25 Likes
There is this idea (which I do not personally subscribe to) that the artist is merely a conduit for the art. That the art comes into the world and becomes its own thing independent of the artist who created it.
I can see the appeal of this idea, but I believe that the artist, the art itself and the spectator all contribute something to the wholly subjective experience of art. A person can try to wrest the art away from the artist and make it their own (and this is how very strained interpretations come into being), but the art is limited by the framework with which the artist was working, and so that link cannot be fully severed, even with works whose authorship is unknown.
That said, the relationship between the art and the spectator is much more important than the relationship between the art and the artist or the artist and the spectator, for art does not exist except in the viewing/listening/reading, etc. thereof.
3 Likes
This this this!!!
These conversations always land in the same place as the ones about successful tech and business people. “Well, they’re monsters, but they did good stuff and nobody’s perfect. Also maybe being a monster is needed in some way because look how they’re all kinda monsters!”
Fuck. All. Of. That. Just because society has rewarded these monsters in the past doesn’t mean we need to keep doing it. The idea that there is nobody in this world making great art who isn’t a rapist, racist, or murderer just below the surface is sickening and perverse. Everyone please stop making that patently shitty argument.
26 Likes
I sometimes am very thankful that I have problems remembering artists (singers, painters, authors, Insert_All_Creatives_Here) … or even paying attention to the fact. Yes, it means I regularly hear new music on the radio that I love that I never find again because I can’t remember the artists…or the title…or anything but the song itself. (NOTE: sometimes remembered-well-enough lyrics and duckduckgo can get me there)
And I almost NEVER want to know their ‘backstory’ or thought/creation process or anything of that nature. I care about the work of art, period…celebrity does nothing for me. Did I hear about JKR and her views, or Clapton, or Mustaine [TIL]? Yes, I try to keep informed about what is happening in the world. Are my readings of the Harry Potter works now “JKR-infused” because of that information…No. It doesn’t mean I support her, or her ideas, or that I want to show anything resembling support in the form of financial backing. [I have the same feelings about flying (TSA) and Sony (rootkit/PS_Linux) and other corporate actors I also choose not to support financially]
Luckily (for me), if it’s not used media, I basically just don’t buy it. I have never been one to support the OTHER side of that creative structure (RIAA/MPAA/other_centralized_control_of_content), plus I’m a cheap ass bastard. The only exception to the rule is gifts…I will purchase a new item IF I am giving to another. Not always; I have gifted dozens if not hundreds of “previously loved” media to friends and family.
For full disclosure: I do support bands via live music, and I do the occasional in-theatre movie. I’ve also purchased a new book to support an author appearance (a la David Sedaris). I’ve also a handful of Patreons and the like for creatives I believe in. I’m cheap, but not Scrooge levels.
Also, I’m with ClutchLinkey that product and artist can sometimes not be separated because of the entwinement WITH the product. Cosby is honestly an excellent example. Someone I watched both in original broadcast and syndication, enjoyed his vinyl comedy routines and Electric Company role, Fat Albert. In all of those HE was the product…and that product is forever tainted.
6 Likes
My view is that for the people who i objectively view as shitty people i actively avoid their work despite how good it may or may not be because in today’s world attention is just as good as money and i refuse to keep an abhorrent person relevant (See JK Rowling).
And i have no shortage of other things i can be spending my time on that deserve my attention
3 Likes
About the only opinion on this I can agree on is this: you draw your line where you think you need to, and I will draw mine where I think I need to. I won’t criticize you for your choice, please grant me the same privilege.
10 Likes
“A broken clock is still correct twice a day”-- so even if I think an artist is a dirtbag I can still look at a painting and think “well, that’s actually quite pretty.” Part of this is also that even dirtbags are humans, and we still all share certain emotions and desires.
And a piece of art can transcend the artist. For a lot of ancient art-- Venus de Milo or “Venus” of Wilendorf-- we don’t know what the artists were like as humans, we will never know. Those sculptures would still be important milestones in the history of art even if it turned out the artists were serial killers.
8 Likes
At some point one needs to accept that it is impossible to be 100% consistent or logical in where you draw your own lines and you’ll drive yourself mad trying to be. Is it rational to love Richard Pryor’s stand-up but avoid Louis CK like the plague? Does loving Wagner and Miles Davis’ work but getting an icky feeling watching Annie Hall make any logical sense?
We can come up with all kinds of post-hoc rationales, but the answer at the end is probably not. But if we’re able to make peace with our own choices and the art brings us some kind of joy, then it doesn’t make any sense to me to go out of your way to take that away from yourself. Life is hard as it is.
Now, if your goal is to exhibit performative consumption, that’s a whole different ball of fish, but I’d argue one so tiresome that it’s not worth fighting about.
12 Likes
Another arsehole
Well, he’s not part of a band called Hyperlife.
And then, there’s this one. Scroll for some money quotes in the topic…
1 Like
Have you tried using a centrifuge?
28 Likes
And by further extension, the question becomes what do we do when we ourselves fail to live up to our own standards of who we want to be. Most of us neither produce anything resembling great art nor do things as monstrous as the examples here. It really doesn’t make sense to add up plusses and minuses and try to come up with some sort of score. People are good and bad. Some are indisputably more of one than the other, but nobody is either perfectly good or perfectly bad. We should always strive to recognize both the good and the bad, neither excuses or erases the other. And that applies to our own actions as well as those of others.
6 Likes
I’ve come to accept that there will be more artists/musicians/actors who I like, and who it will turn out did something reprehensible.
It’s like I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop for Bill Murray or Paul Rudd.
4 Likes
The cynic in me says the WWE decided not to mention him ever again in order to sweep the concussions and CTE under the rug.
The brain damage doesn’t excuse his murders, but…I dunno. Too heady and it’s Friday and I can’t put my feelings into words.
See goatfucker
Damn, was just thinking the same thing!
5 Likes
This really highlights the role of the gatekeepers of artistic endeavors, which are just as powerful today as before the internet age. Harvey Weinstein comes to mind.
The gatekeepers themselves are often monsters promoting monsters, or at the very least not reigning I’m the monsters because they are profitable. How many decent artists and creators has the world missed out on because the monstrous gatekeepers only consorted with other monsters, or drove away decent people with their monstrosity?
8 Likes
Aw man, Murray is a mean drunk and a shitty husband and abusive to co-workers and does that borderline/narcissist thing of just ghosting long-time friends when they don’t cater to his every need on command. Or maybe that’s a publicist’s strategy to make him “edgy” and give cover for his secret life as an international crime-fighter? Either way it’s pretty well documented if you care to look for it.
Paul Rudd though man… Gandhi in modern form. Without the weird sex hangups and the racism. Probably.
1 Like
If you find out your house was built by a sex offender would you sell it (or destroy it)? Do you quiz your dentist or mechanic about their racial and political views before using their services? The cult of celebrity has produced a system where we know WAY too much about the personal lives and beliefs of artists, actors, musicians and athletes; none of which is relevant to the worth of their productions.
4 Likes
All I can say is, if anyone has anything on Keanu Reeves, STFU. I need at least one decent person I can cheer for.
19 Likes
my sentiment still applies.
I was going to say, don’t forget monstrous women, with Exhibit A being Ayn Rand, but then…all of her “art” and virtually everything outside of that, has been the destructive part that has wrought so much havoc on the American landscape (at least) so, uh, nevermind.
I thought the video had an interesting point about how imbued in the work the attitude of the artist is. That’s Marion Zimmer Bradley for me. I read a lot of her books back in high school, but when I found out that she was a child molester, I realized that’s all over her books. I couldn’t even bring myself to donate those books; I just threw them out.
Other artists, yeah, you can look back at Buffy and say, “ugh, Joss Whedon,” but the stories stand on their own and don’t scream “creepy guy with low self-esteem abusing people and justifying that behavior through his stories.”
7 Likes
