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.

@Aurorabored you said exactly what I wanted to say!

No. There are plenty of good songs and films made by people who aren't child rapists so I'll listen to those instead.

Why are you so obsessed with defending him?

I think the artist's person is expressed and communicated through their art, so no.

I struggle. I'm a big fan of fine art and I find Gauguin, challenging. He dumped his wife, and ran off to Tahiti thinking he'd find paradise there (not quite), then he started having sex with really young Tahitian girls. According to many accounts, he was an absolutely horrid man. Very self-absorbed. I know to live in a subculture is to create something challenging and new, but humans around the artist suffer as a result. Gauguin's art is brilliant, but the stories behind his Tahitian paintings leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

Yes @DaisyCornflowerBlue but the salient difference here is that unlike Chris Brown Gaugin isn’t alive now and still making money despite his abusive behaviour.

Some of it, I think, goes towards a western taboo about grades of heinousness (?) of criminality. We all want to be zero tolerance of domestic abuse, child abuse etc. But when you find out the aggressor was deeply repentant, it only happened once, the wife used to dish it out too, they had a 65 year long marriage in the end….suddenly not so much. Or that actually the girl was 17yo, easily passed for 22, he was only 30 at the time and she lied about her age when they met in a club….it could happen to anyone, no?

This isn’t to attack people “excusing” the crime or the criminal. It’s just a reflection of the reality of the situation, which is that every case is different. Nobody can get past the Lost Prophets case (at least not openly). Too awful. Michael Jackson? Well…he was never convicted…we don’t know for sure….and his music was iconic, really.

I don’t think there’s a rule for this. Whatever we each decide to do reflects, I believe, what we think about the crimes in question, sometimes crudely and cruelly weighed against the value of the art in question.

Given what I know about R Kelly, hearing his music now makes me feel a bit ill tbh. They were good songs but I don't want to hear them, or support him (even if in my own head and no one knows I'm listening to his music)

Also Bill Cosby ... he has ruined The Cosby Show for me. As much as I think I would almost like to for selfish reasons, I don't think I can. I find the active abuse like R Kelly child rapist, Bill Cosby rapist hard to ignore

It's possible to understand that a particular song, book, painting etc demonstrates some talent or an interesting creative viewpoint if it is viewed on its own merits. You don't need to have the same moral standpoint as the person who created it.

I an understand not wanting to purchase an item that supports someone financially but its fine to enjoy some art from an objective point of view no matter who created it.

And that goes for some of the worst offenders. Eg if you heard a lostprophets song and enjoyed it, without knowing that the singer was the worst kind of pedophile, that's OK. You don't have to hate the song after you find out. I was in an airbnb last year and admired a picture on the wall. When I looked closely I could see it was painted by Rolf Harris. It was still a good picture.

Yes I have been to Israel and witnessed what happens myself. Fathers scooped up and checked for their papers whilst enjoying picnics with their families. Reminded me of a war film actually.

I do agree with this.

I am going to the Chris brown concert because I absolutely love his music, I'm going with my best friends as we have so many memories to which his music was a big part of.

For me I can separate his music from him. But it's based on my own morals, if it were animal or child abuse I wouldn't be going. Personal choice and being honest 🤷🏼‍♀️ .

@TheSnugglyDuckling I replied to you. Not sure why.

I don’t listen to Michael Jackson anymore since watching the Netflix documentary. His housekeeper talked about what she witnessed and I can’t ever forget hearing it now. He was my absolute idol. I feel like music, like someone said, there are other songs to listen to.

I wonder if it comes down to what is more famous... the art or the artist.

Two Little Boys has been mentioned for example... a song that predates RH by quite a long way, but instantly associated with him.

Efforts to "cancel" Harry Potter have been unsuccessful because when it comes to it... the Wizarding World is more famous than its creator, whatever side of that debate you are on.

Most people wouldn't recognise a Carravaggio if they saw one let alone tell you about its creator.

Roald Dahl, Blyton etc... the stories are good. They were off their time. So maybe some updating is needed (the extent is debatable)

I tend to write them off as don't want 'the human' side to profit from me. I feel this way about Jeremy Clarkson right now. I know his tv programmes are good but won't watch them out of principal as he's not a good person and I don't want to fund him in any way, shape or form.

There are so many artists with shady pasts around underage girls. Prince, Bowie, Robert Plant.

@NashvilleQueen ah of course I’d forgotten about Noel Clarke and was trying to think who in more recent Doctor Who might have been up to something dodgy!

It depends on what they did. I think normal people are help accountable for sex crimes and other serious crimes, so why should famous people get a free pass. I’d imagine victims of R Kelly must be pretty traumatised to hage constant reminders of him shoved in their face by his songs being played on the radio, so is it really fair to them. By all means listen to them on the privacy of your own home, but should an artist who used their status at the time of recording these songs continue to profit from the royalties of these songs being played? Morally it pretty clear they shouldn’t, but they’re famous, so for sone reason people feel we should separate the artist from the monster and give them a free pass and fuck the victims suffering and trauma.

So many typos 🤦🏽‍♀️ Sorry! Hopefully you get the gist.

If the offending 'artist' has been dead for many decades or centuries then it's fine to appreciate their art. They are no longer benefitting from anyone's interest and patronage and we can gain pleasure and insight from their genius.
Those still alive or with living victims, however, well that's a different story. We have to show our disapproval and disgust; we have to show that that behaviour is unacceptable.

I'm not sure why JK Rowling has been mentioned here... Can anyone remind me of her crime? And as for Savile... What art did he ever produce?

I'm not sure you can compare the unsavoury opinions of Roald Dahl with prolific sexual abuse, paedophilia and violence towards women to be honest.

This 👆🏻

Agree with this, all heinous behaviour is not equally as heinous (imo). I don't know about all of the people mentioned on this thread, but R Kelly is particularly disgusting and extremely disturbing. I think with anyone I would probably not feel right once I had learned about them, then decide how much I like the 'art' and assess based on their 'crime' if I would continue to appreciate it or walk away. I also think there is a difference between seeing a dead artists painting in a gallery vs. actively funding someone who is alive and profiting today. They're not really different and I would like to think I was morally superior, but I'm not.

Yes you bloody can! It could be argued that it's worse.

The repeated perpetuation of negativity against a whole huge group of people can lead to the most horrific outcome, as has been incontrovertibly shown throughout history.

When this perpetuation is done by high profile/influential/ highly regarded people the effect is multiplied.

Wish people would stop defending and minimising the horror of antisemitism on this thread. And generally.