had a debate with a friend about whether it was *right* to separate the art from the artist - whether the knowledge that the artist had done something in real life that you objected to strongly should affect the way in which you view their artistic output.

The same subject cropped up last night with the guilty plea of Ian Watkins of Lost Prophets. My son has been a fan of the band for some years but now does not know how to feel about it with the revelations of the singer's behaviour.

Neither discussion reached a satisfactory conclusion.

Any thoughts?

 

[Sweetdaisymae]

I have always loved Rolf Harris, his art is wonderful, his personality has always come over as caring and warm.
In myself I cannot put aside what he has (allegedly) done.
A lifetime enjoyment of his work has been sullied by his behaviour.
You and I both know that life in the music industry is very swayed. Successful artists are pandered to and drugs are always around. Even as a session singer, it was hard to stay clear, when it was all pervasive.
What I am reaching to say, is showbiz more permissive of behaviours that in mainstream would be stamped on, and are artists more likely to risk acting on their desires because of it?
I would also add that there is likely to be a fall out among the BDSM community, the singer was said to say to one of the women "I own you, therefore I own your baby" it won't be long before the gutter press pick up on this and start tarring all kinksters with the same brush

 

[LallyH]

Well, there is a difficulty in being 'judgemental' about others, when we feel it is unjust when we are judged ourselves by people we feel do not have the full information. This is part of the dilemma.

I suppose all the examples I have discussed recently have been paedophiles, some with teenage girls, others with children. Is it right to make a moral judgement against them, because their actions involve a level of non-consent to a greater or lesser degree, whereas drug use, or getting in fights at night clubs is seen as acceptable in celebrities? Is continuing to listen to their music/watch their films/see their paintings somehow condoning what they have done in their lives, or is that a ridiculous concept?

Also, is it a nonsense because there are bound to be other artists guilty of such acts that we don't know about? Or does that fact that we DO know about these ones mean that it should make a difference to us?

 

[Sweetdaisymae]

In essence is it possibly to love the work, but be unable to accept the person who produced it.

Looking at is subjectively, I love the works of Monet and Turner, I have no knowledge of their lives, what they were like as people, but I know they produced things of great beauty that I get much enjoyment from.

If I knew that one of these artists had done something horrendous (by my standards) I think I would still enjoy their works. Which brings the question, is the passage of time a factor?

However what Watkins is reported to have done is horrific, and part of me cannot help but pass a judgement that I would want to distance myself as far as possible from anything connected with him.

Another question, will continuing to enjoy the works of that artist be seen as to condone the act?

 

[IrisAlthea]

Sometimes people do something that's really hard to get past and it does influence how we look at their work.
I think people have every right to feel like that but I don't think we are morally obliged to dislike everything created by someone who has done something wrong. People are usually not all bad, so why should we shun everything they've done on principle?

 

[Primalex]

A few weeks ago, I had a debate with a friend about whether it was *right* to separate the art from the artist - whether the knowledge that the artist had done something in real life that you objected to strongly should affect the way in which you view their artistic output.

Some things are neither right or wrong, they just are.

My son has been a fan of the band for some years but now does not know how to feel about it with the revelations of the singer's behaviour.

I think it's important to be honest (to yourself) with your reasoning about your moral compass - the direction of it is rather petty.

Wrong would be to say:"He was a bad singer." (unless he was, I have no clue.)
Wrong would be to say:"I hate the band because everyone hates them now."

It's right to say:"I'm deleting all MP3s and tearing the posters apart because he acted like a monster and the others must have known this and this disgusts me. And when I listen to their music now, I'm always reminded."

It's right to say:"I really don't care what he did, I still enjoy their music."

 

[FurryFury]

I like Ender's Game but not the homophobic leanings of it's author.

 

[DVS]

I think it's possible to enjoy the art and separate it from the artist's political opinions. I have to do that a lot.

Art is art, no matter who created it, or what frame of mind they were in at the time. But, you have to be honest with yourself about things, too. Enjoying art by someone who's done criminal acts against other people is one thing. Supporting that person by purchasing his art is another. I can enjoy the art without supporting the artist or his lifestyle. I think that's where I would draw the line.

 

[FurryFury]

Once I've embraced a piece of art it's difficult to un-love it.

 

[midwestyankee]

I wonder if others, like me, have an easier time of separating the artist from the art when the art exists separately from the artist. A painting, a musical composition, a piece of sculpture or a novel exist apart from the artist so, at least for me, it's much easier to continue to enjoy such works regardless of some new news about the artist's asshattery. At the other end of the spectrum, I cannot fathom wanting to watch another Mel Gibson movie becaus the asshat himself is part of the art. I don't follow popular music of any kind, but I would imagine the same degree of difficulty (in separation, that is) would exist for musicians whose own performance is a part of the art.

 

[Wide_eyed_Indulgence]

I believe the art is indeed separate from the artist as a rule (painters, sculptors, architects -- those whose work is something apart from them). But lke another poster here, when the person IS the art (actor, comedian) -- then I just cannot separate. So, while I continue to enjoy Picasso's paintings, (he who was famously awful to the women in his life); I can't watch the old Rock Hudson movies in which he pursues Doris Day.

I wouldn't buy or contribute financially to any art with associated atrocities or dishonesty, but I can look at them or hear them for the artistry.

This is a thought-provoking subject and is probably full of exceptions to the rules and gray areas.

 

[warl0ck1]

for me it is degrees. I can overlook minor transgressions but have a harder time with things that are just way over the top being a convicted pedophile comes to mind.