I would say it’s not possible. The art IS the artist. The art only is what it is because the artist is who they are. But a lot of people seem to be very comfortable with the idea of separating the art from the artist. What say Lemmy?
Some artists may publish their works under a pseudonym, with a fake name. Artists who do that exhibit a type of selflessness, perhaps that is good?
If I learn something bad about the artist – anything really, I try to reevaluate my interpretation of his artwork in the context of his live.
It’s up to you whether or not it’s important. I see your point on whether or not it’s possible, and I’m inclined to agree with you.
I’m glad that pretty much all of the artists I enjoy didn’t do anything like drug and rape women or come out in favor of oppressive nonsense (as far as we know.)
It doesn’t surprise me that the businessmen posing as artists routinely end up being pieces of shit. It’s always good for a laugh when the morons who liked their art find out for themselves.
Struggle with it.
Most folks in this thread are taking about paintings.
What about actors, singers and comedians where the art is so much of their persona?
For the longest time I was completely oblivious to what Roman Polanski did and I revered Chinatown.
I still think it is an incredible movie, but when I learn that Polanski drugged and raped a little kid…. After he attempted to do it once and Angelica Houston stopped him.
I used to listen to Bill Cosby records as a kid and holy shit the Chicken Heart routine still makes me giggle when I remember parts of it.
Then all the heinous shit he did has come out and I just struggle with how to handle it.
Another aspect I struggle with should I victimize all the artists involved because of the actions of one of them.
Take Harvey Weinstein. He was horrible. He was basically torturing people. He was a sexual terrorist.
Unfortunately Miramax and later The Weinstein Company made some of the greatest movies. Should I boycott all of them?
I do not have a good answer.
And then let’s take it down to something a lot less EVIL.
I used to revere Paul Newman. I used to think his long time marriage to Joanne Woodward was a thing of beauty and I guess it was. Then I learned about how he basically abandoned his first wife and three kids after she has spend years funding his life as actor before his career took off.
I list a number of his movies as some of the greatest of all time and a number of his performances as some of the greatest of all time and I love them to this day.
How do I reconcile that with the above.
I tried but he got mad and chased me down the hall yelling “give me back my stuff, you filthy animal!” 🖼️ 🦝 💨 🤬
Only purity-testers have difficulty with this.
Imagine saying Alice In Wonderland isn’t good.
Besides, to condemn the art because you condemn the artist, you’d have to be playing the game of giving absolute moral condemnations of people in the first place. That’s a mug’s game. Everybody’s got good and bad in them.
Depends on the context surrounding the art and whether enjoying said art is directly funding the artist’s problematic views. Someone enjoying a Lovecraft story isn’t doing shit for him. No one’s views on race are going to change from stumbling upon his cat’s name either. Whereas someone buying a Harry Potter product is directly funding trans people’s deaths. However, buying a Harry Potter book secondhand is supporting local business (though I will still judge you for shitty taste and for promoting the franchise)
Context matters a lot.
You’re right. I wish I hadn’t let my wife buy hogwarts now
you can try but if someone is awful you’ll probably find that awfulness reflected in the art too.
In a world as overflowing with art as this, it’s worth conflating the art and the artist.
Every work of art produced by a bad person is one produced by a good (or more likely, morally ambiguous) person you don’t.
I see this discussion a lot with a lot of compelling arguments for either take. over time, this has become my take. it will be bad but hear me out.
depriving bad people of money for their work is good. but enjoying good work from bad people is important. if you don’t want to pay them then don’t, but don’t deprive yourself of art and education based on moral standards that (since we’re being honest) will always be in flux as you change and grow. decentralize moral purity from your personal journey. centralize making informed decisions and embracing complexity.
it’s a bad take but honestly I really don’t like the concept of trying to be a good person as it pertains to consumption. there really isn’t such a thing as good consumption. and in my thirties I’m pretty okay with whatever criticism that earns me.
I fully agree with your take regarding art but for different reasons apparently. I do think your way of approaching this makes you a good person. Specifically because you are willing to consume the art of a ‘bad’ person just because of the chance they make something good. It shows you’re trying to build an inclusive community, even if you disagree with someone. So it makes me wonder, why do you think being a good person ‘pertains to’ (forces?) consumption?
Again, I agree that there is no good consumption (in the capitalist sense). But I can absolutely see good deeds one can do without even getting close to consuming resources. An example would be holding the door open for the person behind you. Or am I misunderstanding you somehow?
You’re not misunderstanding at all. You actually took what I was saying even a step further, so thank you for asking. I was using some reductive language to avoid making it over complex or sounding pretentious. I spoke of it in terms of “being a good person” because I think this conversation is at heart distillation of the problems of consumption and our self perceptions. Like, it’s about morality too but that part is easier settled by just not giving problematic artists our resources.
So for the meat of it, when we’re talking about whether it’s okay to consume art from “bad people” I think what we’re trying to discover is if doing so makes us bad. and like, it possibly can but not intentionally and not if we do it critically. and also the quality that I’m referring to as bad isn’t actually a binary. it’s actually an expansive amount of values on their own individual spectrums that we should be analyzing and keeping in our mind while we participate in the art. from there we can broaden our concepts of good and bad or problematic/unproblematic and actually use that awareness to prevent some harm.
I said doing this makes me a bad person because I assume most people I interact with have all-or-nothing morality and I don’t think it will change. I find it easier to just live with the base assumption that I’m a problem and not wait for people tell me who I am but that’s probably trauma talking. I probably should be examining that.
But anyway yes, you’re right. But I’d call most good deeds that can be done as acts of creation. Like creating feelings of respect and ease of life by holding a door for someone.
It’s a personal choice. I do separate the art from the artist because it’s not like me not torrenting their art will make a difference.
this is the best thing I have ever read on the subject: https://www.theredhandfiles.com/should-we-separate-the-artist-from-the-art/
My absolutely favorite take about art is the one from the edge of the 19->20th century, where they got obsessed about art having to be absolutely separated from reality, to be even worth considering, since that would only taint it, and just be perfect.
So in that case, I have no issues with separating the art from the artist. Or, since they also tried to make art out of their lives (the whole dandy thing), which made basically professional posers, I also don’t mind separating morality/reality from the artists and viewing their life as art. For example, Motley Crue were extremely bad people to be around, but their lifestyle was portrayed well enough that it does sound kinda fun (as long as you don’t actually live like that in reality), so I don’t judge and kind of appreciate them trying.
On the other hand, if someone is a dick as an artist without their behavior being refined enough to pass as an art/pose/dandyism, I make sure to not give them any money whatsoever, or promote their products, and just shittalk and laugh at them. Even if their actuall art is good, which I will probably enjoy, but will definitely not pay for.
Is it a good take on the question that makes sense? Probably not, but it does work for me.
I get a funny feeling when I watch recent Will Smith movies, but anything before MiB2 imo is fair game.
I still enjoy Tom Cruise movies, though. I know he’s a wackadoo scientologist, but goddamn can he make an entertaining movie.
Of course it’s possible. I can enjoy any art without knowing or caring what the artist does or thinks. I can listen to music or read books by people who might well be assholes, but even if I knew they were and I enjoyed what they did, I likely wouldn’t care.
