Separating the art from the artist?

[ecclesvet]

Not a specifically feminist issue I suppose, but I wondered if there was any consensus on whether one should separate art from the artist.

This was mainly inspired by the furore over Chris Brown, although I can't say I'd really lose anything over that, since I didn't listen to his music. But John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Roman Polanski, Bill Murray, Sean Penn - should I no longer be a fan of their work, given the things they've done?

I'm with you Comrade. It's frustrating as there are quite a lot of artists involved. I can separate appreciation of the art (in whatever form) from the person, but the one thing I will not do is contribute to fame or finance by buying/attending events.

We do know all the details -somebody leaked the police report. Warning: triggering, very violent. Sounds more like attempted murder than assault to me.

It's not so much a question of should, it's whether you want to. Polanski has got a mention, so for example I couldn't bring myself to watch one of his films just because I know about him raping a 13 year old girl. Why would anybody want to support the work of a child rapist?

It's also worth remembering that misogyny helps a man be successful and feted. People (men mainly) are attracted to misogyny and celebrate it. So writers like Norman Mailer (stabbed his wife) or Martin Amis (misogynist) are viewed as being at the top of the tree and people support them. The misogyny seems to give them a little something extra on top of their talent that propels them to the very top. These men perpetuate and reinforce misogyny and their success is a message to women about exactly how much we count in the culture.

All the Beatles were wife beaters as far as I know.

My friend and I often have this argument discussion re. Lennon. He thinks I'm being anachronistic in striking Lennon off my "people I look up to" list, his argument being that in those days DV was common, and in judging Lennon badly, I'm taking it out of context and being naive in my expectations.

I, on the other hand, think that if you are going to idolize someone for the vision of peace and love they brought to the world, they really should be a peaceful loving person.

It's a bit like Elvis and his attitude to black people. In view of the fact that most white people in the South were brought up to believe discrimination against blacks was acceptable does that make him a complete twunt (especially as he stole heavily from black music), or just normal for his time and therefore to be excused?

What is with all this hero-worship anyway? It's a bit odd.

i struggle with this too

I am a big fan of John Lennon and admire him in many ways but he was not a very nice person, he was a very difficult man to be around and him beign an artist is no excuse for what he did

another one is Steve McQueen, great actor, very good looking and charismatic but again an abusive husband. i do not see him as Mr Cool as i once did but it would be a lie to say that i did not still enjoy his films

again the same with polanski films, he has made some great films. chinatown is one of my favourite films. i have not seen his latest films and have no plans too

I don't really have any idea how to handle it, especially if we're talking about allegations

I read an obituary of William Walton's wife, twenty-six years his junior .... he informed her on their honeymoon that he never wanted children, he insisted that she had an abortion early in their marriage. She appeared devoted to him/his career throughout their long marriage. His behaviour sounds classically misogynist, I don't want to sing his music ever again, but would i be attempting to speak for her and over her voice while she was alive, if I condemn his behaviour and say he sounds like an abusive husband?

i can't watch roman polanski films (and hadn't seen any of them before i read about what he did). it does concern me though that you hear about some high-profile cases but others get brushed under the carpet. so (IMO) chris brown is an easy target because there is photographic evidence AND he's a rapper - not exactly appealling to the average reader of the daily telegraph. whereas more mainstream>highbrow artists get given a free pass because of the "strength" of their artistic appeal.

one of the things that i'm guilty of as well is judging women more harshly - so hearing kate winslet and jodie foster praising roman polanski and talking about the "honour" of working with him made me far more upset than hearing their male counterparts in that film talk about him...

You'd be speaking for yourself joan. We're all allowed opinions about this kind of stuff.

I think what I find discouraging about this sort of problem is that it can only arise as a result of the minimisation of rape and abuse.

We all know the world isn't black and white. We all know that good people can do bad things and that bad people can perform acts of heroism or produce art of great beauty. There isn't a problem in recognising that an abuser was capable of writing great songs.

But if Polanski had been a murderer he would have ended up prison (possibly for life) and never again contributed to the film industry. People wouldn't have had to make a choice to separate the films from the man.

It's all well and good to argue that this would have been a cruel loss to the world of cinema, but (a) we can only say that with the benefit of hindsight and wouldn't have missed what we never had at the time, and (b) what about the damage done to Samantha Geimer, or to all the other abusers and victims out there who have assimilated the message that not only can you can get away with maltreatment of women, but you can rise about it and may even have your abusive streak indirectly revered as evidence of your artistry?

If rape and abuse really were unacceptable and perpetrators were punished, none of us would need to have this conversation apart from in the discussion of historical figures.

It's also worth remembering that Polanski used his position as film director, in order to be able to rape his victim in the first place. As many men in those positions do.

The problem is that we treat people in the "arts" as if they are wise and special people as opposed to people who do a job which is to sing, paint, read out someone else's words in a convincing manner on stage, whatever.

That's why we have to listen to actors (and Bono) droning on about their beliefs on chat shows and take them seriously whereas no one invites my interesting friend Jane who's an accountant to pontificate to the world on her pet causes. We all collaborate with this and give "artists" special status and read all about them in the Sunday supplements. Meanwhile the rest of the world goes about its business doing a job well and sometimes spectacularly well but because it's not art no one wastes any time fawning over them.

The problem is that we allow ourselves to believe that if people are artists, and therefore they are wise and special, they must also be good. Especially if they are beautiful.

It's all a load of crap. They are no more likely to be good than you or me. I don't have a problem with great art from horrible people. Any more than I need the person who cooked me a lovely pasty from Greggs with great skill and care to also be a wonderful person. They can be a git. They can still cook great pasties.

Dickens is my personal example here. He was an amazing writer. He was also a knobber of the highest order. Doesn't change the books. Just means don't hero-worship the man just cos he wrote good books.

I remember reading a bio piece about Beethoven, which talked about how at one point in his life, he was involved in a lawsuit with his sister-in-law about custody of her son, the child of Ludwig's deceased brother. And it said something like "It is generally agreed that in this matter, Beethoven acted in a way entirely unworthy of his genius." But like Beethoven and Dickens, the individual's conduct tends to become historic, and we can experience their work just as they left it. That's not so true with someone who's still alive, or still remembered by people who know the person well.

Maybe we make things too easy for artists. They're somehow expected to ignore social rules, all the better to allow their creativity full play. For a lot of the male ones, that can mean totally selfish behaviour towards women, but I think poor Amy Winehouse was affected by it too. The news was just saying that she left a nice pile of money to her parents, and I'm sure they'd have handed it all back for a dull girl who could have stayed alive.

I would just like to live in a world where abuse and domestic violence doesn't happen. I think the shortest route to that is to make it clear how unacceptable this is to men who do this sort of thing. Polanski should never have been able to make a movie again. Chris Brown should have been booed at the Grammies and people (song writers, producers etc) should refuse to work with him. And so on.

Totally agree Comrade.

I was just pondering this last night after I watched a documentary on the singer John Martyn (died 2009). He was by many accounts basically an angry alcoholic and not nice at all to the women in his life. But . . . . . . . I love his music so much. Especially Sweet Little Mystery and Solid Air.

God Knows.

I didn't know that about John Lennon either.

I'm with Comrade in general though for a zero-tolerance approach. It's the only way things will ever be changed.