on separating artists and their art
 

A convicted rapist made a new movie last year and I bet many of us still want to see it. Then somehow I briefly saw an image of mega pop star that fortunately brings that certain memory of him, of the horrible story that makes me want to puke.

The old issue; but what is your take about this one? can we truly (truly) separate all the art from the artist? should we? to what extent it is futile and in which line it should becomes a moral obligation? how does someone see the nuanced of this? is there even a definitive way on how one should act, approach life contradiction?

Re: on separating artists and their art
 

Who? If he's convicted, there's no need to hide the identity.

Re: on separating artists and their art
 

My response to this changes based on whether consuming the art directly benefits the person or not.

As for the more abstract aspect of the issue, I think it depends on the context. If you're analyzing a work as art, in some kind of critical capacity, then yes, you need to separate it from the artist to at least some degree. If you're considering it any other context (which is something you end up doing while being a Critic, anyway), it's fine to consider other things, even if only to enrich someone else's understanding of the situation.

I think this distinction on opinion and Criticism is hugely important, though, otherwise art becomes subsumed to short-term, fluctuating political concerns, at which point it isn't really art criticism or analysis any more.

I am absolutely horrible at compartmentalizing. My brain just cannot do it. For years I coached girls who were the same age as Roman Polanski's victim, and whenever I hear his name all I can think of is someone in their 30s offering drugs to, taking advantage of, and bragging about having sex with someone the same age as one of my players. If I try to watch a film made by someone who has hurt someone else (especially a child), that sits in the front of my brain the whole time and it means I can't be open to a viewer experience. For me, it's not even a moral decision--I literally cannot enjoy a film by someone who has victimized a child.

I know several people who are able to put their disgust about the actions of an artist in one box and put the value of that person's art in another box. I don't think that it's some kind of moral failing, per se.

This is even harder for me when the artist is still alive. I don't feel good about my dollars going toward someone who has victimized other people. Victor Salva sexually abused a child and filmed himself doing it. So, no, despite my horror movie interest I will not be checking out the Jeepers Creepers films.

The only time I get upset is when someone who likes a person's films tries to defend the actions of the person. If you want to watch a movie by someone who did something horrible or sleazy, fine. But don't try to minimize their actions to feel better about yourself. For example, many of the women who Louis CK exposed himself to were people whose careers he had power over. So when people say "Well they could have just left the room. He didn't hold anyone down" . . . please. You can still think that his jokes are funny, but let's not act like what he did wasn't gross and distressing to his victims.

100%, could not agree more!

Re: on separating artists and their art
 

Yeah, I agree very much with the need to minimize crossover there, where admiration for someone's work motivates someone to dismiss an accusation or argue with it around the margins when they otherwise wouldn't. It's okay to say "I don't care, I can enjoy the art in a vacuum." That is a potentially reasonable choice, clearly considered. Trying to talk yourself into or out of the veracity of something based on the fact that you enjoy someone's talent or skill, however, is intellectually dubious, but it happens a lot.

Re: on separating artists and their art
 

I'd still like to know who it was, partly out of a desire to have some facts and partly to know which movie I might want to avoid. If this is just a hypothetical question, the details are still part of the answer unless I'm just going to utter a hypothetical NO, but that isn't worth much. I don't like murderers either, for the record.

I assume he is referring to Polanski's An Officer and a Spy. You can read an article here about how many actresses protested when he won best director at the Cesar awards.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europ...20this%20year.


It's much less common for someone to take another person's life and still have a viable public career. Maybe the closest you get is the accusations of negligent homicide in the case of the helicopter crash on the Twilight Zone movie set that killed Vic Morrow and two children.

Here is just one last thought on why separating artist and art might not always be a good thing: when people are esteemed and celebrated, it gives them a certain degree of power and access. Something that's become really clear over the last few years is the way that power and money and reputation have allowed certain people to take advantage of others. Would a ton of people defend a child rapist if he didn't happen to be a well-regarded director? I can't ever remember anyone defending some random 30 year old who slept with a child. Separating art and the artist might not always be a neutral act if it allows a perpetrator to hold on to money, resources, and power.

Roman Polański.
I don't care. To avoid being a hypocrite I have to either ignore all such matters or be against every single artist who did something wrong. I choose the first.

If I choose not to watch Polański's films, because he's a convicted rapist, I mustn't contemplate Caravaggio's paintings, because he murdered a man. Hell, I can't even drive a Ford. Ford was an antisemite!

PS: I'm pretty sure that no matter how cantankerous I am on MoFo, you will still watch and love my film As I Was Looking At The Lustrous Beams Of Light In My Tea I Immediately Thought of Cupcakes.

I have thought on a number of occasions that it might be beneficial in the current political climate for creatives to become anonymous. Pseudonyms like the name of Elon Musk’s baby, symbols and a number so you could seek out more work of the same director/writer. That would avoid any association between the creator and his art and perception wouldn’t be tarnished.

In the real world, I agree with Mr. Minio. I try to enjoy art irrespective of whose it is. If anything, immoral lifestyles allow some artists achieve a measure of notoriety they otherwise wouldn’t: how likely would a Charles Manson song be to make its way into the ‘Mindhunter’ soundtrack if he wasn’t a cult figure? Probably not very.

Re: on separating artists and their art
 

Haven't we had this conversation before?...me thinks, you people think too much:p Watch a movie cause ya wanna, or don't watch it. Either way is fine by me.

But compressing the question into a binary like this kind of takes away the reason that it's important to discuss such things.

I believe that people are capable of redemption. I also believe it's possible for people to have complex legacies--to have done things worth celebrating and things worth condemning.

The main reason to talk about this question, as a film viewer, is to think about the effect of our viewership.

Does viewing a film (especially if you pay to see it) add to the wealth, reputation, or power of someone who uses those things to victimize others or to escape the consequences of their actions?

Does viewing a film (or a piece of art, or buying a product) send a message to victims of a certain type of crime that our enjoyment/consumerism is more important than what happened to them?

This is like saying "Many companies have done unethical things. But if I boycott one company I have to boycott every company that ever did something wrong." It's a false binary.

It's your prerogative to watch whatever you want. But collapsing negligent homicide, rape, child sexual abuse, and jaywalking under the same umbrella has a minimizing effect on those crimes. I don't think that was your intention, but all-or-nothing thinking is something to be very careful of.

Re: on separating artists and their art
 

I love Bryan Singer movies, and I hate the man with an equal and fiery passion.

I agree. Many great artists are often very troubled souls who lead extraordinary/abnormal lives. Some of them commit criminal acts. We must be able to separate the man from his his creation. Many unpleasant people have made profound contributions to the artistic, scientific and philosophical landscape of mankind. It's essential to be able to celebrate their work while condemning their character where appropriate.

Yeah. I'm mixed since I have not seen any of his movies for a long time. I could take a self-righteous stand and call it a boycott or admit that he just fell out of my orbit for reasons not related to his conduct or initially related to his conduct or admit that my local theaters didn't show his movies or all of the above or none of the above. In a world where everything seems to be about money, I guess they're all the same since he doesn't have any of mine and he fell off my corner of the universe.

If you just search for his name, his biggest point of notoriety seems to be having been married to Sharon Tate, and the whole whacko Manson Family story.

Re: on separating artists and their art
 

Gotta be honest: nothing makes me happier than when a ****ty human being makes ****ty art. Then I don't have to bother trying to answer these philosophical questions.

Bill Cosby is in jail and Kevin Spacey will never work again but that doesn't change the fact that reruns of The Cosby Show still make me laugh nor do I ever get tired of re-watching American Beauty.

Re: on separating artists and their art
 

I still like watching The Naked Gun movies even though O.J. Simpson is in them.

Not to disagree or to even suggest you're wrong in any of this, but I'm curious how law enforcement of an action might ease one interpretation or another. I mean, say I have an ethical issue with how a business practices their business. Laws may allow that practice as though nothing is wrong. My option would then be to boycott in some principled way to show my disapproval.

On the other hand, if an individual artist has done wrong and has been apprehended and judged in a court of law to serve some form of sentencing, then has society not played that role in response to the wrong done? I'm not asking if that role is adequate. But is that not the arena for a victim to find justice of sorts? Does that justice also include requiring me, a viewer, to shun some work of art or even just a generic something that I find good in spite of the individual's criminal activity?

If NOTHING was done, then I might lean more to boycotting the work of that individual. I'm not sure though. I tend to separate the artist from the work and generally try to judge each independently. That's not to say that artist and art are mutually exclusive. They are not. There are a lot of variables in that equation though (at least for me), that shift my position relative to what was done, what was done in response, what power I have to force a response, where I stand in judgment on whatever ethical spectrum the act falls (jaywalking - murder), where society stands, etc.

I suppose all of that takes place mentally and under the surface. Is it necessary to express those considerations to their extremes for others to witness so that one might justify or receive a sense of permission for viewing and possibly enjoying the work of a rapist?

That last bit probably reads aggressively lol. I only mean to push the idea to an extreme for contrast. And again, this is in no way to argue you or your posts. More, it's just to continue your line of questioning maybe from a slightly different perspective.

Ultimately, I do not believe there can be a universal right or wrong for all of society here. I mean, there are varying degrees of murder in our legal definitions because even that has gray space depending on a range of contexts.

So, um, this is a novel-length response to ynwtf. For most people I'd say https://i.imgflip.com/2alrqp.jpg

I think that these are really important questions. In fact, I think that the whole thing is nuanced, which is why I push back against "all or nothing" or blanket statements either way.

Victor Salva's case is an example of someone who was apprehended and sentenced. He served a sentence and was released. Do I personally think that a year and 3 months is a reasonable sentence for sexually abusing a child? Nope. Does Salva's victim consider this justice? From what I've read I don't think so.

But does this mean that he should never make films again? No. I mean, there are a lot of people out there who commit crimes and hurt others. It's not reasonable to say that they should all be shunned from society or never allowed to have jobs. If anything, alienating people probably just makes it more likely that they will hurt themselves or others, and that's not an ideal outcome. If you watch the film The Interrupters, many of those in the group committed violent crimes--even murder-and yet it's an undeniable good that they are free and out on the streets.

On a personal level, like I explained before, I just can't watch movies by people who have done certain things.

On a broader level, I just think that it's worth being careful that someone who used their power to take advantage of others (as Salva did and as Polanski did and as Weinstein did) are held accountable and are not allowed to be in a position again to perpetrate similar abuse. I'm an elementary teacher. Suppose I just lost it one day and hit a kid. Does that mean I should never work again? No. But does it mean I probably shouldn't be in charge of a room of young people again? Yeah, I think it does.

I think that's all we can ask of anyone: use context and your personal moral compass to make a decision. It might not be the decision that someone else would come to, but that's just life.

I don't think that anyone about to watch Jeepers Creepers needs to stand up and loudly go "HEY EVERYONE!!! I THINK THAT CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IS WRONG!!!". That's performance. I do think that for a long time people have been willing to ignore crimes and improprieties by artists or others with power, but there is a connection between being willing to listen to someone's voice and giving that person power. I think that as consumers (of goods, of art, etc) it's important to think about the ethical implications of taking part in something.

I also think that it's really valid for victims of crimes to feel hurt when people are willing to dismiss or deny their suffering.

It's complicated. And it's sometimes hard to argue this without sounding like you're declaring yourself the Ultimate Moral Authority. Like I said in my first post, I mostly don't have a problem with people who still watch Polanski films or Salva's films. My only real issue is when (1) people try to victim-blame or excuse bad artist behavior because they'd rather call a 13-year old girl a manipulative slut than admit a director they like did something really wrong or (2) group all artists together as "people who are human and make mistakes!" without acknowledging the difference between a DUI and a year of child sexual abuse.