Art and Bad People

[Salty]

When do you disregard an artists? Should society as a whole (whatever that means) disregard an artists for any reason? When and how?

There seems to be some relationship between the quality of the work VS the level of horror perpetrated by the person, as perceived by the public.

Micheal Jackson has some sweet pieces of music.
Da Vinci's contributions are obvous.
Woody Allen has his moments.

I was/am listening to Amanda Palmer and despite whatever is going on with her professional and personal life, her music has helped my considerably the way music does sometimes.

In more rational persuits facts are laid down very clearly and the personal acts outside of those persuits don't really have any bearing on those facts. It doesn't matter if Al Gore is an asshole or greedy or whatever as long as the facts he presents about the climate are true. The one doesn''t wash the hand of the other.

Is that true of art? More to the point, does it matter?

Art has an affect on society, our dreams lead us to very real places. Which is not to say that because Micheal Jackson's music creates incidences of sexual abuse. But does it perpetuate the culture which allows for more sexual abuse?

If so, just what does anyone do about that.

Of course, every indidivual person makes up their own mind. I don't listen to MJ's music, even though I really liked it as a kid. Hah.

I'm not sure what I think about all that.

[Junkenstein]

Interesting.

There's quite a few questions here and I'm too tired to get into it now so consider this more a reminder post.

I guess there's the "how separate is the artist from the art" angle too.

I suspect that Micheal Jackson's 9(et. all) cultural legacy will not be as large as you may think. As far as I know, the most recent big thing about him was prisoners dancing to something. Hardly the way I'd like to be remembered. The other side of this I guess is how much/frequently does it impact your life? If you're listening to Jackson or Glitter daily, for some reason, then I'm sure you have little problem overlooking their antics.

You can choose the media you consume to some extent, why you'd bother to go after something by Rolf Harris compared to well, a literal infinity of other films/music/whatever is beyond me. You could, literally, right now, listen to a different song, every single minute until you die. Same for video of various forms. Add video games. Add the infinity of other things you can do. You already need to be hyper selective right now as the choice will only increase.

Anyway, rambling because tired but tl:dr - Art probably not artist, but why buy fucked up art when good art is free?

And what the fuck was it with all those people having nothing better to do with their lives than wait outside that Jackson trial? That's some scary shit.

[The Johnny]

The question is: how much does personal life affect the work? And that not only goes for artists, but also intellectuals.

Real Example 1: Psychiatrists on a general basis tend to focus on treatment based on medication rather than a mixed approach of also including some kind of talk therapy, which has been shown to be more efficient. What dictates the general practices of psychiatrists? The DSM. Who writes the DSM? Psychiatrists that are on the pay roll of big pharma. Therefore, they're personal life of corruption is tied to their work.

Hypothetical Example 1: The band "They Might Be Giants" makes cute and fun music that can be nice to play for kids. Now imagine if one of them was a pedophile. Kind of creepy, right?... So one would need to revise the lyrics carefully to see if there's some hard to spot double entendre that disqualifies their work.

Real Example 2: I really dont like pop music because its real empty and all that, but, Lady Gaga. Lady Gaga might be into some of those pop artist lifestyles in which she spends a million dollars on a golden wheelchair (look it up) and all that stupid show business antics... but the content of her lyrics is the only mainstream pop artist that embraces and supports LGBT culture... in this case its two different issues that dont conflict with each other, but to me on a general level she gets a pass.

Real Example 3: Ayn Rand. Her works and philosophy completely contradict her personal life, therefore this renders her a hypocrite and disqualifies her work.

Real Example 4: Hitler's paintings. From what ive seen, its just realist style of buildings and wildlife... so one could love his paintings if one is very much into realism (i guess?) while still being against nazism and racism.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think everyone has to make up their own mind, really. I don't enjoy listening to Michael Jackson's music because I associate it with accusations of pedophilia. Someone might not enjoy listening to Amanda Palmer because they feel her treatment of other musicians is exploitative, or that that her husband should be bankrolling her career as a musician. I don't know that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, and I don't know whether Amanda Palmer is exploitative of other musicians.

Sometimes a bad interaction can leave a bad taste in someone's mouth that spoils the art of a certain artist for them. I know a glassworker who thinks I am a royal-class asshole because on an anonymous forum (on which I was not anonymous, but he was) he private messaged me to tell me that people wouldn't be talking to him the way they were if they knew who he was. I asked him if he was seriously pulling a "do you know who I am?", said it was a dick move, and told him that I don't control anyone, and that he should expect people to respond to him based on what he says and does, not based on his status as an artist.

Dude hates me. And I no longer care for his art, which I used to admire. Art, including music, is something that evokes emotion, and if the emotion it evokes is unpleasant for any reason, including an irrational or unrelated association, people won't enjoy it.

Some people have opinions of Amanda Palmer that colors their enjoyment of her music. Others have completely different perceptions of her. LMNO can't stand her because of her fundraising, Waffles works with her and loves her. One isn't right and the other wrong; they simply have different experiences with her and interpretations of her actions.

[Sita]

If I like a picture, painting, or sculpture I will continue to look at them and if possible try and own a copy.
If I like a song then I will listen to it and perhaps get the record. Same with movies.

What the artist does in their personal life doesn't phase me at all.

[Ben Shapiro]

I admire Chris Benoit as one of the best technical wrestlers of all time, not as Father of the Year.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

Its really a personal thing. I can see associating an artists irl shittiness with a piece of art could make you less able to enjoy it. What pisses me off are the people who pretend they are making some kind of moral stand. Like really? Youre wearing clothes that were made in a sweat shop you keep all your money in BoA and carry around electronics that the Congo was destabilized over. But the new Xmen movie, thats where they draw the line. They refuse to let your money be tainted by it so theyre going boycott it, and I assume, every single product who whos profit might eventually reach the hands of a sex offender.

[Junkenstein]

Its really a personal thing. I can see associating an artists irl shittiness with a piece of art could make you less able to enjoy it. What pisses me off are the people who pretend they are making some kind of moral stand. Like really? Youre wearing clothes that were made in a sweat shop you keep all your money in BoA and carry around electronics that the Congo was destabilized over. But the new Xmen movie, thats where they draw the line. They refuse to let your money be tainted by it so theyre going boycott it, and I assume, every single product who whos profit might eventually reach the hands of a sex offender.

Hi New Guy, you seem alright.

[Reginald Ret]

Its really a personal thing. I can see associating an artists irl shittiness with a piece of art could make you less able to enjoy it. What pisses me off are the people who pretend they are making some kind of moral stand. Like really? Youre wearing clothes that were made in a sweat shop you keep all your money in BoA and carry around electronics that the Congo was destabilized over. But the new Xmen movie, thats where they draw the line. They refuse to let your money be tainted by it so theyre going boycott it, and I assume, every single product who whos profit might eventually reach the hands of a sex offender.

Hi New Guy, you seem alright.

Shhh, he is just doing it so he can collect quotes of people saying

You know, Ron Paul is one smart cookie!

Or something similar.

Don't fall for his tricks!

...

Dammit!

[Cramulus]

When do you disregard an artists?

Me personally? When they aren't saying anything relevant to me.

Should society as a whole (whatever that means) disregard an artists for any reason? When and how?

We don't make decisions as a whole - that subjective quality is what makes art so interesting.

There seems to be some relationship between the quality of the work VS the level of horror perpetrated by the person, as perceived by the public.

I think that the act of becoming a public figure sensationalizes your life. You become part of the spectacle you have created. Your life becomes just as much a commodity, a product of consumption, as the work you produce.

I think any one of us would seem like an absolute monster if subjected to the piercing glare of the celebrity panopticon.

In more rational persuits facts are laid down very clearly and the personal acts outside of those persuits don't really have any bearing on those facts. It doesn't matter if Al Gore is an asshole or greedy or whatever as long as the facts he presents about the climate are true. The one doesn''t wash the hand of the other.

Is that true of art? More to the point, does it matter?

No human, living or dead, is above criticism

Art has an affect on society, our dreams lead us to very real places. Which is not to say that because Micheal Jackson's music creates incidences of sexual abuse. But does it perpetuate the culture which allows for more sexual abuse?

I don't think there ever will be a moral litmus test for artists
nor should there be

MJ is a poignant example because I see him as kind of a Frankenstein's Monster. We created him and we eventually had to destroy him en mass with torches and pitchforks. This has been the nature of celebrity for thousands of years.

Celebrities are Holy, that's why we rip out their hearts and send their severed heads bouncing down the steps of Chichén Itzá.

[The Johnny]

MJ is a poignant example because I see him as kind of a Frankenstein's Monster. We created him and we eventually had to destroy him en mass with torches and pitchforks. This has been the nature of celebrity for thousands of years.

Celebrities are Holy, that's why we rip out their hearts and send their severed heads bouncing down the steps of Chichén Itzá.

This in particular made me associate with some book of Mircea Eliade... I dont know the direct translation but i think its "sacred vs. profane", in which whatever is rare or strange over the course of history has either been brought up, or brought down but never has a neutral reaction.

Example 1: Cats either have been worshipped as god's companion (Egypt et al) or have been thought of as THE devil's companion (witches).

Example 2: Schizophrenics have been thouhgt of as either being the medium thru which gods speak, or possessed by teh demons.

And what is an artist after all? Some strange minion that is either put in an altar or demonized depending on the person that is subjected to them... artists are the lightning rods for the masses sentiment, or their altar, or their punching bag...

[Faust]

I don't think any action the artist could perform could turn me off a painting, book, comic, song, or a film or television show.

William Burroughs shot his wife in a drunken game, and Felicia Pearson from The Wire shot and killed another teenager when she was 14.

Vladimir Nabokov is my favorite writer and there are those that believe he was a pedophile. If he was, I don't care, I love his work I'm not all that interested in the man.

[Faust]

Real Example 3: Ayn Rand. Her works and philosophy completely contradict her personal life, therefore this renders her a hypocrite and disqualifies her work.

Funny, I find Rand the person and life fascinating and her work devoid of artistic merit. I think I would warm to her philosophy much better as a theses from her as opposed to the clunky shambling horrors like Atlas Shrugged.

[Ben Shapiro]

I don't think any action the artist could perform could turn me off a painting, book, comic, song, or a film or television show.

William Burroughs shot his wife in a drunken game, and Felicia Pearson from The Wire shot and killed another teenager when she was 14.

Vladimir Nabokov is my favorite writer and there are those that believe he was a pedophile. If he was, I don't care, I love his work I'm not all that interested in the man.

Its like you're trying to evolve, or something.

[Faust]

Sorry, I don't follow?