|
Post by penne on Jan 27, 2014 12:12:47 GMT -5
first of all read this article by The Onion (or like, half of it because it gets pretty repetitive): www.theonion.com/articles/boy-ive-really-put-you-in-a-tough-spot-havent-i,34949/ (I'm aware that it's a joke but it makes a good point) This is not a thread about Woody Allen specifically. This is a thread about the moral implications of enjoying the work of an artist you know has done terrible things/is a terrible human (and whether there are any). So you can think of other artists like Roman Polanski or, I don't know, Wagner, I'm sure there are others. The thing is, when watching Woody Allen movie for example, should we ignore all the things we know he has done (this is specially tricky when dealing with Woody Allen, because many of his movies are centered around his charismatic neurotic persona, as the article points out.) Should we keep in mind it's just good work by a bad person? Is it okay to find the characters he portrays likable, while knowing that he has molested a child and knowing that those characters are mostly based on himself? Where do we cross the line? Or do you think you can just separate the art from the artist and enjoy it individually and guilt-free? Aren't those two very strongly linked though? And by doing that wouldn't you be supporting the carreer of a horrible person? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by bandit on Jan 27, 2014 12:22:12 GMT -5
Chick-fil-A has great chicken, so I'm going to eat it. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by penne on Jan 27, 2014 12:31:58 GMT -5
it's just not the same when it comes to food and big companies. the first difference being that you can't point out one person responsible (or at least not without doing some research), and still then you can't say that that is the person that made your chicken taste great, because after all you know it's not the person who made it at all. by enjoying a chick-fil-a chicken you really aren't enjoying the work of the same people who are actively against lgbt+ rights. but that's a whole different discussion I guess.
|
|
|
Post by bandit on Jan 27, 2014 12:41:08 GMT -5
I don't see how it's so different. The owner of Chick-fil-A is a homophobic creep, right? But I can still enjoy my chicken, because the fact that the person responsible for the chicken happens to be bad is pure coincidence. In the same way, someone like Mel Gibson is also a homophobic creep, but I can still enjoy Braveheart because I'm raving about the action and not the man behind it.
|
|
|
Post by penne on Jan 27, 2014 12:51:52 GMT -5
yeah the Mel Gibson thing is more like what I meant. I guess I was just saying that while Mel Gibson made/directed/starred Braveheart, the owner of Chick-fil-a didn't make your chicken.
but I understand your point. so you don't think that by watching Braveheart or eating at Chick-fil-A you'd be indirectly supporting those people?
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 27, 2014 13:54:34 GMT -5
Well, you are supporting them professionally, yes, but you're not supporting the terrible things they did. If any of them made a movie/book/chicken(last one is a joke) about how gays are bad or that rape is not a serious crime, that'd be a different matter, of course.
I mean, for example, Hitler's paintings are decent. No matter how mad the man was otherwise. I have another crass example: I actually enjoy the few songs that Charles Manson has written and recorded before becoming one of the most insane psychos ever, even though I did discover it through his notoriety, which I do find most repulsive. Fun fact: The Beach Boys recorded a song written by Manson before his whole infamy (called "Never Learn Not To Love").
Not so fun not fact, but a different perspective: Consider how Polanski has suffered from the tragedy that befell him when Manson's followers did unspeakable things to his loved ones. It's sad, but it doesn't make his work better to me. I like his work because it's good/great on its own. Same way I don't think it's worse, or that you should boycott it, because of something really bad he did once.
On the other hand if his misdeed would have directly contributed to one of his works (say, like Terry Richardson's abuse of some of his photo models), that would definitely be supporting their misdeeds indirectly.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 15:33:41 GMT -5
Not so fun not fact, but a different perspective: Consider how Polanski has suffered from the tragedy that befell him when Manson's followers did unspeakable things to his loved ones. It's sad, but it doesn't make his work better to me. I like his work because it's good/great on its own. Same way I don't think it's worse, or that you should boycott it, because of something really bad he did once. something really bad is the chick fil a guy being a homophobic creep. i disagree with bandit about these things being similar because one is awful views and the other is raping someone. in no way the same thing. calling it a bad thing he once did is a super understatement. and in his case when you enjoy his works you give profit and kudos to a guy who got away with rape. he confessed was found guilty and NEVER FACED CONSEQUENCES FOR HIS CRIMES. saying oh well i can still enjoy his movies is why he's still relevant today when instead everyone should have shunned this potato er but he's ~talented~ and makes good films but hey at least the 13 year old got an apology from him later. im sure this didnt wreck her life at all, she probably understands and enjoys his films because it doesnt effect the work, it was just something really bad he did once. woody allens case isnt like polanski but when theres stories like this and people continue to support the culprit, its like giving them a pass and it makes abuse seem trivial. this is rape culture where people are rich/talented/famous enough to get away with hurting other people and we excuse them because they are rich/talented/famous.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 15:45:35 GMT -5
for woody allen and polanski potato no im not supporting them. woody allen was never brought to trail for molesting his adopted daughter but fun fact the court did review mia farrows statements to see if this was just an angle she was using in their divorce/to undermine allen. so in that matter they couldnt judge allen's innocence or guilt but they did find that farrow had enough reason to make the claims she did. she could have gotten in trouble for accusing allen but allen never even faced the possibility of punishment for violence against an underage girl.
so yeah, we can't say he did it for sure, but um, he did it. the girl still sticks to her story, allen still sticks to his so its just a matter of who you believe and i believe the girl. but anyway what im trying to get at is not everything is like this. with other stuff, sure watch it, buy it, enjoy it whatever, but just be aware of what they do personally too. its your choice if you want to support people with bad beliefs or who have done things in the past but at least make the decision consciously.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 27, 2014 16:34:12 GMT -5
whether you call it an understatement or an overstatement, since I mentioned Hitler (and Manson - torture and murder is worse than rape) in another example, it doesn't matter - the point stays the same. As long as it's unrelated to his work, I'm fine with appreciating it when it's good, and they both ~are~ talented and make good movies. It doesn't mean I approve of everything they ever did and their whole personalities. It's what the viewer brings to a work of art that matters anyway.
But it's fine if you do want to boycott someone for something unrelated, it's totally understandable. It's not some kind of moral obligation though, and it does not support their misdeeds. I don't even understand how it would do that. Hell, there are bestselling authors who are hard criminals serving life sentences (e.g. Mark 'Chopper' Read). How does that support their treacherous behaviour? What about all the dead people who were horrible people but still made significant works of art (a recent example being Klaus Kinski)? it just doesn't make sense to label everything as bad that was touched by someone who may be a bit more f*cked up than the rest of us as if he were some sort of antichrist midas.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 16:55:11 GMT -5
i would be okay with liking the works of someone in jail because that says they are doing time for what they did. supporting polanski and allen and many others is saying its okay to let these people live without facing the consequences of their actions. im not labeling anyone's work bad but it shouldnt be so simple as to just separate a person's actions from their work. issues with abuse whether just violent or also sexual are different from other crimes because they so often get swept under the rug or are excuses are made. so all i really see is another jackass who got away with a crime that people dont care enough about, so should we support what they do after that? no, they should be held accountable before they get to go back into society and be praised for all their contributions to art.
also lets not quibble over whats worse but rape and torture arent different things.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 17:02:01 GMT -5
theres a million things famous/rich/white people can do that ordinary people cant do but this is different. we excuse people of sexual crimes on every level. only when we do it on a big level thats re-enforcing the belief that this type of crime doesnt matter as much. who cares about a girl having her body violated when theres this guy that makes great art. this shows us that its okay to absolve the rapist because they're a sports star, they have a bright future ahead of them, its saying theyre more important than a victim.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 17:10:54 GMT -5
ugh i just had this random memory, this is the last thing for now k
someone who was big in the entertainment industry but not as big as allen was getting some type of lifetime achievement award years ago and there was a noticeable number in the audience that would not stand up for him or clap because he named names during the communism scare. and as sucky as that is, id say there were compelling reasons to do that if you're scared for your own safety.
so this was years ago and lying or telling the truth to protect yourself is way more morally grey than rape or abuse. yet soooo many people stood up for allen's award and apparently it was hard to see if anyone in the audience had a problem with him and so many famous people want to work with him. and i guess this probably happened like 20 or 30 years ago but when chris brown won his award for the who the potato cares people thought he "suffered enough" and jayz didnt applaud him but everyone else is accepting of him again.
moral of the story: if you are not living your life like jay z or beyonce, you are probably living it wrong. if you are as feminist as j zay is, you will become super rich and famous true story.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 27, 2014 17:17:46 GMT -5
Okay, now you're including some other attributes here: famous, rich, and white. What you're saying doesn't seem to have anything to do with art at all, but with people possessing those three things you mentioned. This would include anyone from politicians to monarchs and talk show hosts, none of which create art.
I totally agree that privileged people get off scott-free more often, obviously, since they can afford the best lawyers, and it's an abomination. But that's not really what this thread is asking nor what it's about.
Say, someone like (off the top of my head) Van Gogh, who died poor in a p*sspot, would have been revealed a rapist. Does that lessen his paintings? It might give you uncomfortable things to think about, but the paintings would be still beautiful, and should be hung in galleries for everyone to admire.
EDIT: A better example would actually be a number of black blues musicians from the beginning of the 20th century, some of whom killed people (and actually sang about it!) or some beat up their wives, but they still made hauntingly compelling music that has a great influence even to this day. PS: sorry, I don't get your moral of your story
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 17:55:49 GMT -5
art doesnt trump the things a person does. their work can still be great but that work shouldnt be put over the suffering of a human. if someone is a rapist and they create beautiful paintings, that gives me nothing uncomfortable to think about. great for that person and their great art but i want to focus on the illegal thing they did and make sure they are accountable for it and that everyone knows this was an illegal thing and not okay. the people that have uncomfortable thinking to do are the ones who will give someone a pass because of reasons not relating to their crime.
also rape and murder are different. if theres evidence that someone is murdering people today, action is going to be taken. if theres evidence that someone has committed a sexual crime, they win a lifetime achievement award for their contributions to film.
|
|
|
Post by bandit on Jan 27, 2014 17:59:13 GMT -5
i disagree with bandit about these things being similar because one is awful views and the other is raping someone. in no way the same thing. I agree but I only compared Chick-fil-A Guy and Mel Gibson, who never raped anyone; they are both just awful people with awful views. Also, penne, I get that the CEO of Chick-fil-A doesn't make the chicken, but without him there wouldn't be a restaurant to begin with. I mostly agree with everything Terry has said on this. While a piece of art is usually made to represent its creator in some way, that doesn't mean the admirer's enjoyment of it has to be the same. After all, the creator doesn't matter at all in the appreciation of art, so there's no reason to alter your views on it after you've found out who it was created by. There is still debate about whether the Iliad was really written by Homer, but no matter what we can all agree that it's a brilliant and influential piece of literature. We would of course prefer to attribute it to The Great Homer instead of some as-of-yet-unknown lowlife murderer, but I'm sure it would still be read and revered either way.
|
|