An Artist and his work...

[Guest]

Can you separate an artist from his/her work?

 

Here's a question I've been reflecting for a very long time... And by "long time" I mean "years" !

 

The César (french equivalent of the american Oscars) this evening made this question rise to the surface of my mind once again...

Roman Polanski won the Best Director César for his latest movie "J'accuse". It was the latest adaptation of the open-letter from Emile Zola to the then President of France (1898), Félix Faure.

 

About the movie and the (real) story:

Quote

"J'Accuse...!" was an open letter published on 13 January 1898 in the newspaper L'Aurore by the influential writer Émile Zola.

In the letter, Zola addressed President of France Félix Faure and accused the government of anti-Semitism and the unlawful jailing of Alfred Dreyfus, a French Army General Staff officer who was sentenced to lifelong penal servitude for espionage. Zola pointed out judicial errors and lack of serious evidence. The letter was printed on the front page of the newspaper and caused a stir in France and abroad. Zola was prosecuted for libel and found guilty on 23 February 1898. To avoid imprisonment, he fled to England, returning home in June 1899.

Source: Wikipedia

 

Roman Polanski winning his 5th César makes me more than uncomfortable...

In fact, him being nominated again has created such a controversy in France that the whole movie team decide not to attend the César ceremony and none was present to receive it.

Him being awarded this prize has been deemed so outrageous that many actors and actresses, directors and producers left the theater upon hearing the result.

 

The fact is... Roman Polanski has been accused several times by several women and teenage girls of druging them (sometimes), rape and sexual abuse of underage girls. Not women... Girls... Even though after many years there's always been an agreement reached, money being paid, etc.

You may also know him as the husband of Sharon Tate and her murder by members of the Charles' Manson Family (Once upon a time... in Hollywood).

 

I noticed that I (maybe it's a deep fault of mine) can't separate the artist and his artwork.

 i.e.:

I watched and liked some of Polanski's movies, but after hearing and getting information about the whole situation, I just couldn't watch any of his movies anymore...

 

I came to the same decision when Bertrand Cantat, the singer of a famous at the time band, Noir Désir, beat to death his companion, Marie Trintignant, a famous french actress. She was druged in a stupor, he was completely drunk. they were partying together and he beat her to death.

I loved their songs, they were representative of our generation... All of a sudden, I just couldn't listen to their music anymore. The band separated soon after. Many years later, after "having paid his debt to society" he tried to make a come back and sing again. But... He became a symbol... He became the embodiment of "conjugal violence" in France. Each time he tries to organize a concert, groups of women protesters come in front of the theater andmake such a ruccus that he must cancel.

 

My last example is Orson Scott Card... A famous american sci-fi author. I loved his books, I'm an avid sci-fi reader/fan/afficionado, etc. I own almost all of his books. I truly enjoyed Ender's saga.  I love part of the philosophy in it. And so many more of his books and series (even though Alvin the Maker nos so much).

And then, in 2013, the controversy happened... The fact that he is an observant Mormon, and politically conservative is ok afaic. I have no problen with that. Some people need a strong religion in their life, I don't! Who am I / What right do I have to judge them upon that? No one and none!

But the fact that he was/is so horribly homophobic, that he had such horrendous and stupid ideas about them and homosexuality? I just couldn't reconcile that with the content of so many of his books...

How could he nurture such ideas and write jewels like "Songmaster" or "Treason"???

I'm not myself a homosexual/lesbian, but I saw in so many of my friends the (physical, emotional or psychological) scars left by stupid bigots who shun them just because they are "different" from the "norm".

 

After that I just couldn't even look at his books. Couldn't bear to support him by buying his books anymore or go watch the movie about Ender. I'll never know the end of Ender's saga, "your loss" some would say and rightly so. But I just can't to buy his books anymore. The ones I already own stay on the shelf, with dust piling upon them.

The man ruined the work for me.

 

So... What about you? Can you easily separate the artist from his/hers (art)work? Or can't you?

 

[Eschew]

I think I get where you're coming from, I sorta have the same thoughts about Cassandra Clare and her The Mortal Instruments book series (also unofficially referred to as the Shadowhunters series). I'm absolutely in love with the urban fantasy, World of Darkness setting of this particular series, and certain characters resonate with me deeply. I only recently found out that Cassandra Clare was accused of plagiarism on multiple accounts, with different books/series. However, as the only series I've read from Cassandra Clare was The Moral Instruments, the only plagiarism debacle (a lawsuit, actually) I was interested in was the uncanny comparisons between The Moral Instruments/Shadowhunters and The Dark Hunters novels.

 

I should note that plagiarism is one of the things that I absolutely vehemently despise, whether that be a word-for-word copy-pasta or a non-credited paraphrasing of someone else's idea. An homage or a tribute work is fine. Stealing the credit for a non-original thought is not.

 

So, after finding out about this scandalous tidbit, my feelings towards Cassandra Clare have changed. I no longer hold as much respect for her as an author, and quite frankly I doubt I'll be buying books with her name stamped on them anymore. You vote with your wallet, as they say, and Cassandra Clare's lost my vote. But! I'm still enamored by the Shadowhunter fictional world and all the lovable and honestly abhorrent characters that populate it. Good thing there are fandoms I can direct my feelings toward. I guess I'm in the "Yes, I Can Differentiate" camp.

 

Another thing that might make it easier for me to differentiate between The Artist and The Work is that I usually don't follow/stalk The Artist too closely. I don't really care if The Artist has a Twitter, a Tumblr, a FaceBook, or a MySpace, or whatever hells and trials and tribulations that their life story is composed of. At the end of the day -- perhaps I might come off a little apathetic or self-centered to say this -- I care more about the actual product in my hands than someone(?) I've never met before and someone(?) who hasn't affected my life in any meaningful way.

[Guest]

Arf! And now you've ruined another series for me

I liked it, but not that much

 

51 minutes ago, Eschew said:

that I usually don't follow/stalk The Artist too closely. I don't really care if The Artist has a Twitter, a Tumblr, a FaceBook, or a MySpace, or whatever hells and trials and tribulations that their life story is composed of.

O-M-G !!!  I NE-VER do that!!! O_o

Usually I simply read their books, listen to their music or watch their movies. I mean, they are entitled to their own life... Privacy is paramount for me!

 

But sometimes you just can't help but read some news in the newspaper when really it's too much! Like the examples I've given...

[Crunchy Dragon]

Most of the time, yes.

 

[Canoe]

Roman Polanski

A variation on 'powerful' men abusing their 'power'.

The question is, why was this tolerated. Why is this tolerated. Although that walkout is a start.

Some say tolerating is the same as encouraging, or even effectively facilitating.

 

With Bertrand Cantat, whom I've never heard of before, it's nice to hear there's enough people taking a stand.

 

> My last example is Orson Scott Card...

I thoroughly enjoyed Ender's Game et al, the first of his works I encountered. When I saw you wouldn't buy his books anymore, I was hoping you'd got to read Songmaster before that. When I reread what you wrote, I saw that you did.

When I heard about his homophobic views, I never made a decision, but I found I just didn't buy his books anymore. Nor cheat by getting them from the library.

 

Then there's

Quote

From the 1960s onwards, Gabriel Matzneff made no secret of his passion for seducing adolescents. But a new book by one of the teenagers he slept with in the 1980s has led to a criminal investigation for rape of a minor.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51133850

 

Cosby, Weinstein, Epstein et al...

 

Is the tide turning, or are a few token being offered up to protect the rest. Time will tell.

 

 

 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Canoe said:

Then there's

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51133850

 

Cosby, Weinstein, Epstein et al...

 

Is the tide turning, or are a few token being offered up to protect the rest. Time will tell.

This... "creature" is a pedophile... He should have been brought up to justice a loooong time ago, and there the adults defaulted these kids...

There is nothing "cute" or "innocent" or "pure" when a 30+ yo man has sex with a 10+ yo girl (or boy).

 

It reminds me a quote from a movie:

"If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one!"

 

This "creature" was a successful author, he was supported by a famous and powerful publisher. His books were sold, which means that people bought them and read them! For many years... And no one said anything?

[Kawaii Koneko]

I tend to lean on the side of letting of letting the art be the sole criteria for whether an award should be given. If the movie is good, the movie is good. An actor's, director's, writer's, etc personal life doesn't change that and denying recognition over personal controversy is a slippery slope. 

 

Where will the line be drawn? I don't know anything about this particular situation but I get why people wouldn't want someone who may be a rapist to be honored even if they made something great but what next? Are we going start taking into consideration of personal politics? Are we going to start denying awards to people who don't believe in man made climate change? People who only believe there are two genders? People who believe what the Bible says about homosexuality? 

 

Again, I can see there is a difference between the extreme of rape and the other examples I mentioned but I just think it's a situation where one thing will lead to another. Let's just keep judging art on its own merits.

 

Also, I'm not aware of the last guy you mentioned but anytime I hear of someone who is religious and described as homophobic, I always take it with a grain of salt. I think there is a big difference between believing what the Bible says about homosexuality and actually being homophobic. You can believe someone is living in sin but not hate the person. Simply being against something doesn't make you phobic.

 

Personally, I have no personal issues with homosexuality or LGBT stuff in general and even support gay marriage but I think it is absurd to paint people who don't agree with me as homophobic. There is a saying in Christianity that you hate the sin and love the sinner. I think most Christians take that to heart.

 

My issue tends to be more with forcing religion on people and trying to base laws on any religious doctrine. This is coming from a Christian who is also a Libertarian FYI.

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Let's just keep judging art on its own merits.

Ah... But that is the core of the question!

The artist and the artwork... At which point does the art start and the artist end? and vice versa?

 

The artist uses who he is, his feelings, his personnality, his view of the world in the process of creating his artwork...

So... what one do as a human being, who one is, doesn't that count in the result, the artwork?

Can you really separate the artwork from its background? Can you really apprehend it without taking into consideration the global picture that is the process of its creation?

 

Genuine questions... As I've said, been uthinking about this for a long time... Still haven't found an answer...

 

[Volbet]

I've been having this debate for years with friends of mine, and I've pretty much arrived at the conclusion that it doesn't really matter if we seperate the art from the artist. If the artist 

 

If Roman Polanski made a movie about raping a child, I would find the film reprehensible on its own merits, not on the merits of the director. 

Just like if Prince had made an album all about being a Jehova's Witness, I would probably have found the lyrical universe insanely boring just from the premise alone, which would have nothing to do with Prince's religious views by themselves. 

 

I read a lot of book and listen to a lot of music made by people with highly damaging philosophical idea, but I just tackle the work on its own. 

The textual universe of Ayn Rand is awful both because the writing itself is mediocre and because her ideas are fucking repulsive.  

Conversely, while the ideological underpinnings of Julius Evola are quite disturbing, I can't say the man didn't have pathos and a sharp pen. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Also, I'm not aware of the last guy you mentioned but anytime I hear of someone who is religious and described as homophobic, I always take it with a grain of salt. I think there is a big difference between believing what the Bible says about homosexuality and actually being homophobic. You can believe someone is living in sin but not hate the person. Simply being against something doesn't make you phobic.

 

Personally, I have no personal issues with homosexuality or LGBT stuff in general and even support gay marriage but I think it is absurd to paint people who don't agree with me as homophobic. There is a saying in Christianity that you hate the sin and love the sinner. I think most Christians take that to heart.

Well, Orson Scott Card, unfortunately, didn't really end it there. 

He campaigned for years for legislation that would outlaw homosexuality, he said on numerous occasion (and in his creative work) that homosexuals were all victims of sexual abuse and he has stated that gay men are all into various kinds of more or less legal sexual perversions. 

It's not so much that he himself thinks homosexuality is a sin, but rather that he has gone out of his way to dehumanize the LGBT community and try to legislate them out of the public sphere.  

[WereCatf]

6 hours ago, Cora_Lie said:

I noticed that I (maybe it's a deep fault of mine) can't separate the artist and his artwork.

It is quite probably my Asperger's Syndrome, but I have a native disconnect between an artist and their artwork. I simply see a piece of art as just that -- an object or style -- without the mental connotation with who is behind it. This is a rather extreme example, but think of the Nazi-flag: where just seeing it can get many people feel disgust, rage, depression and whatnot, I look at it and...I see a red-black-white colour-scheme and an icon that, in its simplicity, is memorable and tasteful. I do have strong negative feelings for the Nazi-movement, all the horrors they committed and all that, but I can't bring myself to feel the same thing for an object -- they are simply two separate things to me.

 

This disconnect between an object and whatever it came from seems rather difficult for people to grasp. On the other hand, for me, the way people can't disconnect things like that seems completely foreign.

[RonnieOP]

For the most part its easy for me to do.

 

Esp when it comes to accusations that haven't been proven. Too many times I have seen a life ruined by false accusations. not saying its like that in this case. but im not trusting strangers.

[Owltiger57]

Really late to the party here, followed another thread, which recommended this one.

Many of us have heard the phrase about "heroes and their feet of clay."  In fact, I think it is a theme in the recent "Hawkeye," television show on Disney.  This will date me but I remember seeing Lindsey Wagner smoking one time and disliked her as an actress since.  I think it's human nature to want our heroes to be paragons with no vices or faults.  I know I don't watch or read articles about actors/YouTubers, authors or others specifically for that very reason.  I think its best to enjoy the content you can and ignore the rest.  It doesn't make you an ostrich it makes you someone who makes their own decisions.  Just my twocents...

[Jtalk4456]

On 2/29/2020 at 3:08 AM, Kawaii Koneko said:

Where will the line be drawn? I don't know anything about this particular situation but I get why people wouldn't want someone who may be a rapist to be honored even if they made something great but what next?

I think the line should simply be drawn at universal human morals. Unfortunately this line has been made to be extremely muddy as of late with what should be basic questions of how we should treat each other being turned into a right or left question, at least here in the US. I think it should be more simple with things that affect others negatively. Sexual harrassment, murder, rape, cheating, stealing, basic stuff. Homosexuality is a religious sin for many but represents no moral issue or bad treatment of another, so that obviously shouldn't disqualify anything. 

On 2/28/2020 at 10:52 PM, Guest said:

Can you separate an artist from his/her work?

It's hard but I think yes. I think it should be able to be separated. Regardless of what you think of Bill Cosby now, his show was phenomenal and absolutely modeled good parenting practices, good loving relationships, and was very much therapy for many, along with letting many black people see representation in the media without seeing themselves stereotyped horribly.

What was created with Cosby was revolutionary and life changing for many. I can't not appreciate what he made. I CAN choose to NOT appreciate how he got there. 

Same with many things. I don't like slavery. I think it'd be hard to find someone who openly admits to liking slavery in our society. I hope... But I think it'd also be hard to find someone who thinks the Pyramids of Giza shouldn't be one of the 7 wonders of the world. Those pyramids were built on horrible slavery. It's impressive, no matter how much the slavery hurts. As a matter of fact I'd go so far to say that we should always remember to be impressed by what horrible morals can achieve, lest we underestimate evil.

I can celebrate a work without celebrating what was put in to make it or who made it. For something like a movie, give the movie an award, but not the artist or director or actor or whoever did whatever terrible thing. 

[rikitikitavi]

4 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

But I think it'd also be hard to find someone who thinks the Pyramids of Giza shouldn't be one of the 7 wonders of the world. Those pyramids were built on horrible slavery. It's impressive, no matter how much the slavery hurts. As a matter of fact I'd go so far to say that we should always remember to be impressed by what horrible morals can achieve, lest we underestimate evil.

Wasn't it debunked?! I believe it's been said that those were workers, who were 'paid'.

 

5 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

I can celebrate a work without celebrating what was put in to make it or who made it. For something like a movie, give the movie an award, but not the artist or director or actor or whoever did whatever terrible thing. 

Yeah it is a bit easier for a movie, that also includes work of others, who probably shouldn't be tainted by the fallible lead/involved party. Much harder when the art piece is a sole work of the incriminated one.

[Jtalk4456]

6 hours ago, rikitikitavi said:

Wasn't it debunked?! I believe it's been said that those were workers, who were 'paid'.

 

Yeah it is a bit easier for a movie, that also includes work of others, who probably shouldn't be tainted by the fallible lead/involved party. Much harder when the art piece is a sole work of the incriminated one.

Interesting, hadn't heard about them being paid... Color me surprised! My point still stands and there was slavery in egypt still if not the pyramids, but yeah good to know.

I think for a single piece of single contributor art you can still appreciate things separately.

Hitler had art, I'm not an art critic by any means, but it seems decent to me

I certainly can't paint something like that...

I can still say this is pretty and still say Hitler was a terrible person. Even the most evil people still get dressed with the same action of putting arms and legs in holes in clothing. We can't just pretend everything done by an evil person is evil. Some of it is just living. Hitler taking a sip of coffee isn't evil, even if Hitler as a person is. Now having said that, if the coffee was flavored with the blood of jews, then yeah the coffee drinking is now evil, but that's an extreme. Even the most evil person will do normal non evil stuff from time to time just living as a person. So I can say as long as the painting by hitler wasn't painted on skin of jews or with human blood for paint or something like that, the painting is not evil. It was a good talented act from a person who also did very evil things separate of this

[rikitikitavi]

8 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

 

I think for a single piece of single contributor art you can still appreciate things separately.

Hitler had art, I'm not an art critic by any means, but it seems decent to me

I certainly can't paint something like that...

I can still say this is pretty and still say Hitler was a terrible person. Even the most evil people still get dressed with the same action of putting arms and legs in holes in clothing. We can't just pretend everything done by an evil person is evil. Some of it is just living. Hitler taking a sip of coffee isn't evil, even if Hitler as a person is. Now having said that, if the coffee was flavored with the blood of jews, then yeah the coffee drinking is now evil, but that's an extreme. Even the most evil person will do normal non evil stuff from time to time just living as a person. So I can say as long as the painting by hitler wasn't painted on skin of jews or with human blood for paint or something like that, the painting is not evil. It was a good talented act from a person who also did very evil things separate of this

It’s hard to argue with that.

It is more of an emotional scales to some, for others there are no scales at all, just different baskets, but I think it always depends on the topic and involvement of a given person.

[Quackers101]

depends on the work and artist.

like with the "mask" of theater plays. it's trying to be two things, an act and not an act.

That there will always be some truth behind their works, might be different than, what we might perceive though.

 

Just like you have messages about a cry for help through art, or strings that might be carried from one work to another.

Also how its easy for us to blame less fortunate people, from looks, status, and a lot else, while certain actors that can play in two fields at once ("good" and "bad"). Like with some idols as well, where there has been a lot of nonsense and exploitation around.

 

but it also depends if you want to enjoy said "art" and take away from the artist. You can very well do so, art is... art, although there is different ways to enjoy said art. Some might be more innocent while others might be less so. (lets say if someone collected hitlers art, just to be proud of hitler and sort of his actions as well). But if I could say if there is a way to seperate the "person" behind said actions and the "artist's" creations? it can be difficult. Like how many still want to honor MJ in some ways, or various other idols? Like they did change some things, but also did some not so great actions.

Edited December 3, 2021 by Quackers101

[whm1974]

10 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Interesting, hadn't heard about them being paid... Color me surprised! My point still stands and there was slavery in egypt still if not the pyramids, but yeah good to know.

I think for a single piece of single contributor art you can still appreciate things separately.

Hitler had art, I'm not an art critic by any means, but it seems decent to me

I certainly can't paint something like that...

I can still say this is pretty and still say Hitler was a terrible person. Even the most evil people still get dressed with the same action of putting arms and legs in holes in clothing. We can't just pretend everything done by an evil person is evil. Some of it is just living. Hitler taking a sip of coffee isn't evil, even if Hitler as a person is. Now having said that, if the coffee was flavored with the blood of jews, then yeah the coffee drinking is now evil, but that's an extreme. Even the most evil person will do normal non evil stuff from time to time just living as a person. So I can say as long as the painting by hitler wasn't painted on skin of jews or with human blood for paint or something like that, the painting is not evil. It was a good talented act from a person who also did very evil things separate of this

I don't know all that much about Slavery in Egypt, but the Pyramid Builders were skilled Laborers not Slaves at all.   

 

If the Great Depression didn't hit Germany as hard as it did, and Hitler was also more successful as an Artist, Would WWII had happened?