Is there an artist so horrible that no matter how hard you try that you cannot separate their art from them?
Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?
After hearing from Maria Schneider, and confirmed by Bertolucci, how he and Brando treated her filming the rape scenes in Last Tango my Brando crush instantly withered on the vine. She was only 19.
Not as if I'm a fan, but Eric Gill is/was a prolific, respected and internationally renowned artist. You'll his work across the UK, perhaps most notably on the BBC's broadcasting house.
Also designed the Gill Sans typeface, which I think everyone's heard of or even used. Used all across the world on signage or stores.
Here's why I have a hard time taking his works at face value:
Although the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography describes Gill as "the greatest artist-craftsman of the twentieth century: a letter-cutter and type designer of genius", he is also a figure of considerable controversy following the revelations of his sexual abuse of two of his daughters and of his pet dog.
Now, there are some examples where I won’t/can’t actively seek out their work, and would never contribute to them by buying anything at all, ever.
Cosby falls into that category, just as an example.
But, I have a complete separation as far as the work itself being valid/good despite the origins. Using Cosby as the example again, if I’m somewhere and one of his performances is on, I’m not going to care enough to change a channel or leave, or even say anything.
That’s pretty much anyone and everyone. I just don’t have that thing where a given item, piece of work, whatever, is “tainted” just because the person that made it is a piece of shit. I don’t form an association like that. It’s that I choose to not seek out some things as a matter of principle.
But, as a general rule, if they’re dead, I don’t care at all. And, if the person in question is only one person involved in a group effort, that group effort is fine by me. Like, if the guitarist of a band is a piece of shit, but everyone else is not, why would their work be a bad thing?
Now, this isn’t to say that I ignore any bad acts when interacting with a given work. Take van Gogh as an example. His excesses and disturbing behaviors are part of his work to an extent. It’s a thing where knowing the person’s flaws informs the interaction with the work. Kinda like “gee, I wonder how much of this work stems from the same root as the bad acts did?”
But, I can enjoy the work of people I personally despise with no issues. I just don’t have whatever it is that other people have that makes a thing tainted based on the creator.
Part of that is knowing how shitty humans in general are, and how hard it is to find any artist that didn’t/doesn’t have massive flaws. In music and painting in particular, you run into a shit ton of artists that were abysmal people. If I did have that whatever it is that causes a connection between the art and the artist’s flaws, I wouldn’t be able to listen to much music at all.
I’d almost say it’s the opposite… U2 is a decent band, but nothing too special. Bono has a strong reputation as a philanthropist doing good for the worlds charities.
U2 sucks. I said it. Singer of my band in HS tried so hard to turn me… at least 3 mix tapes and I def found some less popular songs I liked. But I’m just not a fan. I change the station after a dramatic sigh when they come on. They don’t rock. I like that Batman twist me bang me something me song. Desire is fun. Sunday Bloody Sunday is emotionally tied to historical events, can’t sleep on it. Mysterious Ways is amazing and brings back positive feelings from those days (was it in a mixtape infomercial?). But besides the several songs I like, they suck… Shit… did I just talk myself out of hating them? Was I just an angsty little shit and South Park nailed the coffin?
I like both Bono and Miley. I actually like both music and their personalities at least the projected personalities. I don’t feel like they are trying to hide anything and they seem to want the world good
Eh, I used to think like that, there was a time when it was popular to hate on U2. But really there are a lot of legitimate assholes out there who are actively making the world a worse place. His philanthropy is aggressive and attention seeking but the receipts are there and I’d much rather have someone channel all this energy and platform into pro-human rights than anti which is becoming increasingly popular these days.
I like U2, but obviously people have different opinions. However, when some dude worth 3/4 billion (no idea what the rest of the members are worth) asks an audience full of people who just paid an absurd ticket price propping up his hundreds of millions to wave their cellphone lights in the air and tells them how rich they are and how they give more money to whatever causes it really is tone deaf. I’m all for supporting a good cause, but that’s just stupid.
I never found anything he did appealing enough to even try to separate the art from the artist. He was always a dipshit. He used to call comedians like eddie murphy and told them that their act would shine a really bad light on black people.
Not OP but, Alleged sexual assault, think the cases are still ongoing or he paid them to nda, didn’t follow it much. Man was always creepy so when the allegations came out I kinda thought “no surprise there” and didn’t pay much more attention
NGL If I were rich Id probably buy one of his paintings just to hang it in the least used guest barhroom.
Id never mention that it was a “Hitler” or why I had it. Id just like to have his failure be something my least favorite relatives have to stare at while they take a shit. My own personal fuck you to the cunt.
Reducing anything that anyone who venerates Hitler or Nazis to a joke is better than destroying it. Because its just a shitty painting, its not evil, it doesnt hold psychic power, its not a banner to rally behind. Its just a terrible mans terrible painting that is now something that hangs above Uncle Joe while he clogs the toilet with his mammoth fast food dumps.
Foo Fighters used to be real down with the whole AIDS denialism, even financially supporting it.
I know David Grohl is an internet sweetheart, but every time I see anything Foo related, I just immediately wonder how many people died pointless and preventable deaths because they believed the denialism Foo Fighters pushed.
To be fair, it wasn’t Dave’s idea or something he supported. It was bassist Nate Mendel’s message that they were, admittedly, amplifying. Even the info on their website had a disclaimer that listed it as “being displayed at the request of Nate Mendel”.
I think they all regret being involved in amplifying that message too, including Nate. In the 20 years since they initially broke support with the people involved, they’ve played several shows in support of HIV/AIDS awareness groups, fundraised for Elton John’s AIDS Foundation, and every tour they do now has some kind of fundraising or auctions to support AIDS education or LGBTQIA+ rights.
It feels like they know now, in hindsight of course, that it was harmful and have at least tried to do more good to make up for it. Mendel was even quoted saying that the only reason he did it was because he thought he was helping people, not hurting them.
No one is hand waving anything away. Nate is a member of the band. The message on the website was clear that it was his message.
You make it seem like people can’t change their views based on new information. It’s not like they could go back in time and not do those things after the fact. They’ve done far more in support of AIDS education. It’s not fair to vilify them for something they did for a few years while ignoring everything they’ve done since for more than 20 years.
You make it seem like people can’t change their views based on new information.
I never said or implied that.
I said you cant handwave away or excuse Grohls involvement, and that a person who values their career has an incentive to say a certain thing after being called out for being a piece of shit.
If you’re gonna argue with people, you don’t get to just skip parts of their argument without it being noticed. Don’t be a chickenshit. The point theyre making is obvious and valid
Except you did. You’re literally on a discussion where you posted Dave Grohl because of something he was a part of for maybe 2 or 3 years that wasn’t even his idea to begin with while ignoring everything he’s done for 20+ years since.
Foo Fighters used to be real down with the whole AIDS denialism, even financially supporting it.
See that?
where I said used to? in past tense? as in not current?
And now you’re being dishonest about it.
My friend. I really wish you would step away from the computer and take a slow, deep breath. I’m sorry you cant handle your favorite person doing something bad, but its no reason for you to be this upset and go around inventing whole narratives as justification to project your anger at me.
Why does it always have to go to extremes immediately with you people? They are not “my favorite person”. None of them. You are not my friend. Not in the slightest. I’m not inventing a narrative. It is a fact that this was all done at Nate’s request and that the amount of time the support existed is dwarfed by the amount of time they’ve supported AIDS education after realizing it was a mistake. You’re the one basically saying it’s unforgivable, that people can’t change their minds, and are inventing a narrative. You’re just projecting. Stop. Just admit that you mischaracterized it and that what you said wasn’t accurate and be done with it.
Sure buddy. Whatever you need to believe to sleep at night. If I need to be the big bad evil man for that, then you make me whatever you need me to be.
Just calm down so you don’t put yourself in the ER for christmas.
I wouldn’t say the horribleness of a person is ever something that makes someone inseparable from their art. The art and the person just don’t necessitate each other. That said, I’m pretty sure someone might make a case for Nero, he burnt people on living candles and called it “art” and would lock people in concerts to hear him perform (if we assume the historical records are true). Relatedly, Saddam Hussein wrote a lot of fanfiction about defeating America with negative undertones that would make a Wattpad writer cringe.
This is actually a pretty big assumption for some of the more outlandish claims. When you dig in a bit, you find many of them are kind of repetitive tropes and generally come from Senatorial-class writers about emperors whose policies were less friendly to that class.
Not to say they couldn't have happened, and even in those days better to exaggerate than to invent from whole cloth, but it seems like an unusually large number of "bad" emperors had the same kinks as each other or the same traits that the literature had always considered "unmanly."
Add comment