Is there an artist so horrible that no matter how hard you try that you cannot separate their art from them?
Is there an artist so horrible that no matter how hard you try that you cannot separate their art from them?
Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?
Very boring answer but JK Rowling.
Her books already had some questionable shit in them but witnessing that shockingly venomous transphobia really recontextualizes everything. I used to re read the Harry Potter saga every few years, but never again now, this whole, very nostalgic for me franchise is forever ruined now.
Why would I try to do so in the first place?
Imagine someone telling you "you have to separate the product from the corporation. Yes, they lobby to permit slave labour and are directly funding the genocide in Palestine, but they make one fine chicken sandwich - and if you don't put down your silly objections to focus on that, you have failed as a human being".
Fuck that, fuck everything about that.
Art is political. Fiction doubly so. You cannot and should not try to rip art free from its cultural context, because that context is the perspective that gives it meaning in the first place.
And extra-splintery fuck the idea that the onus is on the audience to sweep everything under the carpet for horrible people.
We're in no danger of running out of art. We have an unlimited supply of artists just waiting for a break in the canopy to sprout up and grow into something new and exciting. If a handful of toxic assholes get canceled despite being popular, then so much the better.
Ian Watkins. Leaf singer of Lost Prophets.
Convicted baby rapist.
Not as if I'm a fan, but Eric Gill is/was a prolific, respected and internationally renowned artist. You'll his work across the UK, perhaps most notably on the BBC's broadcasting house.
Also designed the Gill Sans typeface, which I think everyone's heard of or even used. Used all across the world on signage or stores.
Here's why I have a hard time taking his works at face value:
Although the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography describes Gill as "the greatest artist-craftsman of the twentieth century: a letter-cutter and type designer of genius", he is also a figure of considerable controversy following the revelations of his sexual abuse of two of his daughters and of his pet dog.
Eh, not really.
Now, there are some examples where I won't/can't actively seek out their work, and would never contribute to them by buying anything at all, ever.
Cosby falls into that category, just as an example.
But, I have a complete separation as far as the work itself being valid/good despite the origins. Using Cosby as the example again, if I'm somewhere and one of his performances is on, I'm not going to care enough to change a channel or leave, or even say anything.
That's pretty much anyone and everyone. I just don't have that thing where a given item, piece of work, whatever, is "tainted" just because the person that made it is a piece of shit. I don't form an association like that. It's that I choose to not seek out some things as a matter of principle.
But, as a general rule, if they're dead, I don't care at all. And, if the person in question is only one person involved in a group effort, that group effort is fine by me. Like, if the guitarist of a band is a piece of shit, but everyone else is not, why would their work be a bad thing?
Now, this isn't to say that I ignore any bad acts when interacting with a given work. Take van Gogh as an example. His excesses and disturbing behaviors are part of his work to an extent. It's a thing where knowing the person's flaws informs the interaction with the work. Kinda like "gee, I wonder how much of this work stems from the same root as the bad acts did?"
But, I can enjoy the work of people I personally despise with no issues. I just don't have whatever it is that other people have that makes a thing tainted based on the creator.
Part of that is knowing how shitty humans in general are, and how hard it is to find any artist that didn't/doesn't have massive flaws. In music and painting in particular, you run into a shit ton of artists that were abysmal people. If I did have that whatever it is that causes a connection between the art and the artist's flaws, I wouldn't be able to listen to much music at all.
Foo Fighters used to be real down with the whole AIDS denialism, even financially supporting it.
I know David Grohl is an internet sweetheart, but every time I see anything Foo related, I just immediately wonder how many people died pointless and preventable deaths because they believed the denialism Foo Fighters pushed.
@pendulum_ Richard Wagner. He was a very talented composer (e.g. „Ritt der Wallküren“), but also antisemitic.
Maybe John Wayne Gacy, otherwise I accept the art for its own merit.
Im a firm believer you can like the art and not the artist but if i had to pick it would be the wizard of oz. Honestly what the director did to the actors/actresses on wizard of oz really zaps the magic out of the movie for me.
I wouldn't say the horribleness of a person is ever something that makes someone inseparable from their art. The art and the person just don't necessitate each other. That said, I'm pretty sure someone might make a case for Nero, he burnt people on living candles and called it "art" and would lock people in concerts to hear him perform (if we assume the historical records are true). Relatedly, Saddam Hussein wrote a lot of fanfiction about defeating America with negative undertones that would make a Wattpad writer cringe.
Officially no. Realistically yes.
Generally all of them. Every time I consider this question about an artist, I try and consider if I was the victim in the crime. Would I be okay hearing, seeing, or listening to this any longer? If the answer is no, then it’s no for me.
I want to live empathetically and have to put my money where my mouth is.
Gary Glitter... so many sporting events still play this pedophile's music.
Proko
No. The artists I like are pretty much universally good people because they're not wildly successful and had to mature in order to survive. I can't think of a single artist I am a fan of who has done things that would cause me to question the integrity of their character or reassess their work.
Usually people who have this issue are ones who listen to shitty music or like shitty actors that only care about making money and being superior to others.
It's no surprise to me that people like R Kelly pee on teenage girls, or Chris Brown beats women, or David Bowie has sex with underage girls. None of this surprises me because their creations and lifestyles reflect who they are as people. It's always funny seeing their fans being met with cognitive dissonance, though.
I can't really name any actors though because I already don't like the vast majority of shit that gets pumped out of hollywood and I'm not exposed to it often. I'm sure people who are more familiar with their crap will have no problem thinking of examples, though.