Does
learning about the bad things that artists have done or said affect how you
experience their art? Should it? Can one separate the artist from the art, or
do the reprehensible attitudes of the former somehow affect the latter? What about considerations of financial
support? Can you buy such an artist's art,
knowing that some of the money goes back to the artist?
Hi. Welcome to the blog for my IB English B class at Jur Hronec High School in Bratislava, Slovakia. Below you will find links to other websites and discussion questions. My students are required to comment on one of these postings every month and also respond to each other's comments. Feel free to add your two bits, but be aware that all comments are monitored before being posted.
At the end of the day, artists are human, just like us. I agree with what was said by Fisher – in some ways, we hold artists to higher standards than we do politicians, for instance. Art is supposed to be relatable. It is supposed to express the rawest, most authentic, thoughts, feelings and struggles that come with being human. Everyone makes mistakes at some point in their life. This does not automatically make them a terrible person. Therefore, I do not think that we should penalize artists who screwed up in the past by not buying their art. I would consider this to be rather hypocritical and arrogant.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the magnitude of the error matters greatly. There’s a difference between “deeply flawed” artists and artists who only committed minor transgressions. For instance, I would not dare support Mthetwa, who was found guilty of murdering a sex worker, by purchasing his art. On the other hand, I would be completely fine with supporting the likes of DJ Black Coffee by listening to his music. I find it very difficult to separate the artist from the art, therefore, if I couldn’t imagine committing the transgression myself, I would probably be unable to forgive and support the artist.
David, as you said, the severity of the artist's mistake matters greatly. If you could not imagine committing the mistake yourself, you would condemn the artist. There is a point to be made that judging the magnitude of mistakes is a subjective process. The decision to denounce or support an artist is therefore hard to evaluate objectively. That is why I think it is unfair to call people who decide to condemn artists arrogant hypocrites.
DeleteAlthough it is difficult to look past the connection between an artist and their art, the first instinct to abolish art in light of uncovering its creator’s flaws is something I can’t justify doing.
ReplyDeleteArt is undoubtedly one of the methods most commonly used for self-reflection. What to me is so unique about art is its power to captivate each of us in its own way. Art has the remarkable ability to shape its meaning according to the person perceiving it. Like the author of the article, I think that art can sometimes communicate some topics better than we people ever could due to the unavoidable emotional feedback some topics encompass. As a matter of fact, I can’t help but view art the way I would view a human being, with its ability to communicate and all. Don’t you sometimes feel like art understands you better than any person ever could? I know I do. On the basis of this extension, I can safely say that although I might like some people, I don’t necessarily have to like their parents. Similarly, automatically hating the art of a flawed person is quite unfair to the art itself.
Of course, the joy of open interpretation can’t entirely be accredited to art itself, but also to the human beings interpreting it. Because each of us is different, our interpretations might sometimes vary drastically. Still, the danger of both a “bad” origin of art and open interpretation can’t go unstated. The Catcher in The Rye notorious for its influence on the murderer of John Lennon comes to mind. Though the disgust one can have towards the art
doesn’t come from the author himself, I think it is still a fair comparison to make as heinous thoughts have come up during the process of interpretation of this book. I assume having a murderer wanting to claim your favorite art as his main inspiration can’t make a good impression about the art either. It must have had a notion inspiring violence in it for it to have inspired this man, right? Having said that, I can’t deny that I really loved this book. Even if the author of a given art piece is a monster, it is detrimental for us to condemn the art and lose the benefits it could provide us with. Sure, that doesn’t mean a flawed artist should get away with their wrongdoings if he has produced fascinating art, but it is important to also remember our own flawed human nature without letting that nature crush the aforementioned art with its moral weight: the art doesn’t necessarily have to be guilty.
I know of DJ Black Coffee mentioned in the article, and one of his remixes is one of my go-to background music when studying. I never knew that he played a few gigs in Israel when he shouldn’t. However, I won’t let knowing that now influence the productive relationship I’ve had with this song since last year.
Unfortunately, some of the feelings of disgust towards art created by deeply flawed artists will be unavoidable to some. But, I still think that, in most cases, we should try to look past the relationship of the artist and their art, and judge it on its own merits.
-Lucas
It is baffling how often I hear or read about celebrities being exposed for taking advantage of minors, money-laundering or having extremist views. Considering how relatively frequent cases such as these are, I sometimes have the feeling that somehow the act of becoming a celebrity inherently causes one to be more likely to commit crimes and have extreme opinions. However, since this is a hypothesis that’s completely untested from my end and a claim without any academic bases, it is very likely that it is a fallacy. Logically, celebrities are human beings, who are as likely to commit crimes and have unjustified beliefs as your average Joe. But for me, when I find out that an artist whose output I have previously enjoyed has beliefs I do not find justifiable, it is an incredibly difficult pill to swallow. It is at the very least much harder than when I see random Twitter users have such beliefs. It taints the way I consume most of the artist’s output and thus, upsets me to a degree. Despite this fact, I still find that it is possible for me to seperate the artist’s beliefs or actions from their art.
ReplyDeleteWhen a song, film or book strongly resonates with me, I have no trouble forgetting that its creator’s mind is populated with thoughts that differ greatly from mine. Afterall, my response is strongly tied to the piece itself, not its artist. Hence the reason I do not understand why someone shies away from the work of controversial artists. A prominent example of this is the work of H.P. Lovecraft. Many of Lovecraft’s fans know for a fact that H.P. Lovecraft was openly racist and xenophobic. These views were strong enough that his stories and books contain passages that demonstrate them beyond reasonable doubt. Despite this, many consider Lovecraft’s work as amongst the most revolutionary and impressive in the horror genre to the point that an entire subgenre of horror is named after him. I am certain had the point of his stories been to promote xenophobia that this never would have happened. His stories are read because first and foremost, they were written to terrify, not polarize.
Although the adjectives that describe an artist’s piece and the artist itself often differ in great ways, there are aspects that in many cases inseparably tie these two things together, the biggest example is money. In an overwhelming majority of cases, in order to consume a piece of media, people are required to financially support the artist. Even though we are technically spending money on the piece, that money goes straight to the artist, which he can use for whatever he seems fit. When an artist with deranged views and opinions creates a popular piece of art, who knows what kind of monstrous things that artist could do with his new-found wealth. In my opinion, this is an argument that is valid and worrisome if and only if we know for certain that the artist does in fact receive monetary gain from his work. If it is known that a work’s author is someone with deranged views or a criminal, but if he is in jail, deceased, or in some other sense cut off from receiving money for his work, I genuinely do not see why I should shy away from spending money on the piece if I want to experience it.
Dalibor, from my personal standpoint I do agree with your opinions and I do very much so have similar ones. However, I wouldn’t say that we shouldn’t financially support an artist because they have deraged views. To me, consuming some sort of content whether it be music, art or any sort of entertainment piece directly counts as a transaction and nothing else, as if I were to buy a snack in the supermarket. I financially support them for the entertainment they provide. If they hadn’t provided me with such entertainment I wouldn’t have supported them in the first place, regardless if they are a good person or not. In the same way, I shouldn’t stop supporting someone financially because of their deranged views. I may despise their character, but I am not paying them for the quality of their character. All in all, I have the same view that the artist and the artist’s piece are a different matter. Nonetheless, I do not see a point of intersection of these two subjects.
DeleteThe problem of imperfect public figures arises when a highly-regarded famous person commits an unacceptable deed and as a consequence their supporters face pressure to denounce their work. It has impacted almost all of us, which is why Mr Fisher decided to put his thoughts about this issue into words. Unfortunately, he does it in quite an unsatisfying manner.
ReplyDeleteFisher’s opinion is hard to decipher. As a reader you expect to find solutions to a problem. You expect answers. At the very least, the question in the title should be answered. Instead of answering and providing solutions, Fisher states that “[this issue] is not an easy one.” He mentions some opinions but it is not clear whether he holds them. Seemingly in an attempt to avoid taking a clear stance, he asks many disruptive rhetorical questions and uses phrases such as “it is not that simple,” “maybe we should accept that…” and “easier said than done.” Fisher wrote an opinion article that does not provide a clear opinion.
One might argue that Fisher encourages the reader to form their own opinion. Indeed, that is what he tries to accomplish but fails. Opinion formation is a subjective process, so someone might have found this article useful. However, the way Fisher tries to induce this process in the reader is unconvincing. He takes too long to get to the point. He uses many examples, which do not contribute much to the overall message of the article. Once he starts describing his point of view, he uses uncertain language, as I mentioned before. These features of the article effectively discourage the reader from forming an opinion because they make reading tiresome.