|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 27, 2014 21:13:52 GMT -5
Please don't repeat now that they should be still put in jail, because yes you're right but that's not the point.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 23:24:40 GMT -5
no you dont want that to be the point.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 23:27:06 GMT -5
theres probably a way to like the work of roman polanski and woody allen and others while still not excusing what they did but your and bandits reasons arent them
|
|
|
Post by bandit on Jan 28, 2014 0:14:39 GMT -5
I still don't see how justice and art match up. You said before that it's okay to like work that a prisoner has done because he or she is in jail being punished for his or her crime, but it's not okay to like Roman Polanski's work because he's done awful things and he's still a free dude. By that logic, you could say that I could only enjoy his movies from before 1977, and the rest are off limits because they were made at a point when he should have been in jail; or that if Polanski was put in jail it would suddenly be okay to like all his movies. Which I'm sure you can see is ridiculous.
But either way, that doesn't answer the question at hand, which addresses bad people in general (bad opinions, crime, just a big jerk, etc.) making good stuff in general. Whether or not their behavior was dealt with accordingly is, as Terry said, not the point.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 28, 2014 1:34:44 GMT -5
id say that its important to know that anything roman polanski did from the 80's on only exists because he's a potato ing coward who raped a little girl and ran away. pretty sure i already said that, but i do think its easier to handle a criminal who has actually been punished so yeah if polanski had let himself be sentenced and actually did his time i would still potato ing hate him but i probably wouldnt have even said anything in this thread.
i dont remember if i was talking about this here or elsewhere but im focusing on rape stuff because thats what i care about. if you make good stuff and you've abused children/woman/anyone, you can not kindly potato off. talking about bad people in general is well, too general for me and bad is subjective anyway. theres things that can be excused and things that cant. i do get what you and terry have been saying but when it comes to assholes like polanski i really dont care about the quality of his art.
and i dont see why its hard to accept that you are tacitly supporting what bad people stand for when you support them. people who to eat at chik fil a do give monetary support to a homophobic guy. it doesnt mean you are homophobic but you choose the taste and convenience of the food over choosing not to give money to someone with these awful opinions. im not even saying thats bad, just that its happening.
|
|
|
Post by BSam on Jan 28, 2014 1:41:14 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. I pretty much agree here i also agree that if people should be punished for crimes then they should be punished for crimes. art notwithstanding. like don't boycott the work, but have a functioning legal system that can deal with him for what he's done. ie i really like the tv shows Chris Langham has made and been in, but the child porn conviction makes him a gross person. I'm sad it ruined his career because he was creatively at a peak, but it's good he was prosecuted and punished for what he done. i disagree with bandit about chicken fila, you know where your money is going, that makes you gross in this instance.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 28, 2014 1:41:14 GMT -5
also penny posed a question, im taking to a specific place, pointing out how its not ~on topic~ isnt really an argument. its a facet of the question.
in terms of people defending woody allen, there's a lot of people who think something fishy went down and still watch his movies. and maybe part of that is because of the reasons you guys listed. but the part people are more vocal about is the same salsa people always say when someone gets abused/molested/raped but the culprit is someone ~important~. so you can have all your reasons, but to me it just sounds like another girl tossed aside because the accused is valued more than the victim.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 28, 2014 1:52:03 GMT -5
ie i really like the tv shows Chris Langham has made and been in, but the child porn conviction makes him a gross person. I'm sad it ruined his career because he was creatively at a peak, but it's good he was prosecuted and punished for what he done. i think part of this is my issue. like what you said is 100% cool, but thats not how a lot of people approach it. like when those two high school boys got sentenced to jail recently for raping the girl and cnn talked about what a tragedy it was and what a bright future those boys had before and how they must be so scared. like if they said all of that and then concluded it with, but they're the ones who threw their futures away because they raped a girl and deserve to punished for what theyve done, thats fine. but thats almost never included, j walter weatherman is never hiding anywhere waiting to say and thats why you dont sexually abuse people! or like the penn state thing where joe paterno covered up that abuse was happening and he died and people talked about how it was such a tragedy because he was such a good coach and he didnt deserve to go out like that completely ignoring that HE PROTECTED A CHILD MOLESTER and ten thousand percent deserved to be scrutinized for it even though he was a good coach.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 28, 2014 2:00:03 GMT -5
But either way, that doesn't answer the question at hand, which addresses bad people in general (bad opinions, crime, just a big jerk, etc.) making good stuff in general. so yeah my answer is that bad people who sexually abuse other people should be held responsible for their crimes but they often arent because of the way our world works and so since they face no justice from the law it would be nice if we didnt potato ing forgive these people so easily. is it possible for a bad person to create something good? yes. should we care? hell no, because if we didnt care we would send that message that whatever you did isnt so good that you should escape your justified punishment. since ive listed examples of this in sports, arts and law enforcement, id say this is a potato ing serious problem and people who support salsaty people who sexually abuse others do contribute to this all happening.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 28, 2014 2:00:16 GMT -5
i am not a lawyer and nothing i say should be taken as legal advice.
|
|
|
Post by BSam on Jan 28, 2014 2:36:05 GMT -5
ie i really like the tv shows Chris Langham has made and been in, but the child porn conviction makes him a gross person. I'm sad it ruined his career because he was creatively at a peak, but it's good he was prosecuted and punished for what he done. i think part of this is my issue. like what you said is 100% cool, but thats not how a lot of people approach it. like when those two high school boys got sentenced to jail recently for raping the girl and cnn talked about what a tragedy it was and what a bright future those boys had before and how they must be so scared. like if they said all of that and then concluded it with, but they're the ones who threw their futures away because they raped a girl and deserve to punished for what theyve done, thats fine. but thats almost never included, j walter weatherman is never hiding anywhere waiting to say and thats why you dont sexually abuse people! or like the penn state thing where joe paterno covered up that abuse was happening and he died and people talked about how it was such a tragedy because he was such a good coach and he didnt deserve to go out like that completely ignoring that HE PROTECTED A CHILD MOLESTER and ten thousand percent deserved to be scrutinized for it even though he was a good coach. it is sad they threw their lives away, they had so much potential as sports people!!! yeah, but it was their own freaking fault, so like yeah it's sad but ~shrug~ also it's sadder for the girl(s?) involved. but this time like proper sad, no shrugs.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 28, 2014 3:10:05 GMT -5
eh, she was probably asking for it.
|
|
|
Post by Isadora Is a Door on Jan 28, 2014 3:15:09 GMT -5
I;m to tired to detect sarcasm. I thought terry had borken pandora's sanity for a second there.
Yeah but like i jsut think - 'oh, this person did INSERT BAD THING HERE. I won't listern/read/look/etc their music/writing/paintings/etc.'
This thread is insane, also, in how much has been said in like 5 hours. I want to comment on so much i would be here forever. I mostly agree with pandora, but also with terry.
|
|
|
Post by penne on Jan 28, 2014 9:59:09 GMT -5
I just feel like we can all agree on one thing:
people who have committed crimes should go to jail/pay for their actions, regardless of how rich or talented they are.
somehow this keeps showing up in your posts and it feels really pointless to keep arguing over something we agree on.
I think the only thing you seem to be disagreeing about is whether it is okay to enjoy the work of a criminal who wasn't punished for their actions.
(which is sort of what the thread is about, although not as specifically)
|
|
|
Post by BSam on Jan 28, 2014 10:58:13 GMT -5
i say yes
the art is a separate entity to the artist, and therefore i also think you can then still appreciate the artist as an art creator, but (i think someone mentioned in this thread) anyone who brings up the art in relation to the crimes as if it's any sort of defence is a gross person.
|
|