Separating Art From The Artist

[The Modfather]

Was thinking about this subject during the street renaming and also on the back of the Goodwillie debate.

Can you separate the art from the artist?

Can you appreciate and like output from someone who is also a despicable person? The likes of Richard Pryor was horrendous towards women, same with John Lennon and his first wife. Yet both are benchmarks in their field. Can you separate their work from the person they were/are? Does it ultimately come down to whether you’re a fan of the art or not as to your level of hypocrisy? E.G. it’s easier for me to scorn someone like Marilyn Manson as their music is just noise to me, yet i’m less critical of Richard Pryor because I enjoy his comedy.

What about retrospective judgement? Should a persons life be defined by something like slavery? Or do you have to factor in the norm of the time and not judge through the lens of today? I always wondered why at the height of street renaming there wasn’t any uproar or calls for Washington DC to be renamed as George Washington was a slave owner. Or does the fact he’s a national hero (an assumption on my part) outweigh the fact he owned slaves like the others who were in focus?

[brianmc]

As far as the music side of this issue goes I can't understand the hypocrisy of the wildly differing opinions of various artists.

The "King" was a 24 year old man who's girlfriend was a 14 year old child. He's revered the world over.

The "King of Pop" enjoyed sharing his bed with multiple young boys and paid multiple millions of dollars to buy the silence of some of them.
He's mostly still heralded as a genius and continues to have his music played long after his death.

The "Leader of the Gang" was completely cancelled for his downloading of kiddie porn pictures and rightly (in my opinion) hounded out of the county.
He went on to commit further offenses in South East Asia.

All 3, in my opinion, are worthy of the general publics' contempt.

Yet 2 of the 3 are hailed as legends.

Why?

[Moulin Yarns]

The 2 part series by Mary Beard that's just been on looks at controversial art, well worth a look. Although some disturbing images, particularly the first episode, the second episode looks at the statue issue.

[OldEast]

As far as the music side of this issue goes I can't understand the hypocrisy of the wildly differing opinions of various artists.

The "King" was a 24 year old man who's girlfriend was a 14 year old child. He's revered the world over.

The "King of Pop" enjoyed sharing his bed with multiple young boys and paid multiple millions of dollars to buy the silence of some of them.
He's mostly still heralded as a genius and continues to have his music played long after his death.

The "Leader of the Gang" was completely cancelled for his downloading of kiddie porn pictures and rightly (in my opinion) hounded out of the county.
He went on to commit further offenses in South East Asia.

All 3, in my opinion, are worthy of the general publics' contempt.

Yet 2 of the 3 are hailed as legends.

Why?

2 of the 3 hailed as legends because their artistic output was loved by millions worldwide. GG was a talentless dick.
You can't stop liking music, literature, art you love if you find out later the creator of such led/leads a life most would condemn.

[Sylar]

As someone who was a fan of the lostprophets growing up, I've asked myself that question a number of times and the answer is a resounding 'no'.

[WhileTheChief..]

Was thinking about this subject during the street renaming and also on the back of the Goodwillie debate.

Can you separate the art from the artist?

Can you appreciate and like output from someone who is also a despicable person? The likes of Richard Pryor was horrendous towards women, same with John Lennon and his first wife. Yet both are benchmarks in their field. Can you separate their work from the person they were/are? Does it ultimately come down to whether you’re a fan of the art or not as to your level of hypocrisy? E.G. it’s easier for me to scorn someone like Marilyn Manson as their music is just noise to me, yet i’m less critical of Richard Pryor because I enjoy his comedy.

What about retrospective judgement? Should a persons life be defined by something like slavery? Or do you have to factor in the norm of the time and not judge through the lens of today? I always wondered why at the height of street renaming there wasn’t any uproar or calls for Washington DC to be renamed as George Washington was a slave owner. Or does the fact he’s a national hero (an assumption on my part) outweigh the fact he owned slaves like the others who were in focus?

When talking about the slave trade, people invariably focus on the Atlantic, and the few hundred years of plantations etc.

What is always ignored, is the fact that slavery had been around for 3000 years prior. It was the norm.

There had never been any objection, moral or otherwise, to it.

Were the pyramids built by volunteers? The Great Wall of China? The Colosseum? Should these be torn down along with statues of Churchill??

It was booming business within Africa long before any Europeans showed up. The vast majority of slaves going east, some as far as China.

We don’t hear about their descendants though because there are none. Slaves going in that direction were castrated.

Fast forward to the 18th century and it was Britain, more than any other country, and against fierce opposition from across the world, that moved to bring it to an end.

We never hear this though. We just hear Britain is evil because of things done in her past.

Compare us to any other nations back then, or the norms of the times, and things look a whole lot different.

[Mon Dieu4]

When talking about the slave trade, people invariably focus on the Atlantic, and the few hundred years of plantations etc.

What is always ignored, is the fact that slavery had been around for 3000 years prior. It was the norm.

There had never been any objection, moral or otherwise, to it.

Were the pyramids built by volunteers? The Great Wall of China? The Colosseum? Should these be torn down along with statues of Churchill??

It was booming business within Africa long before any Europeans showed up. The vast majority of slaves going east, some as far as China.

We don’t hear about their descendants though because there are none. Slaves going in that direction were castrated.

Fast forward to the 18th century and it was Britain, more than any other country, and against fierce opposition from across the world, that moved to bring it to an end.

We never hear this though. We just hear Britain is evil because of things done in her past.

Compare us to any other nations back then, or the norms of the times, and things look a whole lot different.

Pedant alert, the pyramids weren't built by slaves, it's a myth, the consensus is that they were built by paid locals

[Pretty Boy]

Pedant alert, the pyramids weren't built by slaves, it's a myth, the consensus is that they were built by paid locals

Highly skilled and, relative to the time, well paid and provided for locals.

There is vast archaeological evidence of a huge settlement close to the great pyramids that suggests a high standard of living for the workers.

The myth of slaves, particularly Hebrew slaves, seems to persist though depute being pretty conclusively disproven.

[WhileTheChief..]

^^Thanks, I'd never read that before.

The other 7 wonders?!

[SChibs]

Pedant alert, the pyramids weren't built by slaves, it's a myth, the consensus is that they were built by paid locals

Im glad I'm not the only one, I was about to say the same thing!

[Moulin Yarns]

Im glad I'm not the only one, I was about to say the same thing!

Balfour Beattie get everywhere. :wink:

[Paul1642]

When talking about the slave trade, people invariably focus on the Atlantic, and the few hundred years of plantations etc.

What is always ignored, is the fact that slavery had been around for 3000 years prior. It was the norm.

There had never been any objection, moral or otherwise, to it.

Were the pyramids built by volunteers? The Great Wall of China? The Colosseum? Should these be torn down along with statues of Churchill??

It was booming business within Africa long before any Europeans showed up. The vast majority of slaves going east, some as far as China.

We don’t hear about their descendants though because there are none. Slaves going in that direction were castrated.

Fast forward to the 18th century and it was Britain, more than any other country, and against fierce opposition from across the world, that moved to bring it to an end.

We never hear this though. We just hear Britain is evil because of things done in her past.

Compare us to any other nations back then, or the norms of the times, and things look a whole lot different.

We are great at condemning certain parts of history. A lazy Google shows that approximately 12.5 million people we shipped across the Atlantic over a 400 year period. It was wrong but it’s in the past and we should learn from it.

Another quick Google estimates that over 40 million people are currently victims of modern slavery yet we hear next to nothing about this. Why are we so focused on the wrongs of the past yet as a whole we are happy to remain ignorant of what’s happening in todays word.

That 40 million won’t include then many millions more who are technically free but suffering equally as poor treatment for example the poor folk building the stadiums for the next wold cup that the whole world will be watching.

Hypocrisy doesn’t come close to describing us.

[stu in nottingham]

Another quick Google estimates that over 40 million people are currently victims of modern slavery yet we hear next to nothing about this. Why are we so focused on the wrongs of the past yet as a whole we are happy to remain ignorant of what’s happening in todays word.


Agree with your thoughts. Modern slavery is in our midst and largely ignored. A slave master was found to be operating at the farm just a few minutes up the road from me which employs a lot of East European workers. Many of these guys I'll see on a bus to the city after their graft, on the way back to hostels in the main. It's a tough life for them and I feel for them. The story just slipped out about two Polish guys being treated as modern slaves, thei bank accounts snatched and controlled and a pittance given for them to exist on. Police investigated and the slave master is now serving an eight-year custodial sentence.

The farm began an anti-slavery initiative after that and University of Nottingham is researching the subject. I'm left with a feeling that it's much more prevalent than people imagine.

Apologies for taking the thread off on a tangent a little.

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/farmer-lifts-lid-how-uncovered-647470

[Pretty Boy]

We are great at condemning certain parts of history. A lazy Google shows that approximately 12.5 million people we shipped across the Atlantic over a 400 year period. It was wrong but it’s in the past and we should learn from it.

Another quick Google estimates that over 40 million people are currently victims of modern slavery yet we hear next to nothing about this. Why are we so focused on the wrongs of the past yet as a whole we are happy to remain ignorant of what’s happening in todays word.

That 40 million won’t include then many millions more who are technically free but suffering equally as poor treatment for example the poor folk building the stadiums for the next wold cup that the whole world will be watching.

Hypocrisy doesn’t come close to describing us.

Definitely an interesting discussion to be had.

Fast fashion in particular relies on modern slavery to meet demand and people, myself included btw, turn a blind eye to both the environmental and human cost.

[superfurryhibby]

It's a tough question. How do you apply values and modern day standards to artists from previous generations? Take the question of rock stars having sex with under age girls. I doubt very much whether anyone asked for proof of age when lassies were being taken backstage after gigs in the 60 and 70's. Is that different from people who deliberately preyed on those who were under age as a way of life? I think it is, but there's still a huge moral grey area in terms of how accountable our rock legends might be now in their dotage.

I've always liked the English singer/songwriter, Roy Harper. I found his music by chance when I was in my mid teens, way more than 40 years ago. He was and still is a maverick figure, single minded and anti-establishment. However, a few years ago a woman came forward and alleged he had had a sexual relationship with her whilst she was under the age of consent. The woman in question alleged that she was 11 at the time.

Harper was acquitted of this and several other charges, but it soured my feelings towards him and his music forever. THis wasn't helped by him having recorded a song called Forbidden Fruit, recorded back in the mid 70's. This song was quite explicit in describing a sexual relationship was someone under the age of consent (aged 13).

I suppose I had viewed it as some kind of bizarre attempt to write about taboo subjects, something Harper did quite a lot. When the news of his accusation made the press, it immediately made me think of that song. I've never felt the same way about Harper. so for me and in this example, the art and artist are inseparable.

[He's here!]

https://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?352860-Separating-the-art-from-the-artist&p=6620664

Posted a similar thread a wee while back FWIW.