To think it is possible to separate the artist from the human being.

[SleepDreamThinkHuge]

Take R Kelly and Chris Brown. Both have done very bad crimes as human beings for different reasons. I believe we should be able to separate the artist from the human being. There is no denying that both these guys had talent. A lot of people on here know their songs/heard them before e.g. I believe I can Fly, Worlds Greatest, Forever, Freaky Friday etc..

It seems though if someone says comments like R Kelly and Chris Brown made good songs/had talent you get ridiculed. "How dare you say that they are bad people so their songs can never be good"

Just because a person did terrible things can we not separate their talent from how they are as human beings. I mean recently you probably heard on the news of some Roald Dahl books being changed even though he was anti semitic no one can deny his books were good they sold more than 250 million copies worldwide. And we all know them e.g. Matilda, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

He’s still doing it now!! Just look at poor Karrueche! He was 27 when he kicked he beat her up, kicked her in the stomach and threw her down the stairs!

He videoed himself following her saying he’ll never stop stalking her! She’s had a 5 year restraining order granted because he wouldn’t stop and he told her he wouldn’t!!

Why do so many people making excuses for this guy!!

I just looked it up, it says 2009? Amyway, to me that's adult, but I only liked one of his songs and I can't recall which one it was!

Reading with intrigue

Sorry to derail but the apologist for Chris Brown on this thread and ‘he was just 17’ has really annoyed me!

thebrag.com/chris-browns-timeline-of-violence-towards-women/amp/

Chris Brown on average assaults 1 women per year that we know about.
He’s also been accused of drugging and rape.

Yet this is conveniently skimmed over by everyone who instead try to deflect with ‘Rihanna was when he was a teenager!’ Ignoring every other incident since then. People don’t give CB grief because of Rihanna, it’s because of the continuous stream of violence against women since then.

I was an R Kelly fan. Had most of his albums and I knew all the words to the In The Closet saga. However I cannot listen to him now. Some of his songs refer to having sex with the underage girls (Seems Like You're Ready, Age Ain't Nothing...) and it makes me sick to hear them. I don't even think I'd date a man that still stood up for R Kelly. Nasty man

Chris Brown on the other hand has apologised and rectified his behaviour since Rhianna so I'm still a fan of his.

But why are you and others like you SO incredibly obsessed with this guy specifically. There are SO many others you should be bothered by. OK so a restraining order requested by an ex 6yrs ago, a couple that had a pretty tumultuous relationship by all accounts. Anyway, moving on as this isn't actually the point of the thread. CB has 3 young kids, if he was THAT dangerous to humans I reckon SS would have been stepping in by now...ffs

EnglishGirlsApproximately I used to have "Starting to hurt" as my "omg I have to get out of bed and go to work now" song!

I’m curious because I love painting and don’t like Hitler

Glad you cleared that up.

@JustAskingMate blimey I didn't know all that about Karreuche 🤦🏽‍♀️😢

Because R Kelly and Chris Brown are both alive and as far as I know unrepentant about their crimes. Both put their victims through a trial. It’s not difficult to understand why people don’t want to listen to the songs of an unrepentant sexual abuser of children and women and a serial domestic abuser, is it?

Looking this up now...doesn't look rectified to me...I had no idea (but I don't follow his music).

The minimising is appalling.

No that’s not how it works. Convicted abusers against women still are regularly allowed access to their kids.

It’s just not CB, it’s also R Kelly, Gary Glitter, Harvey Weinstein and an unfortunate amount more.

Or would you rather no one be held accountable? So long as they can visit their kids, they can abuse who they like as according to you, it mustn’t be that bad.

Horrible attitude but not surprising.

Rolf Harris was a part of the lives of a while generation of children, and many of their children.

He's obviously a twat but his 'Two Little Boys' etc. is part of our lives, as is the phrase "can you see what it is yet".

But that's a phrase I'll never use again, can't say I've listened to the song.

When was the last time you heard ‘Two little boys’ broadcast or performed anywhere? And similarly yes ‘can you guess what it is yet?’ was in common parlance but absolutely has not been in any circles I move in since his conviction. If either of things are still part of you life now maybe consider the company you keep.

*your

Well you're obviously younger than me then.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but there's a whole slew of people I'm their mid fifties who still get a chill through them when they hear 'Two Little Boys'.

The innate problem is that for every creative artist, no matter the medium, their personal life influences, informs and suffuses their work. That's what makes it meaningful to them and to you, their audience. If in their personal life they have values, morals or ethics that are questionable - and this changes over time - this is unavoidably mirrored in whatever they produce. We can choose to see it, or not.

As a child, I adored Ronald Dahl. His books took me to strange worlds. I can see, though, I didn't fully comprehend what I was reading, and as an adult I didn't encourage my own children to read Dahl but steered them elsewhere. Dahl's books are spiteful and full of nasty tropes - even 'Matilda' is dark, frightening, and about child abuse. So Roald Dahl is off my bookshelves (and has been for some years) as I made the choice to keep such a person away from them.

@JustAskingMate ah come on, that is not a reputable news source, half of them are just claims and sounds like people getting in his face and invading his privacy more than anything!

As for the rape, it is innocent until proven guilty, he hasn't been charged with anything, the amount of women that must try to sue knowing he is rich...

A five year restraining order is informative though.

My DCs loved Rolf Harris. My two DGCs both loved Rolf Harris.

The proposition was whether it's unreasonable to think it's possible to separate the artist from the human being.

.

Gill was utterly vile, but I still love his work. If his abusive history had remained undiscovered, we wouldn't be questioning the merit of his work, but the work is just the same as it always was. The stations of the cross in Westminster cathedral are still fantastic. Broadcasting House would be much diminished by the removal of his work. And Gill Sans is still a beautiful typeface.

I think it's different if an artist is still alive, and would still make money from performances or sales, then I would boycott their books/music/whatever, but Gill is long dead.

The 5 year restraining order was granted. Thats an actual fact.

Point is, people don’t give him grief because of Rihanna. It’s because he’s still demonstrating abusive behaviour. It wasn’t exactly a one off toxic teen relationship was it? A decade later and he’s still at it..

I don’t know if you can separate the art from the artist. It’s an interesting question. I think that in the case of Chris Brown there’s a lot of (internalised) misogyny in people’s willingness to ignore his behaviour.

If he had kicked the shit out of a cat or dog and there were images of his bloody, beaten pet still floating around online, would so many people be so quick to say he was only 17 and he’s changed? If he’d then been accused of violent abuse of animals on several further occasions would people be so willing to ignore or dismiss it or say well, it was 6 years ago?

If you can dismiss violence against women so easily you are, consciously or otherwise, holding the women at least partially accountable for the abuse they suffered.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Plus this man still appears to be abusive. And his music is crap anyway.