I can enjoy it, but sometimes the awareness intrudes on complete enjoyment. See Tom Cruise. great movies, sometimes remember what a weirdo he is and it detracts. Esp. from love scenes.

Anonymous wrote:Used to love Woody Allen movies, then read the Vanity Fair article years ago and that definitely affected my reaction to his movies. What came off as funny neurotic started feeling creepy annoying neurotic.

Same here re: Woody Allen.

Also used to love the Mamas & the Papas' music (I'm old). Can't listen to them anymore after the revelations about John Phillips' incestual relationship with his young daughter and drug use with her.

Anonymous wrote:I was just thinking about this today. Michael Jackson came on the radio and it was a song I LOVE. But I feel bad enjoying his music knowing that he was a child molester. (and yes, I know he was never convicted, but I firmly believe he was a child predator)

I feel the same way about Michael Jackson.

Someone who seems to get a pass is John Lennon. The guy who wrote "Give Peace a Chance" and "All You Need is Love" had a huge ego and a violent temper. According to his son Sean, John yelled in his ear so loudly, he caused hearing damage. This was when John got frustrated while teachimg 4 y.o. Sean how to cut steak with a knife.

Learning this and other things really has put a damper on The Beatles for me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/21/sean-lennon-opens-up-abou_n_128028.html

Anonymous wrote:I went to school with the child of an author, and I know for a fact that the author was a terrible parent. Really terrible. Author's book is one of our book club choices, and I am, for some reason, hesitant to read it. I think I'll feel guilty if I enjoy it perhaps? I think it's different that just hearing that Oprah is really mean to waiters for example in that I have personal, real-life knowledge of this particular author. Thoughts?

That's crazy. Plain and simple. Are you a good friend? parent? spouse? Employee? We rarely excel in all areas at once.

I don't know, you can be a terrible person and very talented. I have issues with giving my money to terrible people, though. So I might read a terrible person's book from the library, but I wouldn't spend money on it. I might dance to a Justin Bieber song but I wouldn't buy it and put it on my ipod.

I won't watch Woody Allen's movies. I never liked the ones I saw anyway, and these days I think he's a terrible person so I don't want to support him in any way.

I always wonder if I met an actor, author or musician whose work I hated, if I could date that person, knowing I hated their work. If they were charming and cute and wonderful, could I overlook the fact that I thought all of their songs sucked or their movies were terrible?

The Terry Richardson thing surprised me not in the least. You could tell from his work that he's a perv. Talented at photography, but a terrible person.

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.

Why isn't he in jail yet for raping all these girls? He's threatened them?

Anonymous wrote:I was just thinking about this today. Michael Jackson came on the radio and it was a song I LOVE. But I feel bad enjoying his music knowing that he was a child molester. (and yes, I know he was never convicted, but I firmly believe he was a child predator)
\

Same here. I don't enjoy his music anymore. I also will never spend a penny or waste a second on a Woody Allen movie.

OP, can you tell your book group what you know about the author?

I like Chris Brown's music even though he is a douche.

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.

It's a complicated question. Part of the answer, for me, is whether the artist is dead or alive. If they're alive, then consuming their work (for lack of a better phrase) seems like tacit support or approval or even explicit support if the artist benefits financially. I would like to see someone who hurts others suffer for their sins.

If the artist is dead, then I'm better able to decide based on the merit of the art itself.

Of course, it also depends on the specific case-- what the artist did and any circumstances that would compel compassion.

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."

With an artistic temperament often comes narcissism, delusions of grandeur, egotism, constant need for validation, etc. I believe there is good and bad in everyone, and unfortunately for those with creative genius, the "good" is often limited to their work, and the "bad" is what's leftover for their interpersonal relationships. (Ask me how I know.) Roald Dahl, for example, was a notorious womanizer, anti-semite, and perhaps abusive. His genius was specific to children's writing, and I can appreciate this product of his good qualities without it being tainted by the bad.

terry richardson. real slime. he takes pictures but does that make him count as an artist? most of his subjects are undeniably gorgeous, but i don't enjoy his work beyond the physical attractiveness of his subjects.

It depends the order in which I find out they are a great artist and a not-so-great person.

I heard of Roman Polanski raping a child before I had ever seen any of his work. That automatically makes his work unappealing to me. I have no interest in it.

But I grew up listening to Michael Jackson and being a fan. Finding out he was a child abuser (and not nice in other ways too), certainly puts a damper on things. When his songs come on the radio, I want to change channel. But his songs are so soothing to me, probably because they are so familiar. I usually leave the song on.