Should we seperate the art from the artist?

[Wat_Tyler]

What if you liked Hitler's paintings?
Should we condemn Wagner because of his proto-fascist beliefs?
Is Neil Young's music affected by the fact that he voiced approval for Ronald Reagan?
Should we disavow The Clash because they were not authentic working-class punks?
Does the christianity of U2 colour how you view their music?
Philip Larkin was a wonderful poet, but a poor human being, should I be ashamed that I enjoy his poetry?
What do you reckon?

[Bat Boy]

1. I'm deeply offended by your civil and thoughtful question.

Sorry. I just wasn't sure how to turn this into a flame war. I'm just grasping at straws here.

I believe there is something "broken" in all artists. The art itself is the product of an attempt to repair the damage.

[Wat_Tyler]

5. This is entirely true.

It seems to me that all creative art comes from a lack in the artist. The artist tries to counteract that lack through great art.

[Bat Boy]

14. I'm not sure it's a lack per se.

If there is a lack I think it is an inability to communicate certain things through conventional means.

We are all isolated from the neck up. Nobody sees the world exactly the way we do. You can chain two people together, walk them through identical events, and come up with two different interpretations in the end.

The artist tries to take their interpretation of the human experience and communicate it to a wider audience, often failing more than succeeding.

The audience responds by way of recognition. They see something in the work that resonates, shows them they aren't alone, that somebody else noticed.

[Wat_Tyler]

31. I suppose I was thinking of the following artists....

(Perhaps I am generalizing)

John Lennon - Mother killed by drunk-driving cop, father disinterested
Paul McCartney - Mother died young
Bono - Mother died young
Lou Reed - forced into psychiatric care by parents due to bisexuality
David Bowie - Brother severely mentally ill, from a broken home

On a more prosaic level, many artists have frustration communicating on an interpersonal level, which drives their art. I acknowledge this is a pretty flawed theory, but I think there is something in there (if only I could articulate it ;-))

[bluetrain]

12. I, respectfully, disagree.

Imbalance, perhaps. Obsession, perhaps. Maybe even a sense of being haunted. But not broken or lacking.

I would argue the opposite; that many artists have overwhelming reactions to various angles of reality and use the work to get rid of some of themselves. That there just isn't space in one person to hold all the thoughts and feelings and impressions that even a single detail might conjure. So, the work gives a place to put it all, a way to organize it, maybe answer a few questions but at the very least lift the burden. Artists who don't work go nuts because they're carrying too much around with them.

[Wat_Tyler]

34. True. I was using the word lack when I probably mean something else.

I see artists as having something that sets them apart from other 'ordinary' people, of course, what that thing is depends on the individual artist.

[franmarz]

71. separate the art from the artist-yes

When I worked in a hospital for mental disturbances-there was a patient that did nothing but oil paint all day.
At the end of every month, an art dealer came and took his paintings to a gallery, where the proceeds from his sales were deposited into his account so he could buy more canvases. The paintings were very good of course, so I conclude that art is in the eye of the beholder.

[bluetrain]

2. I've struggled with this question...

With people from the past, like James Joyce, I can hate some of the things they did but still appreciate the work.

It gets more complicated when dealing with current artists whom I get to know or work with. There are films that I would otherwise be interested in that I can no longer bring myself to see and music which I once adored but which now makes me cringe. There are also plenty of films and music which I maybe leap towards more eagerly than I otherwise would if I didn't know and like the people making them.

[CO Liberal]

3. If You're Using This Poll As a Excuse...

...to justify your approval for Woody Allen, it ain't gonna work.

[jpgray]

6. I saw Woody Allen in a tortilla once

It vomited every night before doing its standup routine.

[Wat_Tyler]

8. I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about.

Do you have anything to contribute to this debate, or are you just here to disrupt our discussion?
You'll notice I do not mention Woody Allen at any point. I don't see why this debate has anything to do with him.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snoochie]

17. Do you also hate Salvador Dali?

Or any other 'perverted scumbag' artists?

[franmarz]

75. Beauty is as you see it.

Personally - I think Dali and Picasso were psychotic in their views of art, but to each his or her own interpretation.

[Forkboy]

93. "There is one difference between a madman and myself...

I am not mad" - Salvador Dali

[Wat_Tyler]

20. Ah, I see.

You are here to disrupt. That's an unfortunate decision on your part.
I certainly saw the other thread on Woody Allen, and it got me thinking about the relationship between art and the artist. I am not going to apologize to you for that.

If you don't like this thread, find another one, or start your own. You clearly have a lot to say about Woody Allen. Why not start a thread on him?

[miss_kitty]

29. Again. Put the offending thread on ignore

quit stalking threads in which the purpose to discuss art in an adult manner is indicated. You are bumming our stone.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BoX o BooX]

11. You, Sir, are testing my patience.

I might get rebuked, I might get flamed, I might get banned, but I am going to say this, if no one else will:

Your constant harping on Woody Allen has grown tiresome. Your personal attacks on those who appreciate Allen's work, or those who may even not share your disgust with him, are inexcusable, ill-placed, inappropriate, and unproductive. Whether thay are in violation of DU's rules is for another to decide; I will merely point out what a crashing bore you are.

[CO Liberal]

All These Threads Are Testing MY Patience

I don't know about you, but I'm a father, who would kill anyone who ever molested either of my children. I see no justification for praising that worthless scumbag, Woody Allen.

[BoX o BooX]

19. Why do you persist?

Why mention molestation and Allen in the same breath? As far as you and I know, and the the authorities know, Allen has never molested anyone. Ever.

You disapprove of his relationship with his WIFE of SEVEN YEARS, a WOMAN he has raised a FAMILY with. A case can be made that he is skeevey, but NOT that he is a criminal.

We KNOW you are familiar with the "ignore thread" feature. You like to pretend to use it. Perhaps ACTUALLY using it would behoove you in the future.


edited for chronology

[bobbobbins]

22. Once again...theres no proof of molestation

Both he and his wife have said the affair started after she was an adult, and they're still together, just let it go man, let it go....

[snoochie]

28. Not to hijack this thread...

but IIRC the molestation charge was made with respect to Satchel, not Soon Yi.

[BoX o BooX]

35. And those accusations were unfounded.

Farrow made those accusations as retribution. Allen was exonerated.

Juxtaposing 'molestation' with 'Woody Allen' because of those false charges is no better than Dick and Shrub constantly mentioning Iraq and al-Qaeda in the same breath; it's an attempt to make a connection where NONE exists.

Yes, Allen is an older man with a young wife. Yes, that wife is the daughter of his former girlfriend. One can make a case that Allen is a dick, but he's no molester, he's no pervert, and he's certainly no criminal. To suggest that he is is irresponsible.



edited for spelling

[snoochie]

39. I don't know

He was found innocent, but perhaps that was because he's rich and powerful. I just don't know.

Her accusation did seem curiously timed to coincide with the Soon Yi affair, though, so there is that.

[CO Liberal]

92. Thank You

At least someone else around here deals with facts.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

112. here's a fact - you are being ridiculous

[skygazer]

43. So don't read them n/t

[Djinn]

88. self deleted

[Mike Daniels]

100. Must not care for Tchaikovsky then either

It's speculated that he has a fondness for young boys and that his death was the by-product of a suicide attempt he made by drinking tainted/unsanitary water after being found out.

[CO Liberal]

16. All These Threads Are Testing MY Patience

I don't know about you, but I'm a father, who would kill anyone who ever molested either of my children. I see no justification for praising that worthless scumbag, Woody Allen.

[Bat Boy]

44. Then ignore them! Like you said you would!

You were the one who brought Allen into a very civil and thoughtful discussion about the nature of art and the artist. You are the one who made this discussion turn nasty.

If these threads piss you off, ignore away! Leave us alone to wallow in our filth and degradation.

You obviously have no interest in the subject. You have one note to sing. "Woody Allen is a perv." Great. We'll just consider you chalked up in the anti-Woody column. I will personally remind everyone of that in every thread about art, so you don't even have to bother. You can just ignore them straight off, knowing that I will personally make your preference known.

But if you have nothing to say other than that, stop eating up bandwidth. We get it already.

[donheld]

45. Lots of threads test my patience

i tend to ignore those threads. Now be a good boy and ignore this one.

[Djinn]

89. what about someone listed as an offender

for downloading kiddie porn? technically they're not molesting a kid but they're paying someone who did, they're paying for it to be made widely accesible so the child is repeatedly exploited.

What if they came up with a story that while unlikely was technically plausible as to why they looked at the porn? is there a reason unless one is a cop investigating child porn to look at it? to pay for it...twice?

If someone wrote that kiddie porn is so accessible that:

"only the strong willed or terminally uncurious can resist."

would you think "uh actually I'd manage not to look you chester" or would you think "poor man unjustly accused, might nip out and buy his new record"??

Just ask because I seem to remeber a quite heated flaming from you and your SO on a similar issue a while back?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=1861751

Just in case you've forgotten your steamrolling into a thread after being beckoned to accuse me of freeperishness - here's a reminder, please feel free to refute any of what I've posted or to explain why defending one perv (of whatever level or culpability) is OK but defending another is beyond the pale

[BoX o BooX]

91. Awesome, Djinn.

Thank you.

Call out hypocricy wherever you find it.

[Forkboy]

97. whoops....busted

:)

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

109. you are too funny man!

[Wat_Tyler]

110. Hey now. He's no Allen Koningsberg.

[sir_captain]

21. Do you not see the irony

of your very public complaint and then the somewhat laughable turn of you doing exactly what you were complaining about? Why don't you just let people have their opinions? Not everything is completely black and white...

[miss_kitty]

27. Wow let it go

we caught your disapproval on that subject.

Check your post in ATA and look in the mirror, man.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

107. Wow - aren't you clever!

[Deja Q]

4. Yes. Bruce Willis may be a pukeazoid, but he has moments of greatness.

Such as in "Death Becomes Her"! :D

[snoochie]

7. I think there's a deeper question here

We're all flawed in some way or another. Do we deserve to be appreciated for who we are regardless, or should we all be forced to expose our flaws for all to see (as famous artists are), so that we can be properly chastised by strangers for not being as good as they think we should be?

[Wat_Tyler]

9. That's a profound point.

Do our negative deeds outweigh our positive ones?

[DeepGreen]

13. I believe we show be tolerant in many cases

But for me there are limitations.

[the Princess]

33. Oh brother.

I think Hitler shouldn't have killed all those people. But he did. I'm not judging him - it's history. And I could not and would not further any promotion of the monster.

When it comes to killing and molestation - I have to say it's pretty black and white that it's wrong. There is no judgment to be made - it's wrong.

[snoochie]

38. As I said, we're all guilty

of some kind of wrongdoing. Famous artists' flaws are exposed for all to see, which allows perfect strangers the opportunity to sit in judgment. I don't think that's fair.

I don't know for a fact that Woody did anything wrong. So I won't presume to judge him. And even if he were, I am able to separate his personal life from his work. If a murderer produced some stunning artwork, I believe I would have the capacity to appreciate the art for what it was, rather than linking it with the criminal acts of the artist.

[DeepGreen]

10. I agree with bluetrain

To me, art is an expression of one's inner-self and a way to relate to others a feeling or passion. It becomes, difficult for me to relate to someone that has caused harm and hatred. On the other hand, looking at or listening to the art of someone I know is warm and caring brings me comfort. The art then becomes a part of me and I feel free to interpret it in my own way.

[sir_captain]

18. Both

it is impossible to view art without placing it within its proper historical context--not to is ridiculous. Leni Riefenstahl was a Nazi and should be viewed as such. On the other hand, it is not improper to be able to acknowledge the artistic merits of the art at the same time--for instance, though made by a horrible person (Riefenstahl), Olympia is still a brilliant film.

But clearly, one has to understand the motivations of the artist and the art's audience in order to gain a complete picture. Just to continue my example, Olympia was commissioned by the Third Reich and is chock full of fascist imagery.

[Wat_Tyler]

23. Riefenstahl is a great example.

Triumph of the Will is both hateful and admirable, depending on how one looks on it. As cinema it is fabulous, as propoganda extraordinary, but the subject is absolute evil.

[sir_captain]

24. Exactly n/t

[miss_kitty]

25. I think that art is produced by sturm und drang

too lazy to fetch the umlaut. sorry.

[Bat Boy]

64. Sturm und Drang! I loved their old burlesque act...n/t

[bobbobbins]

26. I still think some of michael jacksons older stuff was the bomb yo!

[the Princess]

30. I have to ask this question

Are you posting all these things about Woody Allen because you genuinely like the man and his work - or just to piss off the people who hate him?

I may agree that some *crimes* may be nothing I would even give a second thought to when it comes to an artist I like - however - there are some crimes I could not seperate from the artist. Like John Hinkley killing John Lennon - I could not and would not EVER read or look at anything this killer created. Woody Allen feels the same way to me. Roman Polanski too. And how could anyone want to listen to or look at anything Hitler craated??? It's beyond me how you can seperate a mass murderer from anything he does.

Some people are more forgiving - obviously. I'm not in some cases.

[miss_kitty]

36. i saw you get very upset about people pissing all over your astrology

posts. Fair enough.

As a survivor of molestation (ages 3-8) I find the fact that you and you husband bringing up Woody Allen when people bring up art to be obsessive and unnatuarally obsessive. Please go back to your astrology stuff. This Jupiter retrograde in the first house behaviour is OTT.

IGNORE THREAD, PLEASE. I am asking you nicely.

[the Princess]

84. LOL

You're funny!

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[miss_kitty]

87. again Ignore thread

I wasn't comparing wounds. And No I wouldn't want to compare ANYTHING with you. And you don't need to attach 2 lame replies to my one. and you think that I was molested as a toddler through 8 years old is funny? yet you hate woody allen for an alleged incident with a 17 year old?

Look at your Renaissance obsession. What do you think was going on in the days of Hey Nonny Nonny? Old stinking rich men were taking 14, 15, and 16 year olds ALL THE TIME.

Great, Here's the deal. What you think about me-not at all on my list of 'things to lose sleep over.'

Get over yourselves, and grant the same courtesy to people you and the Mr demand of everyone else vis a vis Astrology threads. Stay away from threads you want to flame. Quit being abusive. Read your husband's thread in ATA and look in the mirror

[Wat_Tyler]

37. Again, what does this thread have to do with Woody Allen?

I think you're seeing things that aren't there. As I told your husband, this is a discussion of the relationship of art to the artist, not a discussion of Woody Allen. If you care so much about Woody Allen, discuss him in the thread that already exists specifically about him, and leave us to discuss the nature of art.

Incidentally, John Hinckley attempted to assassinated Ronald Reagan. Mark Chapman killed John Lennon.

As far as Hitler's watercolours go, they were quite pleasant. Not great art, but not terrible either.

[BoX o BooX]

59. OMG HOW CAN YOU PRAISE HITLER???

WHEN YOU PRAISE HITLER'S WATERCOLORS YOU ARE PRAISING HITLER THAT MAKES YOU A NAZI AND AN ANTI-SEMITE AND POSSIBLY A CHILD MOLESTER MY GRANDMA'S FRIEND GERTA DIED IN THE CAMPS SO I TAKE THIS VERY PERSONALLY AND YOU SHOULD TOO YOU NAZI-LOVING CHILD MOLESTER I AM PUTTING YOU ON IGNORE NOW BUT I WILL BE CHECKING BACK LATER.

:evilgrin:

[Wat_Tyler]

63. Yup. I'm a Nazi apologist.

Mein Kampf is rather well edited, I reckon.

[Bat Boy]

67. If more Nazis apologized the world would be a better place.

Sorry we invaded Poland.

There. Isn't that better?

[Wat_Tyler]

70. Yes. I think I'm nearly ready to apologize for Dunkirk.

[bloodyjack]

76. I don't know about Hitler's stuff

I found it to be lacking any indication of knowledge about the laws of composition—light source coming from one direction, shadows falling in the opposite direction. clouds floating everywhichway. grass growing in oddly irregular patches. it's pleasant enough, I guess, if you can get past the silly amateur mistakes.

maybe he just needed more practice.

[Wat_Tyler]

78. Yeah, like I say it wasn't great,

but it wasn't atrocious. And the fact that he was a monster had nothing to do with it. If he'd stuck to art rather than misanthropy, maybe he'd have made something of himself.

[Susang]

49. Hi Princess

I am the person who posted the thread about Woody Allen. I don't know the man, so I have no feelings about him personally. I do have strong feelings for his work and if you had carefully read my original post, you would understand the genesis of the idea.

It's not that hard to understand, really. I recently viewed one of his films on television and wanted to discuss one of the themes that is central to that film and how it relates to his life as a scandal-ridden celebrity. I was curious as to how people viewed his films now, after so much of his personal life has been made public through tabloid news and through tell-all autobiographies. I wanted to see if it was possible for people to separate the man's work from his public persona.

I'm sorry that you and others here seem to regard this topic as a personal attack. Why you see it this way, is a complete mystery to me.

[Wat_Tyler]

50. One irony is, Susang -

I saw your thread and thought it would be a good place to debate the relationship between art and artist, but that your thread was being hi-jacked by the whole Woody Allen thing, so I started my own, to avoid the Woody Allen aspect. Irony is a bitch, eh?

[Susang]

73. I've even stayed out of this thread, so as not to anger anyone

I didn't want to taint you excellent thread with my Woody Allen stink. ;-)

However, I am growing increasingly weary of people who are seemingly misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I felt was a rather straightforward post about the relationship the public has with art and the artist; using what I felt was the perfect example, Woody Allen, having just seen Bullets Over Broadway, where the character played by John Cusack, struggles with that very issue.

Though I made no statement regarding my personal feelings about Woody Allen's personal conduct, I was told I was supporting a child molester and a pervert and that I must be intentionally posting about Allen to anger specific DUers.

Note to self:

If you want to post a thread that is guaranteed at least 50 responses, many of them angry and irrational, make the subject Woody Allen.

If you want to post a thread that engenders thoughtful and intelligent discussion about art and film that doesn't degenerate into a craptacular feces-throwing dogpile, change the subject to Louis Malle. You'll get less responses, but at least no one will hate you afterwards.

[Wat_Tyler]

79. Thanks for your input and inspiration, Susang.

This turned out to be a good debate after all.

[Susang]

81. This thread is fantastic

Sunday afternoon discussions about the meaning of art are the best, don't you agree? ;-)

[Wat_Tyler]

82. Undoubtedly. It's great to know there are people who share that at DU.

[Bat Boy]

62. CO Liberal brought Woody Allen into this.

He's the first to bring that name into this thread. Before that, I had viewed it as a serious discussion.

This is not a thread about crime. It's a thread about art. You want a crime thread, by all means start one.

[donheld]

32. I think it's for the best

Many artists may be considered geniuses when it comes to their art work, but very few are geniuses as a whole. They are all just human with all the frailties that go along with it. Just like politically Bill Clinton was Wonderful in so many areas but we all know he had his problems.

[New Earth]

40. i can attest to this

one of my favorite musicians: MUSIC IS INSANE, he was somewhat of an 'idol' of mine. He is the best composer out there in my opinion.

I met him person, hung out with him a lot, uh, some other things - got to know a bit about him, and even though i know inside he is a good person, his words and actions are inexcusable and he hurts too many people, even his fans.

BUT - nothing would get in the way of my love for his music and admiration of his talent.

But he is pretty much an asshole.

[212demop]

42. You must separate the art from the artist-

just posted this in the Woody Allen thread:

imagine- people like T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound would be denigrated so constantly for their politics we wouldn't be reading Prufrock or The Wasteland in school, and the works would be tainted.

On the other hand specifically biographical stuff like Night and Survival in Aucshwitz can be seen through the lens of what we know about the person, but they are classics because they stand on their own, right? We don't need to know that Primo Levi ultimately killed himself or that Van Gogh did, or that after he made Husbands and Wives Woody Allen wound up with Soon Yi. The point is he made these movies that are indelible- Hannah and Her Sisters, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Annie Hall, Manhattan... That his later work is not as good is typical of a lot of artists. I just heard an interviewer express surprise that Philip Roth is peaking now, given the excellent work early on- Roth's consistancy is atypical.

[Wat_Tyler]

47. Great post. One also thinks of William Burroughs.

But that's a whole 'nother flame war waiting to happen. }(

[Metatron]

77. Go start a new thread on him!

That will be pure fun :)

[Wat_Tyler]

80. Bill Burroughs - Wife-shooting junkie fag!

Yeah, I can see the flames already. :D

[chenGOD]

90. And it burned burned burned...

..that ring of fire, that ring of fire.

:)

"wife-shooting junkie fag" made me lol.

[tigereye]

101. oh God

you had to go there, didn't you. ;)

But then again, art is art. It isn't really fair to judge the art based on the person. And then, there are some who think of art only as symptom. I personally like Woody Allen movies, well, until the most recent ones, despite his questionable moral activities.

[Wat_Tyler]

102. I wouldn't know where to start with Burroughs.

[tigereye]

103. have you read any of his bios?

They are disturbing, yet fascinating. He was courtly and degraded, with a kind of pathos hovering over him. A weird combo.

[Wat_Tyler]

106. I've read some pieces on him, plus Junky and The Naked Lunch.

Unique, to say the least.

[Metatron]

104. Oh, there are lots of wife/partner killing junkie artists.

Sid comes to mind. :evilgrin:

[JimmyJazz]

46. Ahem? The Clash were not working class punks? Says who?

Mick Jones lived in a flat with his grandmother even after they had been established as a band. Paul was never wealthy - he grew up in a working class neighborhood. If you are speaking of Joe's upper middle class upbringing, perhaps you may have a point. Even though his parents were diplomats and stuck him in boarding school, he shunned them and was homeless and hungry for several years.

The song "career opportunities" is specifically about Joe getting a phone call from the Welfare agency requesting he find a job because he had been on the dole too long.

Oh, and if you are thinking of the brief period in which Joe lived with that snoot, Sebastian Conran - well that was only for a brief time and easy to understand.

You didn't really think I was going to let you get away with that did you? :P

[Wat_Tyler]

48. Yeah, I was thinking about Joe.

But my point is, they were great despite that. ;-P

[JimmyJazz]

51. and his childhood I presume? He was a working class guy

at heart and loved his fans deeply. The only job, other than musician, that I recall him having was that of cleaning toilets in a opera house - nothing too fancy there. He may have had others, but I doubt it.

Sorry that you are taking a thrashing Wat, but you seem to have a lot of people who agree with you, too.

I was just being a smart ass as usual!

Oh and: Sandinista :P

[Wat_Tyler]

55. Don't worry about it, I love Joe.

I was only pointing out that he was born in Istanbul to a diplomatic family. No criticism intended.

[JimmyJazz]

58. Ankara - actually!

But, that's okay :P

Wat - I never thought you were being critical. C'mon! :hi:

And, if you saw my yesterday's thread, my 3 year old loves him, too!

[Wat_Tyler]

65. We cool.

Damn my shaky knowledge of Eurasian geography!

[JimmyJazz]

68. lol - we cool. I was actually impressed with your knowledge!

I didn't think you were that much of a Clash fan. :hi:

[Wat_Tyler]

72. I'm a deliberate contrarian.

But, yeah, I know something of their work.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

113. Name 5 Bob Marley songs

[Wat_Tyler]

114. I dunno. I'll give it a try.

No Woman No Cry
Punky Reggae Party
Redemption Song
Iron Lion Zion
Jammin'

[imenja]

52. so many artists are odious people

that if we valued them based on politics and personal characteristics, we'd bypass much of the great art produced over the centuries.

[Wat_Tyler]

56. There are those who suggest JM Barrie was a pedophile.

I'll still read Peter Pan, I think.

[BoX o BooX]

61. Excellent point.

Unca Cecil debunked that one this week, but Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) was a PROVED pedophile... yet no one screams for the banning of Alice in Wonderland.

[Wat_Tyler]

66. There's a great mad theory that suggests Dodgson was Jack the Ripper.

Totally mental, but great.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

96. People said the same of Lewis Carroll

His is one of my favorite books

[Wat_Tyler]

98. From casebook.org

http://www.casebook.org/suspects/carroll.html

After his death, his invented name 'Lewis Carroll' quickly became the focus of a potent mythology. Despite the evidence of his slightly irregular private life, and his many unconventional and possibly sexual relationships with women, the man became legendary as a 'scholar-saint' who avoided the adult world; a 'perpetual child' who could only relate to children; a tragic deviant, whose lifelong passion for a child - Alice Liddell - fired his burning creativity.

Biographers wrote these things up as if they were fact, but they were never true in any real biographical sense. It seems rather as if 'Carroll' had ceased to be any kind of portrait of a real man and had become, instead, some sort of symbol for the human need to 'believe', and for nearly a century, until the most recent work began to be done, his life story as presented to the public has been dominated by a kind of aspirational fiction.

Looked at in this way, Richard Wallace's claim that Dodgson was Jack the Ripper is only an extreme expression of the existing trend. There is no evidence at all - anywhere - to support Wallace's claim. But then there is no evidence at all - anywhere - to support the story of Dodgson's marriage proposal to child-Alice - and that has never stopped anyone believing in it.

Wallace published his theory in 1996, in his book 'Jack the Ripper, Light-Hearted Friend'. It was, in brief that Dodgson and his Oxford colleague Thomas Vere Bayne, were both responsible for the Whitechapel murders. He based his belief on anagrams he constructed out of Dodgson's work, which he claimed were hidden confessions of the author's life of crime in Whitechapel in the autumn of 1888.

The anagrams he presents in his book are not very good, in that they tend to make limited grammatical sense, and Wallace tends to cheat rather by simply leaving out or changing any letters he can't fit in.

For example he takes this passage from Dodgson's 'Nursery Alice':


'So she wondered away, through the wood, carrying the ugly little thing with her. And a great job it was to keep hold of it, it wriggled about so. But at last she found out that the proper way was to keep tight hold of itself foot and its right ear'.

and turns it into:


'She wriggled about so! But at last Dodgson and Bayne found a way to keep hold of the fat little whore. I got a tight hold of her and slit her throat, left ear to right. It was tough, wet, disgusting, too. So weary of it, they threw up - jack the Ripper.'

For anyone who knows Dodgson's work, and his mastery of all word-games, the idea that he could perpetrate a word-trick as messy as this is almost more unbelievable than the image of him hanging round Whitechapel with a big knife. The structure is barely literate, and Wallace has to substitute three letters (including a very important 'o' to 'i' in order to construct the word 'ripper') in order to make his 'anagram' work at all.

But beyond all such consideration, Wallace's theory is flawed by the fact that one could rearrange the words in any piece of writing anywhere and make half-connected sentences suggestive of just about anything. The very first sentence on the opening page of 'Winnie the Pooh', for example:


'Here is Edward Bear coming downstairs now'

can be turned into


'Stab red red women! CR is downing whores - AA'

(Obviously the 'CR' is Christopher Robin, who is thus revealed as an infant psychopath).

In fact all Wallace really succeeds in demonstrating is that Dodgson used the same alphabet as everyone else in the western world, and that, therefore his words can be rearranged to make other words - including rather rude ones about ripping ladies open.

Outside his 'anagrams', Wallace presents no shred of proper evidence, primary or secondary, to lend support to his belief. He does try to find circumstantial links between Dodgson and the crimes, and isn't shy of putting forward the most attenuated of possibilities. He suggests for example, that the lines from Dodgson's nonsense poem 'The Mad Gardener's Song', 'He thought he saw an Argument/That proved he was the Pope' is a reference to Mitre Square (because Popes wear mitres).

More bafflingly, he asks at one point 'Is there a connection between the victim being murdered in Buck's Row, Dodgson's writings on 'sport', and the deerstalker hat seen in the area?'

To which the probable answer would seem to be - 'no'.

The other of Wallace's brace of theories about Dodgson is that this most entirely 'philogynic' of men, who spent his life collecting images of naked girls and women, was actually a closet homosexual.

He demonstrates this with anagrams too.

But it may be that Wallace has more in common with mainstream 'Carrollianism' than might at first be imagined.

Belief, imagination, even fantasy, have been the stuff of Carroll biography for most of its history. Wallace's image of Carroll as Jack is not all that much further removed from reality than Dennis Potter's 'Dreamchild'. Both are about imposed views disseminated in defiance of existing data.

Sociologically, then, Wallace's claim follows a well-marked tradition of Carroll as a hook to hang belief on, even if, historically and biographically, it is a non-starter.

Was Dodgson Jack the Ripper? Well, even after Wallace's anagrams, the Pope's mitre and the deerstalker hat, the general consensus has to be - probably not.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

99. Very nice

[skygazer]

53. I think they are inexorably linked

The art is never really separate from the artist because it is a result of the artist's experiences in and perception of the world around him/her. To look at it as, "this person is bad; therefore their art is bad" is to see things in a GW Bush sort of black and white, good and evil sort of way. People are more complex than that.

I can appreciate some aspects of a person's life and contributions while condemning and disapproving of others. For instance, I once knew a woman who was a crack addict and sometime prostitute. She was also a thief and a liar. Oddly, though, she had many good qualities; she could be very generous and she had a good mind, was thoughtful about a number of subjects. I liked her, though I would not trust her or turn my back on her. I accepted her as she was, though I did not approve of her actions.

To use what appears to be the favorite example, I can appreciate a Woody Allen film without necessarily approving of his lifestyle or choices. I may choose to boycott an artist because of their support of right wing candidates but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate their work (though I usually don't - that type seems to do stuff I don't care for).

[asthmaticeog]

54. Little people are praised or damned

for all their achievements and flaws. Great people, it seems, are judged solely on the gravity of their mistakes.

As an artist myself, I have no problem with people disliking my work, so long as the dislike is genuine. If an attack on my work is motivated by a dislike for me or something I've done, that's objectionable to me because it's an unfair criteria, that is, a non-aesthetic one. I don't make art to serve as a proxy for my humanity - my life is my expression of my humanity. I make my work to express other things, things I can't adequately express with words or actions.

[miss_kitty]

57. I LOVE it when people hate my stuff!

much better than a ho-hum!

[asthmaticeog]

60. No doubt!

Being polarizing is, in its way, more validating that being praised! But I still don't want my life to be part of it. Not all artists are Yves Klein.

[miss_kitty]

119. oh I Love when My work is enjoyed as well

It's the 'uh well er um let's move on' attitude that makes me wanna cry. I would get very upset during critiques in school if my stuff was passed over.

[Metatron]

69. I think this issue encompasses more than artists.

Thomas Jefferson is a good example. The man who is revered for putting into writing some of the most important values Americans hold dear was a slave owner. If we refuse to study him because of it, we lose a deeper understanding of the origins of our country.

On the art front, knowing the personal flaws of an artist doesn't diminish the importance of their work. It gives us the opportunity to see the bigger picture - how their art is affected by time, place and circumstance.

[BoX o BooX]

74. There's some perspective for you!

Well said, kole.

[jdots]

83. We can only try

as an artist (yeah sure) i know alot of artist who work so hard that they are unaware of the politics of the world.Then thier are artists (oh sure) who rely on politics and relgion....to sell or get exposure.As far as music goes all kinds of people can have soul.

[norml]

86. I like my art to be judged separately from judgments made about me.

There are many who's art is identity art. The art is all about who they,and what is their culture. Many deconstructionists would say that is what is most important. I personally have always enjoyed being able to impress people with my art,especially when they might not be inclined to be impressed with me personally. Sort of like posting here on DU,and having those posts judged on their own merits. While sometimes confidence in myself may be lacking,that need not effect confidence in what I create.

[bluetrain]

111. I take more offense to people not respecting my work

(nevermind liking it) than I do to people not respecting or liking me as a person.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

94. I liked The Jackson 5 until I found out how young Michael Jackson was

I waited till he was of age to listen to him

[Beware the Beast Man]

95. You must separate art from the artist. Here are some examples:

1. Bob Marley was a philandering womanizer.
2. John Lennon was a deadbeat dad, an unfaithful husband, and often made fun of the handicapped.
3. Hulk Hogan was on steroids.

[chenGOD]

105. Hulk Hogan was on steroids?

get out of town!!!

Wait, this is a thread about artists....I dunno about you, but "real american hero" ain't art in my eyes.


Next thing you'll be telling me that the Ultimate Warrior liked to wear make-up and little hot pants.

[Beware the Beast Man]

108. Being the most popular wrestler of all time, despite

having zero technical skills, is art, most definitely!

[chenGOD]

116. Ah........... touche.

An excellent point.

[Bridget Burke]

115. Yes.

If more people had liked Hitler's paintings, he might have stuck with the arts.

And I just finished Shakey: Neil Young's Biography. After all 800 pages, I can safely say the Reagan thing was just a brief blip in his astoundingly varied career/life. Besides, he's Canadian.

[Wat_Tyler]

117. I just read Shakey, myself.

A quintessential contrarian, that fella.

[Goldmund]

118. Of course.

Yes, the art is a product of the artist, and inextricably linked with his or her experiences, personality, consciousness. But that consciousness is such a complex thing that the tendency to think that it can be labeled by one act, two acts, a political affiliation, or any such "reason" shows an astoundingly shallow view of what a human person is. That said, there is definitely a correlation between, for example, an affinity for right-wing ideologies and bad art -- at least what I consider "bad art". But my relationship is with the art, not with the artist.

Let me add that in the same spirit, it would be prudent for a lot of people to separate an argument from the arguer, and a post from the poster. It doesn't surprise me that the Co Liberal/the Princess dream-team are the same people who were advocating yesterday that we put a yellow armband on every under-18 poster.