A Saturday Night Question

louobedlam:

For those of you around on this lovely evening:

Does the artist matter when considering the art? 

It’s the Woody Allen question, really.  He shagged his stepdaughter, should that affect Annie Hall?

Do you not go see Jeepers Creepers (1 & 2) because the director is a convicted pedophile? 

I know people do, but Should we give leniency to people because they produce art? Does good art get a bigger pass than bad art?

This is a really great question.

I tend to think that to the extent that the art and the person’s misdeeds are unrelated then the art can stand alone. Polanski’s crimes don’t make Rosemary’s Baby somehow less. But making art (good or bad or mediocre) doesn’t offset the wrong that someone has done.

But I think a case can be made for not wanting to support a person’s art if that support then funnels back in some way to what the person has done wrong. For example, I personally think that Scientology is dangerous, misguided, and generally a Bad Thing, with Tom Cruise being a primary focal point for public attention. So I don’t consume Tom Cruise films (I find this to be no great loss, although I wonder if I would stick to that as easily as I have if I found him to be a better actor). I have no illusions that this minor gesture will have any impact at all, but I just choose to spend my money and attention elsewhere. I can see a similar argument being made for not watching Roman Polanski movies because the profits derived from that help (or helped until recently), however indirectly, to fund his flight from justice.

So in short I don’t think the external acts of a creator diminish a work of art any more than I think that a particularly heroic person’s art deserves some special consideration on the basis of that heroism alone. But at the same time supporting an art work economically can, at least in some circumstances, be thought of as a moral decision, and it’s defensible in those cases to withhold that support based on factors external to the artwork itself.

Source: louobedlam

30 Notes/ Hide

  1. observedbysatellites answered: ..mumbles something about roman polanski..
  2. ferociousj answered: I feel conflicted about this every time I read Ender’s Game, knowing what a dickass Orson Scott Card is.
  3. jade-gray answered: I like to appreciate art as seperate from the person, so I don’t think about that person’s faults and flaws. But if they did wrong, then, no.
  4. theslowhurry answered: Madness increases exponentially with genius. If we as a society cast out artists we find personally reprehensible, who would be left?
  5. alexandercomana answered: is there something you’re trying to tell us?
  6. meglevinson answered: Generally speaking, people buy art to display / conversation piece. In doing so, you may feel as if you’re sanctioning their deviant actions.
  7. dannyvolcano reblogged this from louobedlam and added:
    It cut me off before I could finish. Art comes from...criminal. A work of art can stand on...
  8. alessandromusic answered: beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
  9. dannyvolcano answered: Art comes from the crossroads of the sane, the mad and the criminal. Art can stand on it’s own, but a creative criminal shouldnt
  10. thealastair answered: I don’t think being an artist gives you a free pass for anything, but I think a person and their work should be considered seperately
  11. sarahtrotsky answered: The artist only matters when the art is direcyly about them and cound not apply to anyone else.
  12. absentmachine answered: to me the artist doesn’t matter when considering art but it provides an interesting/informative insight.
  13. loftytales answered: If it appeals to you, then no. But every piece of art is a bit of the artist.
  14. failedimitator answered: It shouldn’t, but sometimes it does get in the way. But it’s true, good art does get a bigger pass than bad art.
  15. nickmaynard answered: if they’re just creepy, it can def color the experience, but if they’re violent or “a convicted pedophile”, it would be impossible to ignore.
  16. photolodico answered: I think it’s something specific that you have to take case by case. I like grey answers, but if I had to be black and white I’d say “yes.”
  17. reagank reblogged this from louobedlam and added:
    This is a really great question. I tend to think that to...person’s misdeeds are unrelated...
  18. apocalyptic-grandeur answered: that’s like saying you won’t drive over a bridge because the civil engineer is a pervert. separate the work from the person even if its hard.
  19. sophiamaria answered: yes to the first question, no to the last two.
  20. clickclack answered: I think that’s too broad a question. I think it’s important to consider the artist, the art and the “crime” (if you will)
  21. nicklas answered: It matters or not depending on what the artist puts into it from the self. I think.
  22. theyvegotfakelove answered: What comes to mind is Roman Polanski. No asshole should be given leniency ‘cause of their art. The art can stand alone, but fuck the artist.
  23. hominidcryptid answered: I don’t think you can give an artist a pass on that kind of stuff. I think all the defense of Roman Polanski was really disgusting.
  24. louobedlam posted this

Recent comments

Blog comments powered by Disqus