If you know an artist is not a good person, can you still enjoy their work?

[Anonymous]

I'm kind of surprised by this thread. As a few others have pointed out, an artistic temperament is rarely accompanied by a conventionally nice personality...and I'll go out on a limb and say that the nicest people generally do not produce the best art.

I've known (and in some cases, dated) many artists and musicians; to a one, the greater artists are disorganized, selfish, self-centered, messy, and barely tolerable if you don't give them some leeway. The nice guys were usually the backup players.

Even if you don't agree, I don't understand not separating art and personality. Does every object you love--clothing, home, furnishings--have to be created by nice people in order for you to appreciate them?

If the art itself speaks to you, appreciate it for what it is.

[Anonymous]

OP again: These are some really good points, especially about the fine line between creativity at that level and being actually mentally disturbed. I will have to remember that. I think for me, personally, the issue is that when I was young, our family was involved in trying to help the children in this person's family, and I guess I still must feel a bit of a grudge against the artist for the disruption that caused in my family. But as an adult I can try and see that maybe it could have been mentally impossible for this person to raise functional children. Of course that brings in the topic of how much control we have over our own minds; are there some people who are mentally unable to make good choices or are there just degrees of selfishness? Can't answer that one, but I am going to try and read the book objectively. I don't think I'll share my information with anyone in the group since I know I wouldn't want anything to interfere with my enjoyment of a good book. Thanks everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rapist "photographer" Terry Richardson. Makes my stomach turn. All those young children.

I thought this was who the OP was going to refer to. I have read various accounts of models who have posed for him and the things that went on were so predatory and vile. Seems like finally some magazines/editors are starting to refuse to work with him.

I wonder who still hires him.

[Anonymous]

Well, people generally consider Jimmy Page to be a guitar god and yet he was a child rapist.

[Anonymous]

There are predatory movie directors, politicians (both stripes), musicians, jerk movie stars..... do you dis everything that involves a person you don't like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are predatory movie directors, politicians (both stripes), musicians, jerk movie stars..... do you dis everything that involves a person you don't like?

If the perp's victim is a child,
would *you* give him a free pass to continue his abuse of children?

[Anonymous]

This might be one of the most thoughtful conversations I've ever read on DCUM. Kudos to all!

[Anonymous]

I can enjoy their work, but I can not bring myself to pay for it (if they will get any of the $$).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with 8:11. DH and I talked about this a ton last year, because I really loved Ender's Game (written by a man who is virulently homophobic - not part of our family's values at all) and DH did not want to see the movie (because of the author's public statements about gay people). I used the examples of Michael Jackson, Woody Allen and Roman Polanski to point out his hypocrisy of being unable to enjoy a thing because of the actions of its creator.

He hasn't wavered in his love of MJ, but he also agrees that MJ was a profoundly disturbed individual. He finds him more to be pitied than hated, though. He still loves the work of Roman Polanski and has a whole schpiel about the psychological trauma that Polanski has suffered (child Holocaust survivor, wife and unborn child brutally murdered) and the degree to which trauma can beget trauma. I'm not sure I totally agree with his position, but I agree that the things Polanski has suffered certainly are terrible and I feel sad for him about them.

After the article written by Dylan Farrow, he decided that while he loved Woody Allen's work and it would always have a special place in his heart, he couldn't in good conscience continue to support it going forward. I was impressed, as previously his position had been more along the lines of "No one knows what happened and the parents' relationship was all fucked up and anyway, he makes amazing movies."

FYI: Orson Scott Card, author of Ender's Game, is homophobic because he is a Mormon. I grew up around many Mormons and they believe homosexuality is a sin. All of my Mormon friends from childhood do not support gay rights. (I always have been a supporter and it has been a source of controversy with them.)

[Anonymous]

We were neighbours with an award winning NG photographer. On paper, she is world travelling, has seen a lot and should be cool. IRL she was a hot mess.

Now I find I'm very wary/judgy about photographers, when I used to be respectful and interested. If I had to put it into words I'd sum it up with "she's a photographer because that way she can record, but not have to interact with other humans" because she sure as hell was bad at it.

So on paper, it's like 'wow, you are capturing the human spirit' and IRL it's like 'wow, you are a soulless creature who can ONLY interact at that observational level'.

No, I don't enjoy her work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can separate the two aspects of that person. I think Americans in particular have this whole, weird moral pedestal we put celebrities on and turn on them when it's clear they're human. A brain built with that level of creativity is not going to excel in all areas. They're usually a little nuts and act accordingly. We do the same thing with sports stars.

They're all humans with flaws. I don't understand why everyone needs to think they're saintly.

There is a massive difference! It's one thing if an artist is a jerk or a little nuts. It's a totally different ball game for the artist to be a child molester!

[Anonymous]

I have a hard time with Carl Andre (never convicted but 99% likely he pushed his wife, artist Ana Mendieta, out of a window). His work is very important, and yet I do not wish to glorify it.

Caravaggio had been accused of murder, too. I have an easier time seeing the value in his work. Maybe the nature of the murder was different (not his partner, not a woman), maybe it was in the more distant past, maybe he is just so freaking amazing as an artist that I overlook it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rapist "photographer" Terry Richardson. Makes my stomach turn. All those young children.

I thought this was who the OP was going to refer to. I have read various accounts of models who have posed for him and the things that went on were so predatory and vile. Seems like finally some magazines/editors are starting to refuse to work with him.

Just imagine all the lives he's damaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you know an artist is not a good person, can you still enjoy their work?

I can. Just like I can dislike the work of an artist who is a great person. The two are not intertwined for me.

ITA, totally irrelevant to me. The work is its own object and it is what it is, whoever the creator was and whatever they intended. I can see the concern with financially supporting a reprehensible person, but otherwise it is a non-issue for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you know an artist is not a good person, can you still enjoy their work?

I can. Just like I can dislike the work of an artist who is a great person. The two are not intertwined for me.

ITA, totally irrelevant to me. The work is its own object and it is what it is, whoever the creator was and whatever they intended. I can see the concern with financially supporting a reprehensible person, but otherwise it is a non-issue for me.

How narrow-minded and short-sighted of you.

Now what if his victim was *your* daughter or sister?