Michael Jackson is dead

[QOD]

sad

This is where I disagree, Polanski pleaded guilty to drugging and sodomising a 13 year old girl. Michael Jackson pleaded not guilty (irrelevant I know) and jurors found him not guilty. There were too many holes in the prosecution case, so that verdict I have to respect.

That's some mind-blowing logic you're expressing there, dittany.

In the absence of all evidence, the child must be believed no matter what.

Even if the child is known to be cunning and manipulative. Even if there is documented evidence to prove that the child has been coached. Even if the child has taken the witness stand before to make similar accusations which have been proven false.

I hope you never end up on a jury. It would be a serious blow for the pursuit of justice if you do.

Hey Bucharest, hey KerryMumbles!

I've pondered the issue of art/morality quite a bit in my "professional" life, particularly with regard to Wagner and Heidegger. Both troubling characters. Yet both, IMO, genii. I've often asked myself if Wagner's anti-Semitism or Heidegger's espousal of Nazism should or do have an impact on their work. Is their prejudice "visible", for instance, in their work? It is arguable that it is: that Wagner's anti-Semitism is apparent in the character of Alberich, for example; and that Heidegger's philosophical insistence on "authenticity" at the very least provided the intellectual groundwork for his later "flirtation" with Nazism. However, to dismiss their respective oeuvre because of such lack of ethics seems to me intellectually lazy.

Should we not "appreciate" the work of Roman Polanski or Michael Jackson because of their crimes? It's an interesting question. Does appreciation itself have to be moral?

In professions where the person and the work are so fused, as in art, is dittany right to imply that Huston and Nicholson were applauding not only the art but also the man? And hence that their appreciation was morally dangerous? Is appreciation condonation?

A propos of all this, however: I've never bought the MJJ "innocence" thing. Just look at/listen to "Smooth Criminal" or "The way you make me feel" - in the video for the latter, he appears positively predatory. No sexual innocence there.

Watch out- MN Stasi about. Nooses at the ready and eager to imagine the worst

is genii plural of genius?

Think the crimes/art association is interesting, but think it has to go past a generation for the art/music to be appreciated. which means my DCs will appreciate Gary Glitter and Michael Jackson for their music and not for the ugly allegations. I don't know, but just a theory.

That video is uncomfortable to watch now I agree, but words like "stalker", "predatory", (in this context) and "grooming" are relatively new.

He was trying to represent something he had no experience of. He didn't have knowledge of how real men on the street approach women any more than he knew what gang-culture was like in the video for "Bad". It was laughable even when first released in the late eighties.

Trying to be down with the kids as Madonna also did, but in her case successfully because she had experienced it and wasn't out of touch.

Should we not "appreciate" the work of Roman Polanski or Michael Jackson because of their crimes? It's an interesting question. Does appreciation itself have to be moral?
It depends on your own state of conscience, I'm sure the art appreciaton factor would soon diminish if Huston and Nicholson for one moment paused, and imagine it was their little girl being sodomised by a 40 year old bloke.
Being a genius should not be used as a get out of jail free card.

Was that remark aimed at me, monkeytrousers?

You're probably right, ilovemydog. Not entirely analogous, I realise, but no-one really spends much time thinking about the fact that Elvis started dating Priscilla when she was only 14...

I disagree somewhat, Ninkynork, although I see where you're coming from. He may not have "experienced" it, as you say, but he knew enough about it to act it out, which belies the statements of "innocence".

They weren't applauding the film? Or his work? Just the monster that he is?

And the award for statutory rape goes to...Roman Polanski!

Well they are all cunts then aren't they?

lol Penthesileia - no it wasn't - it was just a general piss take at the mounting hysteria on this thread

There was no evidence. And no credible witnesses, other than Macaulay Culkin who swore that Jackson never touched him, and Jackson's ex-wife who was called by the prosecution but wouldn't say a word against him.

The kid dug himself into a hole by telling lie after lie and continually contradicting himself, and the mother was a fruitcake conspiracy theorist who completely destroyed the case for the prosecution. She was adament that Jackson had imprisioned her in his luxury mansion, and couldn't work out why her many visits to a nearby spa (she had no problem talking about these) cast doubts on her allegations.

The case should never have gone to trial. It was a farce.

Interesting point about EP and Priscilla Penthe, she was by no means the first or last underage GF he had and it went all the way vert early on if some reports are to be believed. He was also according to her "stuck" at the teen messing-around stage. Nobody equates Elvis immediately with noncing do they, but I suppose girls don't count

Ok, monkeytrousers. I don't think that there is mounting hysteria here: people are talking about serious things - rape, art, morality... It may be heated, but not hysterical.

Actually, nothing is more likely to make me feel hysterical than to be accused of being hysterical!

tiredsville: Let me make something clear - I am not excusing the crimes of either man - I hope that is obvious from what I've written.

However, do you think that to appreciate the work of someone who has committed a crime (of any hue) is morally unconscionable?

I don't. I think "The Pianist" is a great film. But Polanski is also certainly a rapist: his self-imposed exile is not the only proof of this. Could I ever applaud the film without simultaneously applauding or condoning the man?

Ok, dittany. I suppose Polanski won Best Director - so, yes, they would be applauding the man/artist simultaneously. Yes, it is disheartening and somewhat sickening that neither has publicly criticised him (have they?) for his crime.

However, I take (both) your point about getting away "scot free": certainly genius ought not to provide an alibi, so to speak.

I wonder if the Hollywood Elite would give a standing ovation to a genius movie maker who was a was an anti-semite, racist or homophobe.

Am interested. When did an artist/performer equate having morals?

I honestly don't know the answer.

Suppose what I am asking is that there seems to be an assumption that performers/artists/musicians should be above reproach and highly moral people. Why do we expect this from these people?

Well, I know it's an old film, but Hollywood types frequently cite "The Birth of a Nation" as one of the most important films ever created. It ticks most of those boxes. That said, it's easy to make excuses for the dead.

And screenings of Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" are always well attended, etc.

I suppose Hollywood's treatment of Mel Gibson would be informative in this respect. His "Apocalypto", though said by some (I've not seen it) to be his best film, received little attention because of his anti-Semitic outburst, or so I believe. So that proves your point, I suppose.

Can't abide Mailer; but I find Burroughs's work interesting.

In your opinion, should I not, dittany? Or does appreciating Burrough's work suggest to you that I condone his crime?

I think Mailer and Burroughs are slightly different, though, in that both transposed their lives into their art in a much more "autobiographical" way, thus making the fusion of man/art much more evident and difficult to disentangle (hence my dislike of Mailer).

You could counter, though, with Polanski's "Tess", I suppose.

Scrap that: I don't mean Mailer. I'm talking shit. I haven't read any Mailer.

Perhaps I'm thinking of Henry Miller.

It's late.

this thread is mn at it's worst, wheres the pitchfork emoticon when you need it

X-posts, dittany.

I wasn't asking that you make moral choices for me, but rather whether you think that it's not possible to appreciate the art of criminals.

From your latest post, I can see that you do not.