Jump to content

The morality of the artist


Gracii Guns

Recommended Posts

Since there are fresh accusations of Michael Jackson's predatory behaviour, now is as good a time as any to have a proper discussion on if art can be separated from the artist. 

Bearing in mind Erin Everley's claims against Axl of domestic abuse, and we contribute to a forum in his support. 

It seems the question is to weigh up the quality of the art against the criminality of the artist and come to a conclusion. 

As a matter of principle, as a professional creative, I don't like the concept of someone's work being forgotten. It should stand on its own merit. However I did stop listening to Lostprophets and can't say I miss them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to have a teacher who was a huge Gary Glitter fan. This was way before all of the paedophilia came out: back in the early 1990s I suppose it would've been. But what you refer to is Wagner Syndrome. Richard Wagner was a repellent man by anyone's estimation, egotistical, vehemently antisemitic, yet wrote some of the most breathtakingly beautiful music. He was so antisemitic that even today Jewish admirers are put through a sort of moral dilemma. Israel for instance effectively prohibited his music until remarkably recently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very tricky subject, but i think i can separate the art from the artist most of the time. I guess i'm kind of on the fence about this because I can't think of who I like that has accusations against them...well apart from Axl...and i still listen to him. I never liked Lost Prophets, Gary Glitter or Rolf Harris. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question with these things is where do you draw the line?  I mean there's people out there who stop listening to a band cuz they refused em an autograph.  And then on the far end of the spectrum its like, rape, murder, sexual assault.  But even some murder is OK.  Leadbelly was a murderer but its OK, it adds to his mystique.  But if you're Phil Spector its evil.  And it don't stop at artists too, people hero worship someone like say Mike Tyson...and he used to rob grannies when he was 13.  He'd rob anything that walked.  If Anthony Keidis is sexually aggressive with a woman its kinda just looked at like 'wow, look how super sexed Anthony is!'  For example watch this from 2:25:

 

Now imagine a video with Harvey Weinstein or Rolf Harris doing that.  The distinction is unclear and the principles that govern peoples morality are skewed ergo, aren't we kind of similar to the bad guys in some far detached degrees of separation way?  We who throw up in our mouth at the thought of, I dunno, Bill Cosby or whatever and yet we kinda excuse it in, I dunno, name your favourite lech, Keidis, Steven Tyler, Iggy Pop.  

The way I see it is its kinda none of my business.  I don't know these people, I don't have a relationship with these people, I don't know about the veracity of any of the claims, I'm just a simple fan of music and if Ig' or Keidis or whoever is a bad guy then thats his funeral.  In fact, the awful truth is that some of the best music is made with people who are kinda fucked up and dysfunctional and you don't get to pick and choose when it comes to dysfunctional, there's a dark side to that shit, what was the cool antics of Keith Moon to someone like me was the sad descent of a young boy into soulness and profound mental illness to others.  When you dig crazy people you've got to kind of bear in mind that there might be types of crazy to them that don't might not sit well with you.

There's this strange notion that people carry where like...if someone does something good then they are kinda characterised by that and it means they are essentially good which is a false proposition, a creative genius can also be a pedophile, a committed charity worker who feeds and houses the poor can also be a murderer.

But as I say, I'm a fan of art, not people, not any people or person, not really, not in the way a lot of people consider being a fan, where you just have no criticism of them whatsoever, in fact I think you do any person a disservice by deifying them or putting them on a pedestal to where you are blind to their flaws because it is those very same flaws that inform who they are so you kinda end up selling your own understanding short.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose there might be many different types of cases? I think about Axl having faced the courts and Polanski having not. I wonder if we collectively know how to separate the art from the artist, because there is such an immediate connection between loving a work and being impressed by its creator? If we do separate the art from the artists based on a crime or belief, I assume that artists wouldnt receive standing ovations, the way Polanski did not long ago at whatever ceremony/gala. Are those who applauded Polanski genuinely supportive of an fugitive child predator, or would some evoke the 'separation' angle? Is 'seperation' a dangerous but useful concept that is sometimes weaponized and mis-used. No idea, just thinking out loud, lol.

I guess for me, if an artists work spoke to, and came to represent some moral statement or something that resonated widely, but then it turns out the artist really did not represent that pov then I think it would be really deflating. The piece could take on a new and more complex thing that some might still enjoy, but the mass consciousness that its supporters imbued it with might be lost.

Edited by soon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I do not think Michael Jackson is guilty. I honestly don't have the energy to argue it, but I just don't believe for a second that he's guilty.

Having said that, if I thought he was guilty of the things he's being accused of, I would never listen to his art ever again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, janrichmond said:

Very tricky subject, but i think i can separate the art from the artist most of the time. I guess i'm kind of on the fence about this because I can't think of who I like that has accusations against them...well apart from Axl...and i still listen to him. I never liked Lost Prophets, Gary Glitter or Rolf Harris. 

Sid Vicious?  Nazi regalia, might’ve murdered his bird, prone to bouts of violence against people who ain’t done nothin’ to him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Len Cnut said:

Sid Vicious?  Nazi regalia, might’ve murdered his bird, prone to bouts of violence against people who ain’t done nothin’ to him?

Yeah, still listen :)

That vid above is pretty disturbing. 

Like i said i think I can separate the art from the artist...so far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, janrichmond said:

Very tricky subject, but i think i can separate the art from the artist most of the time. I guess i'm kind of on the fence about this because I can't think of who I like that has accusations against them...well apart from Axl...and i still listen to him. I never liked Lost Prophets, Gary Glitter or Rolf Harris. 

I went to see Rolf live twice! :lol: 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I can depending on the subject. There are probably artists I like who are racists, but as long as they're not writing about that, I don't care what idiotic beliefs they have. Same with MJ, had he written a song about what he is accused of and if he was indeed guilty of that, I couldn't enjoy that specific song, but I wouldn't change the station when Thriller comes on. I can enjoy some of Gauguin's work even though he married a 13 year old girl when he was in his 40's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the question has to be, just how talented do you have to be to get away with fucking kids? 

I'm guessing that the answer is something like "David Bowie" :lol: 

Edited by Dazey
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

The question with these things is where do you draw the line?  I mean there's people out there who stop listening to a band cuz they refused em an autograph.  And then on the far end of the spectrum its like, rape, murder, sexual assault.  But even some murder is OK.  Leadbelly was a murderer but its OK, it adds to his mystique.  But if you're Phil Spector its evil.  And it don't stop at artists too, people hero worship someone like say Mike Tyson...and he used to rob grannies when he was 13.  He'd rob anything that walked.  If Anthony Keidis is sexually aggressive with a woman its kinda just looked at like 'wow, look how super sexed Anthony is!'  For example watch this from 2:25:

 

Now imagine a video with Harvey Weinstein or Rolf Harris doing that

 

I don’t know that I’d find that video any more disgusting regardless of who was blatantly assaulting that woman. Jesus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good discussion and one that I don't think has a clear cut answer.  Whether it comes down to cognitive dissonance or compartmentalizing the art and the artist, I'm not sure it's necessarily a binary equation.  

It seems as though it's likely something that can only be determined on an individual basis. 

I think many consider the the severity of the crime/act committed by the artist against value of the art that artist produces.  If it was determined that Shakespeare had a history of sexual assault, would his writings be considered any less brilliant? 

Another consideration is the certainty by which we can know the guilt of the accused artist.  In some cases, like Bill Cosby and Mel Gibson, it seems pretty clear cut that they are guilty of charges brought by their victims.  In other instances, it's more difficult to know with any great legal certainty, so each person has to determine for themselves.  Even in instances where we do know for certain, I think it's still possible to find value in the art.  Louis CK has admitted to the charges levelled against him, but that still doesn't mean I don't find his material funny (his old stuff; the new stuff is a sad attempt to re-brand himself as some sort of alt-right comic).  Would I go to his show now?  Probably not.  Then again, I never saw him before his #metoo moment.  But laughter is kind of an involuntary response; a funny joke is a funny joke regardless of who tells it (with some exceptions).  

With someone like Axl, for me it comes down to the fact that we can't know for sure.  The two times I met him he was very kind.  Yes, people who do terrible things can be friendly at other times.  But my personal experiences with him (even ever so limited) revealed a fun, jovial and social person and I can't say with certainty that he is guilty of what Erin and Stephanie accuse him of.  Even if the charges were true, do I give up the music that has meant more to me and my life than from any other artist because of something that happened 25 to 30 years ago?  Also, if true, do we know that Axl hasn't become a different person in the decades since?  Do we forsaken those people to a lifetime of shame because something they did decades ago?  Maybe, but maybe not.  Depends on the person and the situation.  

Spousal/partner abuse is a tricky one for me as I've been in situations where an ex repeatedly attempted to provoke me to hit her (I did not) and also when a friend's girlfriend falsely accused my friend of abuse.  In the case of my friend, I caught his then girlfriend yelling from the next room - screaming that he was abusing her.  I ran into the room only to find her lying on the ground banging her hands and feet against the floor while my friend was in the washroom.  When she saw me in the doorway she stopped the charade and left the apartment.  Coincidentally she later had my friend charged for abuse because he stepped on her foot as he was attempting to leave the apartment with their eight month old daughter as she was in the midst of an alcoholic rage.  The charges were eventually dropped, but no after my friend spent $25k in legal fees.  

I do think that most women who suffer from abuse have no hand in it.  But I also know from personal experience that there are situations where both parties had a hand in the violence.  A men should never hit a woman, but a woman shouldn't engage in violent escalation either.  So with Axl, it's difficult to know one way or another what actually happened.  And if Erin is attending a GNR concert, perhaps regardless of what happened many years ago, we should focus on the music and concerts more than the potential personal and moral failings from decades ago.  

In the case of Michael Jackson, it's a difficult calculation.  On the one hand, sexual assault of a minor is such a heinous act that I think there needs to be some corroborating evidence to conclude guilt.  On the other, we shouldn't necessarily doubt those who come forward and give their accounts of sexual assault at the hands of MJ.  Sometimes we're just in a place where we can't know for sure.  Some consider the timing of the events versus the creation of the art.  Do we throw the albums Thriller and Bad in the ash heap if these assaults came afterward?  The soundtrack to my childhood is heavy with songs from those two albums.  Am I to feel guilty and no longer derive joy from those songs because the person largely responsible for their creation went on to be a monster?  Am I being unprincipled by even considering all of these factors and doing a disservice to those reported victims of Jackson?  I just don't know.  Maybe it's just my cognitive dissonance kicking in; that it's just easier for me to compartmentalize the art and the artist and be okay with that.  Again, I don't know.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

 

Now imagine a video with Harvey Weinstein or Rolf Harris doing that.  The distinction is unclear and the principles that govern peoples morality are skewed ergo, aren't we kind of similar to the bad guys in some far detached degrees of separation way?  We who throw up in our mouth at the thought of, I dunno, Bill Cosby or whatever and yet we kinda excuse it in, I dunno, name your favourite lech, Keidis, Steven Tyler, Iggy Pop.  

 

That's really difficult to watch.  

The comments section of this video is interesting.  We can definitely see a split when it comes to the nature of the comments.  Prior to the #metoo movement comments were fairly celebratory of both the performance and the bands actions.  But since the last year or so almost every comment is one of condemnation for the band's behaviour.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

What do you mean Louis CK is attempting to rebrand himself as an alt-right comic? I don't see that at all. Like zero basis for that claim.

Honestly, what did Louis CK actually do? His behaviour was inappropriate and perverted, sure, even he admits that. But the guy's already been punished. He's lost millions. His life has been destroyed/tarnished severely and shouldn't be allowed to move on...because, why? He jerked off during a phone conversation with a women who didn't hang up? He asked permission to jerk off in front of two of his colleagues in a hotel room and they gave consent and watched? 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/louis-cks-leaked-comedy-set-panders-to-the-alt-right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

What do you mean Louis CK is attempting to rebrand himself as an alt-right comic? I don't see that at all. Like zero basis for that claim.

Honestly, what did Louis CK actually do? His behaviour was inappropriate and perverted, sure, even he admits that. But the guy's already been punished. He's lost millions. His life has been destroyed/tarnished severely and shouldn't be allowed to move on...because, why? He jerked off during a phone conversation with a women who didn't hang up? He asked permission to jerk off in front of two of his colleagues in a hotel room and they gave consent and watched? 

...and then he used his influence to derail their careers and repeatedly defamed them as liars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gracii Guns said:

Since there are fresh accusations of Michael Jackson's predatory behaviour, now is as good a time as any to have a proper discussion on if art can be separated from the artist. 

Bearing in mind Erin Everley's claims against Axl of domestic abuse, and we contribute to a forum in his support. 

It seems the question is to weigh up the quality of the art against the criminality of the artist and come to a conclusion. 

As a matter of principle, as a professional creative, I don't like the concept of someone's work being forgotten. It should stand on its own merit. However I did stop listening to Lostprophets and can't say I miss them. 

In my opinion the art stands for itself. So it is unproblematic to appreciate any piece of art regardless of who made it. If you start to let your appreciation of the art be influenced by your opinions on the artist, then you are muddling things up and will inconceivable find yourself having to resolve cognitive dissonance. Much better to keep these things separated. 

Tangentially, I am not a fan of people being fans of artists, or being fans of humans, in general. Humans tend to be flawed and fandom tends to neglect these flaws while only looking at the positives. That is a dishonest way of looking at the complexity of individual nature. Don't get me wrong, we should praise and appreciate and even idolize individual characteristics that are good (like Axl's singing or Michael Jackson's dancing), and aspire to them, but we shouldn't raise these characteristics and replace them with the individual. That is conflating things and making a cartoonish representation of the individual. Still, of of course, some individuals are just great in just about every way but we can rarely make a judgement call on whether that fits any given artist.

Similarly, if we are able to see humans for what we are, a bundle of good and bad, then we can consider art just a component of an artists personality and hence be fans of the art but not necessarily be fans of the artist.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Tangentially, I am not a fan of people being fans of artists, or being fans of humans, in general. Humans tend to be flawed and fandom tends to neglect these flaws while only looking at the positives. That is a dishonest way of looking at the complexity of individual nature. Don't get me wrong, we should praise and appreciate and even idolize individual characteristics that are good (like Axl's singing or Michael Jackson's dancing), and aspire to them, but we shouldn't raise these characteristics and replace them with the individual. That is conflating things and making a cartoonish representation of the individual. Still, of of course, some individuals are just great in just about every way but we can rarely make a judgement call on whether that fits any given artist.

This. And it's not black and white really. It's very complex. There's this interesting thing that when someone commits a serious crime (sexual assault, violence, murder, whatever) we tend to reject them completely in every way. We look at them as pure evil. Which isn't strange in itself. If someone would hurt my little girl I'd probably be all for reinstating every medival torture method known to man and inflicting all of them on the perpetrator personally. But objectively this person might still have done a great amount of good as well. Be it artist writing a meaningful song about civil rights or taking up a good cause to help disadvantaged children or whatever. Objectively, a good thing shouldn't turn bad when the person who did it does a seperate bad thing. 

  • GNFNR 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Angelica said:

 

I don’t know that I’d find that video any more disgusting regardless of who was blatantly assaulting that woman. Jesus.

I just meant that like...this shit is out there, readily available...and its not like its some obscure band so it maybe got overlooked, if anyone cared to pile in and make a point of it the last year or so has been a bang on good time to do it.  But no one has really.  Cuz no one cares cuz its a cool band. 

And y'know, us the audience kinda have a role to play here.  We lap up things like sleaze and all that shit, lest any one of us get to far on our high horse we're on a forum for a band who have something of a fascination with the link between sex and violence.  I don't mean to sound like fuckin' Tipper Gore or calling for something or anything to be banned but like...y'know, we're all kinda responsible for the culture we live in, a Chilli Pepper or an Axl does not create a culture by themselves.

When you celebrate junkies and misfits and deviants and street culture then you're celebrating something that has some very fucked up aspects to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

brilliant art, is like god speaking to us. in my opinion, the art is always there, and the artist is a medium to put it on paper.

A musician "discovers" great melodies, he doesn't really "create" them. Melodies are sound waves, certain sound waves induce a pleasant feeling in your brain. There is not a single aspect of music that wasn't always "there", before the artist "discovered" it. Sooner or later, great melodies will be found, but "who" discovers them is only of secondary importance

when art is done well, it leads it's own life and doesn't need a back story to be beautiful

81BHD1fskbL._SX355_.jpg

5461fb19-ec33-4b2d-98be-b09f554e1b60.jpg

763?appId=2dc96dd3f167e919913d808324cbfe

I could stare at these all day and not have a single passing thought on who painted them. In some of these cases, we know almost nothing about the personal lives of the painter. 

to me, art stands totally apart from the artist.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...