Are there artists/authors/actors/musicians etc whose private life behaviour/interviews sours your enjoyment of what they produce?

[Earlybird]

Know that title is awkwardly worded, but hopefully the meaning is clear....

I'll start and say (fairly or not):

Hugh Grant - public persona too miserable for him to be believable in comedic/romantic roles
Salman Rushdie - not interested after the hoopla around his fatwah
Pete Doherty - no desire to hear his music
George Michael - sordid escapades leave me cold
Marco Pierre White - no interest in his restaurants after tabloid dirty laundry

Interesting point fairyfly. Give us an example of a true artist.

Would Picasso qualify? He had some things in his private life that many would consider unpleasant/off-putting, but wasn't under the media glare.

I understand what you are saying Fairyfly but it does disappoint me when I find out someone who is sublimely talented has feet of clay. I want my heroes to be superhuman.

If none of these are true artists, who would you suggest?

"took against John Lennon when I realised how he'd treated his eldest son (and first wife, for that matter)"

I didn't need that - I'd already taken against him for writing that dirge "Imagine".

Was Michael Jackson innocent in the end or just 'not proven'?

lol uqdad! Though imo, 'Imagine' is frothy tune compared to the dirge-like 'Give Peace A Chance'!

Moving away from the sexual angle, what about - the true artist? - Ken Dodd and his, alleged, erstwhile dodgy financial dealings?

I mean half of the people who are regarded as talented are not, they have been made to seem like they are, by the media, with fantastic sound production etc. You also have to have a certain look, which... is not a true testament of talent as you never compete with the less "beautiful"

Adam and Joe are talented as they are naturally funny.

I thnik, but this is obviously a very personal point of view, talented people are people that singularly are very good at there art. Whatever that may be.

Of course "show" people are very good, which is a talent, but if you met them..... could they hold there ground.

As for fine artists, well its a matter of taste isn't it

ff - we found him - have a look at sexier title thread before tis pulled

Adam and Jo! I've had the 'Song Wars' jingle in my head all day.

oops, Joe, he's not a lady

frank bough

what the fuck is he on this thread for

he isnt sexy or talented

FAIRFLY LOOK AT MY SEXIER THREAD ON CHAT

Polly, i often cant decide who to have first... you know.. when they knock on my door, did you also know they studed with Louis theroux, and they were all mates, goodness that makes them even more attractive

runs off to prepare herself for the knock on the door that will never happen<

popo... will do

Joe first, save Ad for later. Not that I've thought about it.

It's fair to say that a great many artistic people are, frankly, arseholes. They often drink/drug too much and are major attention seekers and they can be incredibly selfish about their 'art' being more important than any poor sod who happens to live or work with them. So it is a kind of interesting question in that...
Do you assess how much arseholery an artist should be forgiven depending on how talented you think he/she is?
Or does it depend on exactly what Bad Things the artist has done (substance abuse, youthful cartheft, dumping partner for younger/fitter/richer/more compliant one as opposed to rape, murder, child abuse or racist pronouncements)?

Or does it depend on how famous the 'artist' is (I say this as someone who has spent a lot of time with people who are musicians/writers/photographers just beginning their careers or struggling unrecognised, and some of them are prize tortured arses...)

Zippi, I apologise for - the true artist - 'Frank Bough'. I'm not sure why his name sprang to mind except that it was part of a stream of consciousness that ran: Tom Cruise, Chris Langham, Frank Bough, Darren Day, Gary Glitter. You're right, not an artist among them.

I don't fancy Adam and Joe (?!) but they are funny.

You have raised the key points Madamez.

Personally, I don't think talent or fame give anyone a licence or compensate for bad behaviour, although that's not what it's about anyway. It wouldn't stop me forming negative opinions about them as people although it also wouldn't necessarily prevent me from appreciating their artistic 'output'. Don't know.

Another thing that's kind of interesting is the current cult of 'authenticity' where artists are pretty much required to be troubled and also to write only about stuff they have experienced. I think this is a bad thing and it's also no surprise whatsoever that the best-selling 'misery memoirs' are all faked. They would be the ones written by people with imaginations and writing ability, after all.
Now, I can see the purpose in writing your life story if bad stuff has happeneed to you, writing (and drawing/painting/singing) can be extremely therapeutic for people in distress. However, there is really no need for the art produced by the traumatized to be inflicted on anyone other than their therapists, because just having suffered is no guarantee of any artistic ability.

there are bona fide connections between mental health problems and artists tho

richard dadd for eg

coleridge

conan doyle

virginia woolf

millais

van gogh

I'm amazed when I watch Jonathan Ross that so many artists are so personality-less.

Did anyone else listen to the R4 prog yesterday about the troubled life of Kenneth Williams? He was clearly very odd and unpleasant.

Thiery Henri
used to think he was gorgeous. now just think he's a twunt

tom selleck - the whole NRA thing.