enjoying art from an artist who is less than savory

[dr lopez]

This is a contentious issue these days. Or rather I wish it was more contentious than it actually is. Currently if a respected artist (of whatever media) does a bad thing, sexual or otherwise, they are completely written off and ostracized from society. Persona non grata. More importantly people call for every thing they've ever done, made, and contributed to society to be written off, and categorically so. It's now bad music. unfunny comedy and terrible movies. creepy, disturbing writing.

 

this instant invalidation of art after any sort of societal transgression seems wrong. This does not mean that a celebrated artist should not suffer consequences for their infractions but their art is divorced from their person and actions. It should not be taboo to enjoy the creations of a person whom even you might find problematic.

 

I have now three times been lectured by record store clerks when I'm purchasing music by genius artist Robert Sylvester Kelly, but of course MJ remains the gold standard of pop music excellence. Burzum has made some interesting and compelling music but as we all know, Varg is a murderer and a pretty disgusting person. Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby have not been removed from the canon of incredibly great films, but now Louis CK has in fact never been funny or good at anything. The nuances and contradictions of these individual cases make this all or nothing attitude seem idiotic. 

 

What do you guys thinK? do you struggle with this?  

[KovalainenFanBoy]

R. Kelly and Michael Jackon aren't comparable at all

[zaphod]

i completely disagree with anyone who believes in erasing an artist's work because of transgressions made in life. i have struggled personally with some work (i made a thread like this about burzum once) but that is my own responsibility as an adult to deal with. the main argument i've heard from some people is that they do not want to give these artist's money to support them but are happy to steal their work. i wouldn't even go that far. i'll give them money because it's part of the exchange of taking in their art. i'm an adult, i can deal with it. i wish more people were.

[patternoverlap]

It seems to be a media hysteria thing.

 

Yes, what a lot (seriously a lot) of great artists in various media throughout history have done in their personal lives is reprehensible.

 

It almost seems to be random which ones get a large scale media destruction campaign leveled against them.

 

I'd say maybe there's some correlation to who is actually convicted of a crime but that doesn't seem to be it either.

[zaphod]

also to have issues with someone buying r kelly records but then sell rolling stones, david bowie, the beatles, zeppelin etc is just a very biased and kind of racist attitude i see in a lot of music listeners of a certain age, the types who dismiss rap as degenerate and misogynist but then listen to something like "under my thumb" like it's a given. these are all things to consider and talk about when taking in art but the banning of any art is not a reaction we should have in a free society.

[Milky]

I have had a lot of conversations with friends on the ethics of listening to artists who both have gross ideologies (Burzum included, lol) and those who flirt with dangerous or offensive imagery (Death In June, Throbbing Gristle). I believe you can separate the music from the artist. People have always expressed an interest in the more morbid aspects of life. I read somewhere that the most frequently found Neanderthal cave paintings were of giant vulva, penises and animals being slaughtered. If you want to dress like a Nazi to provoke, but you're not a racist person, are you causing the same kind of offense? Maybe going a bit off topic here - I'm aware the current climate demonises anyone who has been revealed to have been a historical shit. In the case of Weinstein etc I'm all for their lives and careers going down the toilet.

 

Even Joy Division are well known for taking their name from a concentration camp sex-slave ring and they're some of the most revered artists (and one of my favourite bands, personally.)

[KovalainenFanBoy]

I have now three times been lectured by record store clerks when I'm purchasing music by genius artist Robert Sylvester Kelly

Why would anyone lecture you for buying a product that they are offering? Did this really happen?

[Ragnar]

also to have issues with someone buying r kelly records but then sell rolling stones, david bowie, the beatles, zeppelin etc is just a very biased and kind of racist attitude i see in a lot of music listeners of a certain age, the types who dismiss rap as degenerate and misogynist but then listen to something like "under my thumb" like it's a given. these are all things to consider and talk about when taking in art but the banning of any art is not a reaction we should have in a free society.

 

this

 

you could take it really far... Mozart probably liked taking steaming logs on people's faecs.. horrible person

 

Edit: I said something about Warp Records maybe creating an illusion that they weren't ultra-capitalist, kind of being stealthy with multiple limited editions of random Aphex Twin stuff if u want to obtain all the trax, or knowingly releasing subpar stuff like the ktpas (this might've been Rephlex but whatever) behind the scenes probably both Warp and Rephlex were like some carnival barker shit

 

Edit: that wasn't really fair though, getting into general shittiness of people over major crimes n stuff

Edited May 22, 2018 by Ragnar

[Candiru]

I was just thinking about what bullshit it is that Louie’s career got sacked for some incredibly mild shenanigans. Several months later, I only feel more strongly about that.

 

Dave Chappelle: “you couldn’t walk away from Louie’s freckled dick? I walked away from 50 million dollars.”

[zaphod]

the problem with the louie thing is corporate liability. no company wants to work with him because if they do and he repeats his offense they're now on the line for a lawsuit. this is a separate issue from what lopez is talking about, i think. but louie is at an intersection since a lot of people are now trying to say "he was never funny" or "i have grown out of his comedy" which is so fucking disingenuous. 

[Candiru]

He stopped whipping it out well over a decade ago. F//X even did an investigation and found no one had any problems with him. I was never a fan of Aziz Ansari, but what happened to him is similarly stupid, but not career ending

Edited May 22, 2018 by Candiru

[eugene]

netflix and other media conglomerates dropping louis ck is plain, cold capitalism, but actual reviewers reducing scores for his film because of that scandal and using it as some sort of prism to review the film from while making up ridiculous and cheap psychological analyses on the fly ( ie, the film as some kind of pre-emptive, devious and implicit statement of remorse) is just disguising.

[dingformung]

Here are some of Hitler's paintings, I think they are mediocre:

 

[joshuatxuk]

^ pretty dull, he had decent taste but fuck him for censoring and destroying "degenerate art" - and all the other genocide, fascist, and war starting stuff too

 

He stopped whipping it out well over a decade ago. F//X even did an investigation and found no one had any problems with him. I was never a fan of Aziz Ansari, but what happened to him is similarly stupid, but not career ending

 

I'm hoping nuance and gray area is established again - what they did was weird (Louis CK) and inappopriate maybe (Aziz) but nothing close to the abuse of Weinstein and others. Same with Al Fraken - it's insane he's out of office and yet Roy Moore was almost elected.

Edited May 22, 2018 by joshuatx

[joshuatxuk]

this instant invalidation of art after any sort of societal transgression seems wrong. This does not mean that a celebrated artist should not suffer consequences for their infractions but their art is divorced from their person and actions. It should not be taboo to enjoy the creations of a person whom even you might find problematic.

 

I think it's going to wear off at some point. Something has to give, otherwise art and media is going to become very safe and very tame very quickly. A lot is caught up in hysteria but it goes hand in hand with a very valid sea change of social justice. Part of me says "let the hammer fall where it may" but at the same time folks are have credibility destroyed for very arbitrary or inconsistent reasons.

 

It's interesting to think about how things were 180 decades ago - moral panic from the right-wing via Tipper Gore and others. Now we have bands like Viet Cong having to change their name to Preoccupations in order to keep touring and making music. And for what, because someone was offended at a fucking historical reference. They should of changed their name to Charlie IMHO. I don't say that as an edgelord but as someone who appreciates art that is thought-provoking, challenging, confrontational. People seem to get offended without really knowing why they are offended. 

 

Anyway back to the issue of the artist themselves it really goes to the worth of the music. Does the music stand on it's own accord? The only music I can think of that's pretty much been deleted is NSBM and Nazi Oi/Punk stuff - discogs won't let folks sell it and I believe Spotify has deleted some.

 

The kicker is once music is out in the public in has a life of it's own. Bowie and the folks at Led Zeppelin did some shady stuff in the 70s but there's no way that will every remove them from public and critical acclaim. Compare R Kelly to say Gary Glitter, the latter has essentially lost all rep in the UK, the former has people finally coming around to rejecting him but it'll be shocking if "Remix 2 Ignition" is dropped from every DJ's catalog in clubs. 

 

I suppose the main thing to ask is if you are actually financially supporting the music and/or investing emotional interest in music that espouses values opposite of your own. Take Burzum for example, I listen to his older stuff but there's no way I'll get into this newer soundtracks to his wife's pseudo-historical racist nonsense.

Edited May 22, 2018 by joshuatx

[Ragnar]

Here are some of Hitler's paintings, I think they are mediocre:

 

 

 

I'm not sure if secret DARKSIDE exists to Hitler's art like some people joke about though. (use a filter like one of those Magic Eye books and the art becomes made of piles of corpses)

 

and then the theorizing that Hitler was probably average IQ, average everything, is kind of important to me because like probably more people are capable of becoming something that evil with the right amount of corruption and yes men etc. than people would like to think

 

all of Hitler's actions were to hide that he was secretly average/mediocre (and the one testicle thing)

Edited May 22, 2018 by Ragnar

[Silent Member]

Let the art speak for itself, human beings are fallible and fucked up.

[dingformung]

 

 

I'm not sure if secret DARKSIDE exists to Hitler's art like some people joke about though. (use a filter like one of those Magic Eye books and the art becomes made of piles of corpses)

 

and then the theorizing that Hitler was probably average IQ, average everything, is kind of important to me because like probably more people are capable of becoming something that evil with the right amount of corruption and yes men etc. than people would like to think

 

all of Hitler's actions were to hide that he was secretly average/mediocre (and the one testicle thing)

 

Hitler must have had at least one property that didn't make him average, be it his extreme narcissism. But on top of that narcissism it probably requires some basic, perhaps above average intelligence to get into the position he got. So saying Hitler was average on every level is misleading. But what else is narcissism other than compensation? I guess Hitler was a pretty lame dude. His taste and habits were the epitome of philistinism.

[Ragnar]

 

 

 

I'm not sure if secret DARKSIDE exists to Hitler's art like some people joke about though. (use a filter like one of those Magic Eye books and the art becomes made of piles of corpses)

 

and then the theorizing that Hitler was probably average IQ, average everything, is kind of important to me because like probably more people are capable of becoming something that evil with the right amount of corruption and yes men etc. than people would like to think

 

all of Hitler's actions were to hide that he was secretly average/mediocre (and the one testicle thing)

 

Hitler must have had at least one property that didn't make him average, be it his extreme narcissism. But on top of that narcissism it probably requires some basic, perhaps above average intelligence to get into the position he got. So saying Hitler was average on every level is misleading. But what else is narcissism other than compensation? I guess Hitler was a pretty lame dude. His taste and habits were the epitome of philistinism.

 

 

yeah didn't really think of average/above average narcissism as being a thing. But still probably average skillz in many things, could be dumb luck and circumstance for some things. Mein Kampf was actually ghostwritten by interns like BT music

[dingformung]

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure if secret DARKSIDE exists to Hitler's art like some people joke about though. (use a filter like one of those Magic Eye books and the art becomes made of piles of corpses)

 

and then the theorizing that Hitler was probably average IQ, average everything, is kind of important to me because like probably more people are capable of becoming something that evil with the right amount of corruption and yes men etc. than people would like to think

 

all of Hitler's actions were to hide that he was secretly average/mediocre (and the one testicle thing)

 

Hitler must have had at least one property that didn't make him average, be it his extreme narcissism. But on top of that narcissism it probably requires some basic, perhaps above average intelligence to get into the position he got. So saying Hitler was average on every level is misleading. But what else is narcissism other than compensation? I guess Hitler was a pretty lame dude. His taste and habits were the epitome of philistinism.

 

 

yeah didn't really think of average/above average narcissism as being a thing. But still probably average skillz in many things, could be dumb luck and circumstance for some things. Mein Kampf was actually ghostwritten by interns like BT music

 

I read the beginning of Mein Kampf but had to put it away not because it was so irritating and outrageous but simply because it was so fucking boring and cheesy, kinda like his paintings

[auxien]

Let the art speak for itself, human beings are fallible and fucked up.

The problem is that no art is created in a vacuum. Some art is more timeless: some art's beauty is always recognized despite the creator, the time, the story, etc., but some is much more tied to those things.

 

I think you can go that route, I don't disagree with your statement (or anything I remember seeing posted ITT today) but I don't think there's any easy or acceptable or perfect answer here. Separate the art from the artist if you'd like and that's fine, some may fault you for it but I don't think most will (yet)….but that's of course most of the issue here. You're often losing something (or everything) if you do so though, so that's a problem too. 

[hello spiral]

Jodorowski and Kinski are the ones that spring to mind

[dingformung]

Yes, Kinski is a very good example. He was a fucking sociopath, perhaps even sexually abused his daughter, but he was a brilliant actor and great entertainer. His choleric bursts were iconic

 

 

edit: Kinski didn't like the food in that video

Edited May 22, 2018 by darreichungsform

[dr lopez]

i completely disagree with anyone who believes in erasing an artist's work because of transgressions made in life. i have struggled personally with some work (i made a thread like this about burzum once) but that is my own responsibility as an adult to deal with.

 

yes i wrote this thread fast and on a bus so maybe i wasn't clear but i am firmly in this camp. I would say that only MJ and R Kelly have brought me some furrowed brows in mixed company. I've never personally struggled with their work being colored by their problematic personal lives but my fandom and evangelism for their genius has frustrated many people... which brings me to:

 

R. Kelly and Michael Jackon aren't comparable at all

 

lol in what way? in terms of transgressions or artistic talent? because i would argue that in both those areas the two are closer than you think. I also think that their behaviors stem from similar abuse they received as children. 

 

 

I have now three times been lectured by record store clerks when I'm purchasing music by genius artist Robert Sylvester Kelly

Why would anyone lecture you for buying a product that they are offering? Did this really happen?

 

 

and yes why would i lie about this. for what it's worth, and i take no pleasure in saying this, but all three times the clerk was female. here's how one went:

 

"hi there, do you have any r kelly?"

 

"uhh really? well you know he's a rapist.."

 

*i silently walk away and then later at home think of a bunch of really great comebacks later and complain about it on the internet*

[ignatius]

recently it was made apparent that david foster wallace stalked, abused a woman he was interested in and even followed home her 6 year old son from school talking to him about his mother or something like that.. all before he wrote infinite jest or something.. 

 

this was pretty hard for me to hear but after a while of thinking of it i remembered he was crazy full on OCD.  this doesn't excuse his behavior but puts it in a frame sort of.  i'm curious about where he was mentally when these htings happened and i find it hard to reconcile w/some of his writing since most of it is totally hyper self examining and hyper self conscious. .. also, kind, deep, beautiful etc etc.. 

 

but it's still all fucked fucked up in a way.  it'll make the next time i reread his work a little different.  have to believe the woman who told her story. she brought this stuff up in the past but was ignored or shuffled under the rug. 

 

these days we find out way sooner if someone is an asshole or a nazi or an abuser or 'proud boy' or homophobic etc... so it's easier to avoid this stuff... 

 

i'm not gonna go throw out my miles davis records.... we know a lot of legendary musicians and comedians and actors and writers had at times tempestuous abusive relationships and treated people poorly.  even jesus apparently killed a fig tree because it didn't bear fruit ;)