Can you separate the Art from the Artist?

[Soph0571]

Listened to an interesting conversation about this on a programme we have on BBC radio 4 called the moral maze. Of course, this is much in the news this week because of the new documentary that includes what seem to be very substantive allegations of child sex abuse against Michael Jackson.

Does that mean we should stop listening to his music?

Kipling was a racist, does that mean we should stop reading his poetry?

Roald Dahl was a virulent anti-Semite, does that mean James and the Giant Peach should no longer be read?

Etc etc

You get the point? Can you still appreciate the art when you find out that the artist has huge feet of clay? Is it possible to separate the art from the artist or is it impossible to enjoy and appreciate their art once you know that part of them, or the whole of them has a huge YUCK factor?

[Dennis Donovan]

1. I've been hearing the same conversations in the US...

Besides MJ, you have R Kelly, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Woody Allen, etc.

In the UK, I suppose Jimmy Savile was a tough one to process...

[Soph0571]

2. Saville was horrific

But his body of work was shit...

[Dennis Donovan]

4. true, not much of an artist.

An equivalent in the US would be to find out Dick Clark was a perv.

[UniteFightBack]

13. And don't forget Ted Nugent. nt

[crazycatlady]

3. for me it depends

For an artist that lived in another time, I don't apply 2019 standards to them. Especially if they've been dead at least a generation.

But for modern artists, no. If Harvey Weinstein goes on to make another movie, I will not be seeing it even if it is Oscar worthy. Kayne West is still an asshole.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. I found this article really helpful to think through some of my feelings:

https://www.katykatikate.com/the-blog//2018/02/sherman-alexie-and-million-dollar.html

Art isn’t a monologue. It doesn’t only belong to the artist. Art is a conversation that needs you to participate. The art you choose belongs to you, too.

(snip)

We’re asking whether we should judge pieces of art by the personal failings of the artists. We’re talking about Michael Jackson again. We’re talking about Gauguin and his 13-year-old bride. Sorry, brides. There were two of them, plus the old one. Who was 14.

Once the artist is dead and gone and the painting is still on the wall, we can have that conversation with a painting without necessarily involving the artist. That’s the easiest thing to do.
I don’t think the paintings should be ripped off the walls of the Met. I don’t think the books should be burned. Erasing our history is tantamount to silencing the stories of the people who suffered in the creation of that history. The models can only tell their stories through these paintings anymore, and they deserve to be heard, even if we can only hear them through the – ew – strokes of Gauguin’s brush.

But that’s the difference between Gauguin and Chuck Close; Gaugin's legacy is fixed, and the man is fucking dead. So are the kids. We can discuss his predatory manipulation of children and call it what it is without having to actually dole out any consequences. That’s the easiest thing to do.

Because of our cheerful impotence, we can shrug and hold both these ideas in our heads quite comfortably:

Gauguin is a pedophile.

Gauguin is sublime.

But Chuck Close is still very much alive, buying coffee with the money you gave him, talking dirty to young girls in the studio you paid for, and he belongs to us. Sherman Alexie is here, now. He is of our time and place. We are the people with whom he converses. We are the holders of his consequences. And we’re still holding them.

YMMV, of course. And it's not just a dead/alive thing -- Michael Jackson is dead; his victims are alive. They are still of our time and place; their stories tell me I can live without MJ's music.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. To appreciate art, one must compartmentalize the artist from the art.

My father was almost jubilant in his boycotting any film with Ingrid Bergman after she left her husband and daughter, hooked up with Roberto Rossellini and had a child/ren out of wedlock with him. My father felt superior and moral by his condemnation.

I do not share his punishment of the artist through his/her art. If you're going to go "there", then why are you listening to the Beatles? John Lennon publicly said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus and the South went crazy, burning and smashing Beatles records. John Lennon was once a misogynist. often treating his first wife, Cynthia, like a foolish creature without value, leaving her for Yoko Ono as a public humiliation. I will continue to be a devotee of both the Beatles and John Lennon. What is personal is person. What is professional is professional.

[lillypaddle]

7. Interesting philosophical discussion

Thanks for posting.

[Buckeyeblue]

8. I think you have to within reason

Meaning, if they have been convicted of a crime, especially something that harms another person, then I figure that into how I judge their art.

For someone like Michael Jackson who has been accused but not convicted (and who is dead and cannot defend himself), I don't pay much attention. To me the recent accusations are too easy. And I'm skeptical. And I'm skeptical of parents who seemingly give him unlimited access to their kids. Who does that? Which makes it more difficult for me to believe their stories.

As far as older artist who we know to have racist, sexist and/or antisemitic views: I chalk that up to the general ignorance of the time. Even the most brilliant artist can be ignorant. Art is about creating meaning from nothing. The artist is judged on that, not on being the most intelligent person in the room.

[Codeine]

9. I still read Lovecraft

even though he was shockingly racist, even by the standards of his time.

I watched Chinatown again the other day, and we all know what a piece of shit Polanski was.

John Lennon was an asshole, but we all still enjoy the Beatles.

I think it’s fine to separate the art from the artist so long as you don’t use the art to excuse the artist from being subject to the law. Enjoy R Kelly, but don’t insist that he must be innocent for no other reason than you dig his shit. Don’t be that asshole making excuses for Lovecraft, because he was a shitbird who was so racist he even made his contemporaries go “Dafuq?!” Polanski ass-raped a child and should be in a cage, the sublime nature of his work notwithstanding.

[UTUSN]

10. Richard WAGNER; Susan SARANDON

WAGNER is all about the audio for me, not viewing the opera mythology or knowing what the words mean - so those techniques help.

SARANDON (big drop in magnitude of artistry) can't take Rocky Horror, Thelma/Louise, or the Bette DAVIS t.v. series away from me.

James WOODS was brilliant as Roy COHN, but now I see him not acting the role just being himself, but would watch it anytime.


*********That said, re: Michael JACKSON, I don't care a whit about his music or performances, so I have no trouble blanking him out and doing so with focusing it on his perversion.

[Iggo]

11. Sometimes.

Most of the time, actually.

But sometimes I can't.

[UniteFightBack]

12. For me it it hard while the skakery happens during my lifetime. So perhaps it's easier when folks

have been dead and buried and it becomes part of their legacy; part of the package.

[chowder66]

14. I do not like Jon Voight but he's a phenomenal actor on Ray Donovan.

I compartmentalize until I can't.