Is It Right to Separate Art from Artist?

[Sesquipedalism]

This originally appeared in the Greatest American Band thread and my reply was going to go there, until I realized that I'd kind of sprawled. If it belongs in "Speak Your Mind," mods, please feel free to move it.


And like @Sesquipedalism (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=287) said, you have to separate the art from the artist. No matter how he behaved, it doesn't make The Doors music any less great.

To be fair, I did also say that I'm no longer sure how appropriate this is. I've been getting older, which has seemed to do nothing so much as make me certain I know less about the world than I ever could have imagined when I was young, and the past few years in Trump's America have forced me to reconsider a lot of my positions. And this issue of art and its artist is very much something I've been reconsidering. I'll kill the suspense now: I don't have any hard and fast answers. But it's a discussion I know I'm glad I'm having with myself and one that I think I wish a lot of other people would have, too.

1. A Righteous Course Correction
Sometime after I turned 21, I began to work hard to not know anything about my favorite bands. I didn't even want to know what they looked like. I wanted a good record to be a good record because it was good, and a shit record to be a shit record because it was shitty. I grew up a massive fan of Marilyn Manson and I wanted to be done with all the cult of personality nonsense—which definitely affected me more than I wanted to admit. So, I course-corrected. I didn't even want to know what anyone in a band I liked looked like because I didn't want to favor someone more or less because they had a killer image or were drop dead fuckable or whatever. Same with filmmakers and authors. In high school, I think I'd simultaneously over- and under-appreciated Garbage because I wanted to never stop having sex with Shirley Manson. Art and artist needed to be two separate things and Americans in general were terrible at this. So, way back in 2001, I decided that I would be above it. Over the years, two advanced degrees in English Lit. convinced me of the righteousness of my cause.

Starting in 2017, I think, I began to have a problem with Kanye West.

I'd actually been some degree of a fan since I bought his first record in 2003. (I'm the weirdo who hated Fantasy and adored Yeezus.) How I tolerated Kanye West for so long: I didn't know shit about Kanye. During the brief time I was on Twitter, he either wasn't, or Twitter was just that much less active. Same with Insta. When I was on Facebook, Facebook was mostly just a social network—there were barely corporate accounts and people didn't really share news. I don't read gossip magazines or watch tabloid TV. So, up until 2017, I had the same low-grade problem with Kanye West that I did with Quentin Tarantino: they were both unremitting assholes who I wouldn't let in my house if, for some reason, that very unlikely situation ever came up. Both of them had appeared multiple times outside the context of their art and behaved in ways that made me want to gutpunch them. A lot. Kanye, over the years since the initial Taylor Swift ordeal, being more vocal in more spheres, repeatedly broke through my deliberately built firewall of ignorance and proved to me that he was a cunt. But the art was good.

So I kept listening. In 2016, I figured that, for example, if I didn't know he'd done whatever he'd done, which I'd been by chance unable to ignore—like when he screamed to everyone that Cosby was innocent and I only caught it because, at the time, I was managing my bar's social media and had accidentally tabbed somewhere I hadn't meant to—I'd be much more enthusiastic about Life of Pablo, and it wasn't fair to the record, to the art, that I was considering this extratextual nonsense. Fuck noise. Was the record good? (A little from column A, a little from column B.) Besides, a lot of his shit didn't make it into the music. I don't think I like him as a person. So fucking what? We're probably not going for coffee any time soon. Further, if you look closely enough at almost any artist, he/she/they will probably turn out to be an insensitive or deranged prick of the highest order.

I've heard bits about the personal life of Kurt Vonnegut. Guys a literary hero of mine. I certainly would've told my sister not to date him. So to speak.

So, around 2017, Kanye went out of his way to praise Trump, Candace Owens, not taking meds for your bipolar disorder, &c. As if Americans need an excuse to up the stigma surrounding seeking mental health treatment. It's not a superpower, dude. It's not. But I'm glad it's working for you. Anyways, I couldn't keep him out of his art anymore. And I had to ask myself if that was because I was ethically and intellectually too weak to keep the two separated, or if maybe there was a flaw in my argument. Because, by 2017, I could certainly see his bullshit in his art. Then, #metoo happened.

So, for me, the ethics of Kanye turned out to be simple: I no longer support him politically; he puts his money and considerable platform to use when he believes in something. He has influence. Therefore, I choose to no longer support him financially, or consider his new art. The ethics of ignoring his…general asshattery became irrelevant when they were trumped—pun intended—by greater concerns, and I chose to speak with my wallet.

But it was the fact that I had even been wrestling with an ethical question of him. Artists are often asses, as I said, and for a long time, that was essentially his biggest crime—a dearth of likeability—and it was actually part of his brand. In that first winter of #metoo, it became clear that I couldn’t be done; I needed to discuss more than Kanye. Maybe fifty? Sixty? Some whom I loved. And I had to ask: If I'm willing to ethically wrestle with supporting someone who is often an unremitting asshole with some questionable and influential political opinions (which may in part be due to an unmedicated mental disorder), why am I unwilling to at least consider that Jimmy Page knowingly fucked a fourteen-year-old before listening to “Battle of Evermore”? That’s an actual sex crime and we’ve all known about it for decades.

With my original argument—never consider the artist, only consider the art—I had been in the clear. But I’d already clearly been considering the artist in the case of Kanye, and I had been doing so because it seemed difficult not to. So, why the fuck wouldn’t I consider the artist when he/she/they have done something much worse?

2. Oops. Okay. Sorry. There Were Always Exceptions.
There had always been artists whom I'd considered ethically off-limits. Roman Polanski, for instance. Gary Glitter, for as often as that came up. Ezra Pound. But in most cases, I took shelter behind my church and state views on artists and their art. Everyone's got one story that makes them look like Hitler and one that makes them look like Mr. Rogers, I'd always said. The sheer magnitude of people cited as some flavor of grotesque during the first big wave of #metoo actually didn't surprise me. I've been assaulted a few times in my life; I know statistics. Later, I'd be forced to admit that I'd just chosen to never consider them. The sudden smashing together of those two worlds—known sexual criminals and artists on my iPod or bookshelf—posed an ethical dilemma of a size I'd naively never expected to personally have to do anything about.

If you hadn't guessed and didn't already know, yeah, I'm white and male.

Somewhere around this period of time, they took R. Kelly off of Spotify playlists and someone affiliated with him asked a valid question (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-15/r-kelly-accusations-can-you-separate-the-art-from-the-artist/9758782) in a surprisingly calm manner: Regarding the "Mute R. Kelly" campaign, will Spotify also be banning these 19 artists? They supplied a list of musicians with some kind of suspected or confirmed sex crime in their past. I owned records by more than half of them. Deciding I was done with Musician X or Y as new information came in had been easy, in previous years, as I'd discover issues one at a time and then have the luxury of forgetting and resetting before starting again.

But the sheer magnitude of this six-month period. Fuck. The numbers made it pretty clear to me that it wasn't just a long list of individual artists whose bodies of work I was going to be forced to consider in a different light, or admit that I was going to exercise the privilege I have to not give a shit. I was instead going to be forced to at least consciously reaffirm my entire ethical approach. Because I couldn't deny the probability that—given the likelihood of occurrence or intersection of any of the following: drugs, alcohol, ego, sex, awkward power dynamics—a great big giant fucking number of the artists whose work I admire, who weren't on the list of 19 or previously exposed over the winter, are guilty of at least one instance of sexual harassment, sexual assault, straight up racism, and who knows what else.

Again, if you don't already know or haven't deduced, I'm the kind of person who struggles with the ethics of everything. I've agonized before over whether or not it's ethical to force my cats into collars. So, you know, no issue too small, I guess.

I came to at least one conclusion right quick. Like I said, the scale of this particular issue didn't surprise me. In the back of my mind, I always had the pieces to put this together before Kanye hugged Trump or anyone added a hashtag to anything. And the conclusion I came to was that part of the reason I'd avoided considering this before was that I am a great big giant fucking coward. I don't want to feel uncomfortable in general, and I really don't want to have to feel awkward about enjoying something I can't deny that enjoy. Which is a pretty shitty thing to consciously realize, but doesn't mean it's any less true.

3. Never Ask A Question to Which You Don't Already Know the Answer
Because I'm also the kind of person people like to call Type-A, I started asking where I should and could draw lines in the sand. I started with sex criminals, since that was what had pinged my radar the most. Another thing I'd always been wary of were bands in genres where, um, all the kids at the shows had red shoelaces and the same haircut. Sure, it's sometimes just bad fashion. Usually, even. And I listened to punk, some metal. But that was one of those exceptions mentioned above—because I'd been burnt when I was young, I checked before I went all-in on anyone. You know what would've helped me in the 1990s? Not Parental Advisory stickers. Stickers that let me know right off the bat if the band would be happy to find their record was being spun at a Klan rally. Before the internet, I ran into that issue maybe a half dozen times. Which is a lot more than I should have in upstate New York at the end of the century. But anyways. Sex criminals.

Scouring my iTunes library. Sexual harassers? Fine to ignore? A weird thing to say when you lay it out like that. I wouldn't stand for it in an elected official. Am I okay saying, in the case of people who fall south of "just a creep" on the sliding scale, "I'll consider the art and not the artist?" If a pervasive environment of sexual harassment happens backstage at Musician X's shows is that a thing I should think about when buying the studio album? Let's assume there's no 1980s hair metal-style songs celebrating fucking young groupies on the record; let's say backstage sexual aggression doesn't make it into the art itself. Is it okay to not consider it when choosing to purchase? What about choosing to just listen? Would this rule out half of hip hop? I can't tell you how many records have a celebration of fucking a fan—how hard do I ponder whether it's A) if it's based on a true story or B) consensual?

Okay. Wait.

What about if they were young and drunk when they did shit like that and now they're sober? What about if they died in 1972? At what point do I admit that every male I have ever met who's been in a position of authority—including, unfortunately, me—has at least once created a situation in which a female colleague is wildly uncomfortable in a way that legally qualifies as hostile environment harassment? What the hell does that mean for my separation of male artists and their art? Ethically speaking, just because something is a lost cause doesn't mean it's not also the right course of action.

Okay. Wait. Things are spiraling. This is about art. If it's good art, if it's a good record, should it matter if it was made by a flawed man—especially in a culture where all men are flawed? I mean...within reason. Am I the right person to ask what level of sex crime is "within reason"? Laid out like that, it seems like a pretty shitty argument.

What about if I found out Musician X never hired Black roadies? What about if they didn't hire Black roadies, but the musician died in 1972?

What if they don't work with Black session musicians? How would I even find something like that out? What if they just happened to have not worked with Black session musicians because they haven't met someone with whom they vibe? That's ridiculous. It's the music industry. That would almost have to be deliberate, wouldn't it? How many Black studio techs are there working in places that specialize in country or death metal?

Okay. Say that, without trying to look for the information, I found out that Musician X deliberately passed on Black session players and studio techs who were willing to work on his new record, and this record was allegedly transcendent, genre-defining, and included a shitload of feminist lyrics. And I'd already bought it. What level of engagement with this record is ethically appropriate? None, right? But what if I'd already been listening and I thought it was great? Does this information—reflected nowhere in the aural scope of the album—affect how much I appreciate it? And if it does, is that because I understandably lack the capability to be objective in the face of such information? In a case this clear cut, I know I'd abandon the record. But what the hell does "clear cut" mean when it comes to something like this?

When John Mayer said "my dick is a white supremacist" while playing in a band with Black colleagues on a record that had precisely zero racial content, do I continue to listen to the record and say, "That has nothing to do with the art." It doesn't, does it? Is that "clear cut" racist enough? They cancelled the Roseanne reboot for nonsensical racist comments about Islam and Valerie Jarret that, unless I missed something about the plot of the show, had nothing to do with anything in the art. That was definitely "clear cut." And I think most people agree that they were right to cancel the show—even if they only did so because it would be financially nuts for them to stand behind it. Is it just a matter of precisely determining proper tipping points, then? That seems insane.

Okay.

I can imagine anyone who's made it this far screaming "Enough!" at the page, over and over again. I can imagine this whole section being under the heading of Libtard Cuck of the Day on some right wing site. Or floating around on Black Twitter as an example of white people not getting it quite right. And I know 95% of people who read to this point—so maybe both of you—will say, "Dude, you've got too much time on your hands." Which is an expression I've always hated, because people always say it to someone when they're being thoughtful, even if the thoughts themselves aren't particularly headed anywhere world-changing. Maybe save that shit for people in moments where they're watching anything that starts with Real Housewives, eh?

Point being, even I feel like these are all insane semantic questions. And they're also very much not at all stupid or irrelevant questions.

4. Okay. Wait. Breathe. I Have to Know Something
Let's escalate the sex crime. Is a thing I would not have believed I'd say today when I woke up.

If Musician X turns out to be a rapist, I won't buy any new music from that person because I'd consider it unethical to continue to supporting them. That's a thing I've always felt—another of those initially extant exceptions. I listen to a wide swath of music—from classical to alt-country to jazz to hip hop—and no matter how fresh anyone says a track is, if I find out Chris Brown is involved, I'm out. I've never heard anything he's done (though I'm sure they play it in supermarkets or whatever). And I've always been surprised by the number of people from all walks of life who say, "Hate him, but this shit is fire." But that has nothing to do with art and artist separation; that's more about the ethics of commerce.

Since the late 'aughts, I've not allowed R. Kelly to be played on a shift in a workplace where I'm in charge. I once threw a cook's stereo into the fryer after putting "I Believe I Can Fly" on repeat to spite me; I've told DJs that I'll fire them if they spin R. Kelly at my bars. In my opinion, Kelly's music kinda sucks and is pretty creepy in retrospect. And I think I'd be ethically remiss to not consider the artist when it came time to buy, play, or evaluate his music. So, maybe this is also more about the ethics of commerce, but it's also a case where—even if some entity on high came down and told me that You Must Consider the Art Without Considering Its Artist, I'd stand firm and say, "Nah. I'm fine breaking that commandment, thanks."

So, wait. Is the rule "Don't consider the artist unless the artist is really shitty?" That can't be right, can it? I'm asking. I'm honestly asking. How the fuck would one apply a rule like that?

Okay. Let's strip the commerce out of it. What if I find out about Musician X was a rapist after he's already died? His relatives have disowned his actions and they donate the proceeds of sales to RAINN. Is it ethical to pay for records then? But when I listen to them, am I obligated to remember the artist was a rapist?

Or take the Roman Polanski example: As I said, I've never felt comfortable separating the art from the artist in his case, even when that was my Life's Mission and I wouldn't shut up about it. Indeed, I've never seen one of his flicks because I don't want to even consider the art as part of the conversation about great films. But will it be okay to watch The Pianist after he dies? What about 100 years later? Ostensibly the flick—divorced from a known author—wouldn't be an obvious celebration of pederasty?

Wait. This is the internet: Surely reducto ad Hitlerium will prove to me something? I've seen some of Hitler's artwork. It's not great. It's not terrible. If someone brought me a high-quality print of a Hitler painting, I'm not in the right to hang it on the wall and enjoy it, right? If I didn't know it was a Hitler and I liked it, and then found out it was a Hitler, I have to consider that and at least remove it, even if I can't stop reflexively enjoying its aesthetics.

I know that much.

Seriously? This is as far as I've gotten in 2,500 words?

Continued in the post below. I had no idea there was a post length limit on ETS...

[Sesquipedalism]

Continued from above...

5. Fuck It. Can I Just Solve the Original Issue?
This discussion started as a quick question into why I would say "Fuck Kiss and Gene Simmons" but not "Fuck Jim Morrison and The Doors." And I have to admit that this distinction is easier for me because I love the music of The Doors and loathe the music of Kiss. When you have no investment, it's easy to draw distinctions. But someone who didn't know the inside of my head like I do sensibly mentioned that Morrison was an abusive drunk. And I had to articulate myself.


My issue with Kiss is that they're terrible and their whole shtick is completely incongruous with their output. I know it was a different time and everything edgy seemed edgier, but that time also had Black Sabbath. I've never enjoyed a Kiss song—I can barely pay attention to the end of one and they're not long. And, to me, their image/music dynamic is sort of like seeing a band dressed like Slipknot and finding out their dangerous catalogue of heavy music includes 'Champagne Supernova" and "Shape of You." Obviously, I'm in the minority here. Still, I find them toothless, lacking in substance, and really only influential in making "shock" more mainstream. All puffery. Perhaps the more apt comparison is that I register Kiss as seventies rock's Insane Clown Posse.


My issue with Gene himself is more than just the fact that he's a dick, which he surely is. It's his outspoken misogyny and racism. I appreciate that A) "he's from a different time" (albeit one where, to anyone paying attention, it would've still been self-evident that women, Muslims, Arabs, and people of color are actual humans), B) he's had fifty bonus years and the advent of the internet to broadcast that he's a piece of shit, and C) as a product of a similar time, it's possible Morrison would have done the same. We know the guy had no qualms about cultural appropriation and seemed to be more into viewing women more as objects d'art than actual human beings possessed of interior lives. But, perhaps thankfully for the sake of his artistic output, he died young. Gene, like Clapton and Morrissey, just keeps ticking and diminishing people's ability to shamelessly enjoy his own back catalogue.
Did you catch it? There at the end? Apparently, based on my argument, I feel okay listening to The Doors—not considering the artist with the art—because Jim Morrison didn't have time to do anything I consider "bad enough" to write him off completely, even though all signs point to "yes," he would have.

That cannot possibly be my suggested method of determining whether or when it's okay to listen to art and not think about its artist. Am I that dumb? That's all id working there, friends. That's not ethics; that's rationalization.

Another case that came up: Prince.

I mentioned that I'll still listen, from time to time, but hadn't bought since '92 "because I refuse to forget his weird about-face decade-and-a-half against marriage equality, or that time he refused to work with an old a bandmate unless she quit being a lesbian and a Jew (https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/cover-story/7348538/prince-jehovahs-witness-life) (and then, years later, increasingly irrelevant, decided to do a self-promo one-off with her again)."

Prince was gave an incalculable assist to the queer community at a time when they really needed it. But he eventually converted to being a Witness, spoke against marriage equality, told his former friends and colleagues to renounce their sexuality and religion as evil, and suggested that his god was right to wipe out Sodom & Gomorrah because "people were just sticking it wherever." He was on that trip for at least a decade. So, I didn't buy his records. But I still occasionally spun his old ones. And I've never told a DJ to not play anything from his catalogue. Then he died. Do I now feel okay buying them? Every year, there's at least one long Prince set on Pride. Is it ethical to get down when they play "Kiss"? Does it matter that what he did for the queer community when he was at the height of his popularity very much outweighs the shit he pulled during his least relevant decade? Do my answers weigh less because I've never really liked Prince and thus find it easier to forget about him in ethical protest?

Did you catch that? I'm no longer even trying to answer the question of whether or not it's right to consider his music and not him. Apparently, my argument is now that it's not possible to consider the art without the artist, unless you know nothing about the artist and can keep it that way. I've forsaken any attempt at asking whether it should matter. Is it actually possible that, after all this fucking soul searching and intellectualizing, that all I've got is A) answers to questions on the ethics of commerce and B) a newfound understanding that I am base enough that, if I like something, I will find a reason it's okay to enjoy it?

6. Blue Laws
If you've never heard of Blue Laws, they're those silly, mostly sex- and alcohol-related statutes on the books in a lot of the United States. Most of them are just single-incident legal decisions that set precedent, and then made it to the books. Shit that happened once and, for some reason—maybe a mini-moral panic—things went a step beyond "precedent set" and the decision was codified in the unlikely event it should happen again. Some of them might be apocryphal; I've never checked. But I've never forgotten them, either, since I learned them at ten. It's illegal in one place to have an orgasm that registers on a seismograph. In some hamlet, if you're caught stealing alcohol, you're no longer allowed to purchase any beverage except milk. Someplace, if you're caught having oral sex in a supermarket, you are no longer eligible to buy meat. And so on. Allegedly.

And, after everything, that's increasingly what it feels like I've been doing in examining the righteousness of listening to art irrespective of the beliefs or behaviors of the artists. I'm not solving anything. I'm no closer to answers in big questions of Aesthetics or Ethics. I'm an id machine, making decrees based on whim, pretending I have the slightest fucking clue what I'm doing.

Prince was Convicted in the Court of Me of being outspoken against gay rights and marriage equality, possibly being anti-Semitic (but more probably just being obnoxiously evangelical), but helped the queer community a lot and continues to, perhaps despite his wishes. Going Forth: You are therefore allowed to listen to some of his records from the morally acceptable years, none from his Witness years, and you may not pay for anything you don't already own until we settle whether it's the church reaping the profits these days. Additionally, when he comes up in conversation, you are obligated to mention his issues.

Ryan Adams was Convicted in the Court of Me of being an abusive rapist when he got married and sober. Going Forth: You are not allowed to buy new music with which he is involved or listen to it. But if you have records from when he was a teenager on heroin (maybe unable to get it up), before he committed the specified crimes, well, then, that is for some reason okay.

Jim Morrison was Convicted in the Court of Me of being an abusive drunk who was a total asshole to everyone and majorly into Native American cultural appropriation to the point that it was basically a minstrel show masquerading as pastiche. Going Forth: Evidently, these are not crimes worth prosecuting, because I listen to every one of his records and consider it in discussions of Great Art, like the one I was having that spawned this whole thing. Um...

R. Kelly had slaves. Going Forth: Just no.

Case by case stuff like this makes everything seem a little capricious, doesn't it? Like I should maybe say to myself something like, "Dude, everyone is problematic. Relax. This has been an issue since time immemorial and no one's solved it yet. Just separate art and artist—it's easier and better for everyone—and be done with it. Art is pure. Let it be pure."

And then I think about this.

Like I said, I grew up as a massive Marilyn Manson fan. Mechanical Animals is still a Top 50 record for me. When I was seventeen, if he'd asked me to step into traffic, I'd have said yes. And I'd crotch-punch anyone who suggested his art wasn't Great because he'd made some mistakes.

Marilyn Manson probably raped and assaulted Evan Rachel Wood when she was seventeen. She testified to as much in congress a few years back, but never named the man. The dates and ages line up, but maybe she was cheating on him. They were dating. They were eventually engaged. Sure. It could be someone else. In his whole debauched life, aside from the security guard who didn't like being hit with Manson's dick during a live show, I don't believe we have seen anyone directly accuse Manson of sexual or racial misconduct—I don't know why we all seem to "except" that incident, but we do. Moving along. Seems pretty goddamned cowardly to take this lack of a named accusation as ethical permission to keep listening, but I seem to have done so, because I've kept listening from time to time. To his early stuff, of course. You know, before he lost it. And before he probably became an alleged sex offender. But let's narrow the focus. Let's go back to the single question of whether or not it's ethically sensible to separate artist and art.

If Evan Rachel Wood accused him by name tomorrow, that would mean that his 2007 record, Eat Me, Drink Me—which I have loved since its release—is a work of art that he made when he was dating her, largely about her, and possibly while he was abusing and raping her. It contains a song with the chorus "There's not a word for what I want to do to you/ Murdercute, happyrape." It's honestly something he would have sung on his first record. Before that even. It's a rhetorical thing he's always done. Nevertheless.

Do I still relax, just separate the art and the artist, and regard the record as somehow separate and pure?

[GulDukat]

@Sesquipedalism (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=287), wow, you've given this a lot of thought.

You mention Roman Polanski, so I'll use him as an example. What he did is obviously reprehensible, and you say that you call his work "off limits." What makes viewing and enjoying his films even worse is that he was never held accountable for what he did. It's not just old films like Chinatown or Rosemary's Baby, it's newer films made well after his terrible actions, like Ghost Writer.

Yet, I still enjoy these movies. It bothers me a little to watch them, Ghost Writer, in particular. Why should he have been allowed to make this movie? Why isn't he in prison? I might have less of a problem if he had been tried, served his debt to society and then made the movie. But to make a film while still being a fugitive for such an egregious crime... Yet Ghost Writer was made, is a masterpiece, is out there, so I choose to enjoy it. I have no real response other than it's a personal choice. I feel bad about enjoying the movie, but I'll live with it.

Polanski is an extreme example, but honestly, a lot of artists we enjoy are pretty shitty people, or have done shitty things. Kanye West, I think, suffers from some kind of mental illness or cognitive impairment. I'm certainly not in any position to make a diagnosis, but that's the sense I get. So he gets a pass. But honestly, what he has said and done isn't really all that bad. He basically just makes a fool out of himself with the MAGA shit or interrupting someone when they are trying to accept an award.

If I decided that I couldn't listen to musicians who acted like assholes or were accused of abuse, I would no longer be able to enjoy a ton of artists that I like. So yeah, I separate the art from the artist and just live with it.

[Sesquipedalism]

Kanye West is, I think, suffers from some kind of mental illness or cognitive impairment. I'm certainly not in any position to make a diagnosis, but that's the sense I get. So he gets a pass. But honestly, what he has said and done isn't really all that bad. He basically just makes a fool out of himself with the MAGA shit or interrupting someone when they are trying to accept an award.

Oh, yeah. Not even on the same scale; barely even the same sport—excepting that if a white guy said the shit he was saying when he was really feeling Candace Owens, I would've lost my shit. Kanye was just an entry point into a more extreme discussion.


If I decided that I couldn't listen to musicians who acted like assholes or were accused of abuse, I would no longer be able to enjoy a ton of artists that I like. So yeah, I separate the art from the artist and just live with it.
Yeah. That seems to be the conclusion I came to. If we had to think about the artists, we sometimes wouldn't be able to do a thing we like. So we don't.

Which seems like a pretty fucking selfish and shitty way to live when you really lay it down on the page in a single sentence. After all of that, I'm not sure if I can conclude much more than this.

That's not a call-out of you. At all. That's my whole problem. That's why I wrote that whole thing.

[GulDukat]

Now, Ted Nugent is another matter. I can enjoy his 70's output (some good stuff), but I would never pay to see him in concert. If he was an opening act or on some kind of bill, I'd skip his set. I just sort of feel a revulsion towards him.

[allegro]

Now, Ted Nugent is another matter. I can enjoy his 70's output (some good stuff), but I would never pay to see him in concert. If he was an opening act or on some kind of bill, I'd skip his set. I just sort of feel a revulsion towards him.

I saw him open for Kiss during one of their “final, no really we are serious this time” tours, and he was pretty funny. Yes, he’s an asshole. But he was entertaining. The loincloth and flaming bow-and-arrow thing for White Buffalo, plus the audience banter. “So glad I could be with you tonight to celebrate 100 years of Kiss.” LOL.

[allegro]

There are weird parallels between Ted Nugent and Gene Simmons.

Both bragged - then and now - about not drinking or doing any drugs. But both also bragged about bagging persons of the opposite sex (in Ted’s case, often underaged) like they were competing for trophies.

In Simmons’ case, he HAD a “trophy“ - his volume upon volume of Polaroid photos of his conquests. He’s lucky his dick didn’t fall off, yet he bitched to anyone and any reporter who’d listen about Ace Frehley’s drinking problem, or Peter Criss’ drinking problem, etc. Simmons was holier-than-thou to the point of conspiring with Paul Stanley to fire Frehley and Criss over their lack of professionalism and their tardiness (in ROCK! Gasp! Le Shock) but Simmons continued to fuck around on his hapless partner and mother of his 2 children of more than 20 years, even after Simmons was wearing a wig because most of his own hair had fallen out and his own kids had stopped speaking to him because he treated their mother like shit. The unspoken thing, here? Simmons’ SEX ADDICTION. Oh, sure, he didn’t drink, smoke or do drugs, but he couldn’t keep his dick in his pants. Never mind that he’s an idiot Republican who thinks he’s a lot smarter than he actually IS.

HAAAAAAAHAHAHA!!!! DERM = SKIN, YOU IDIOT!!!

https://youtu.be/HfnBY5e37U0

Ted Nugent, same as Simmons. No drinking, drugs or smoking gave him permission to be a king-sized asshole and attempt to fuck the entire universe until he acquired every STI known to mankind. And Mr. Patriot shit all over himself so he could get a Vietnam deferment. I’m not kidding.

But, I stopped listening to Kiss and Ted Nugent not because they’re idiot Trump supporters; I’d already stopped listening because I grew up.

The artist I have a hard time separating, enjoying: Wagner

https://www.wqxr.org/story/cancel-culture-how-we-deal-wagner-21st-century/

[botley]

This is a difficult conversation, and I'm glad we have a lot of clear-thinking (or at the very least, articulate and open-hearted) people on here discussing it. For me, it's a question of power dynamics... anyone can espouse bigoted or ignorant comments in this day and age and put them out there for the world to see, but performers for some reason actually still command a more captive audience (if you'll forgive the expression) for their bullshit opinions. And people tend to emulate their behaviour, as fans.

Films for me fall in a different category because USUALLY they're not really an auteur project, that's bullshit — it's a collaboration with actors and other filmmakers etc. So you have to look at power dynamics behind the scenes as well. The Hollywood power dynamic, as #metoo proved, is rotten beyond measure. Actors are the most recognizable, true, and the ones we know got away with atrocious behaviour for years are its most visible manifestation even if directors for some reason have the most notoriety.

But is music so cut and dried? The performer is the one we see and in many cases holds the power, too. There are plenty of auteur acts. But label execs, powerful producers — these are the monsters hidden from view while making people's lives miserable, and reaping the most benefit monetarily. Usually from women, people of colour, LGBT artists. Prince said some shit but what about the Warner Brothers situation? He brought to light what kind of exploitative fuckery was going on in those halls of power for years.

[BRoswell]

For me, it really depends on what the person did or is involved with. There are a few musicians who I listen to who are/were kind of shitty to other people, but they're not rapists or murderers, so I can look past it to enjoy the music. Then you have people who are involved with political, religious, and other groups that I'm not a fan of. Can I look the other way? Sure, but it does make you start questioning what's motivating their work. The last example I'll use is what I like to call "Michael Jackson syndrome", where the hysteria around whether someone did or didn't do something overshadows the art and makes it impossible to enjoy without thinking about said hysteria.

I will say that I don't believe that enjoying art from troubled artists makes you a bad person or a supporter of what they do or have done. We make emotional connections to art we enjoy, and it's very hard to sever those connections sometimes. At the end of the day, it's up to the individual to decide whether they feel right supporting those artists.

[eversonpoe]

We make emotional connections to art we enjoy, and it's very hard to sever those connections sometimes.

it is very, very hard. but supporting an artist who does horrible things, while it doesn't make one a bad person, makes them at least partially complicit.

i know this is an extreme example, so please don't come for me, but it's relevant to what's going on in the world - it's very similar to white privilege. every white person in this country has benefitted from white privilege in some way or another, whether they know it or not. once you become aware of it, if you don't use that privilege to do something good, to help fight racism, you're complicit in it. that's not an opinion, that is a fact. i personally feel the same way about supporting art made by "bad" people.

in the metal world (and black metal, in particular) there is a huge problem with racism and nazi-worship (like, really, seriously). thankfully, that genre is becoming more populated with queer & trans folks (like myself) as well as our allies, and we are calling out problems as we see them. many people are creating a no-tolerance zone for hatred of any kind.

there is so much good art (and especially music) out there; why hold on to the shitty stuff when you could seek out something new made by someone who isn't a sexist/racist/homophobe/abuser/etc.?

[BRoswell]

it is very, very hard. but supporting an artist who does horrible things, while it doesn't make one a bad person, makes them at least partially complicit.

I definitely understand that, but that's also where it gets complicated, especially when emotions are involved. Logic and emotions don't always play well unfortunately.

[allegro]

there is so much good art (and especially music) out there; why hold on to the shitty stuff when you could seek out something new made by someone who isn't a sexist/racist/homophobe/abuser/etc.?


Yes and it’s hard for me, as a woman, to take a LOT of hip-hop and rock seriously, when it’s filled with so much sexism if not outright misogyny. That’s a no-tolerance zone, for me. I don’t care if “bitch” or “ho” etc. is common parlance in your culture, whatever culture that is, it’s bullshit and it must stop.

[Jinsai]

I've thought about this a lot, and I still don't know where I stand on it in a general sense. So many artists have SOMETHING horrible floating around in their past. Not everyone is the Lost Prophets guy or Bill Cosby or whatever... If you really knew the truth, not just what is public knowledge, you'd probably find yourself having to boycott a lot of stuff that you love or at least appreciate. There's also the aspect to consider that in many cases, like with a movie, it's not just one person responsible for the creation, not even close.

I have a really hard time with something like Miles Davis. I fell in love with his music, and was obsessed for a while there. Then you read up on him and find out that he was a wife-beater. I can't help but still appreciate his music, but every time I listen to it now, I have that fact floating in the back of my mind.

Or with Polanski, who seems to be the central figure in this debate. Rosemary's Baby is one of my favorite movies, I can't help it, but if I watch it, the scene where she has a fever dream where she's raped by Satan, every time I think about what the director of the film really did.

Maybe the art should be at least a little bit tarnished, if not completely ruined, by the truth of what the creators did. Maybe on some level, it's as simple as "if it bothers you, it bothers you." The art/creation exists separate from the creator, but how we feel or respond to any art is a subjective experience informed by a lot of factors. I never really freaked out about Michael Jackson's music, but when I hear it now (after watching the HBO documentary) it actually bothers me, but some of it bothers me more than other stuff. I guess PYT for obvious reasons.. but maybe it's just that I kinda like Smooth Criminal, and some nostalgic fondness for it, and I can't help it.

[Sarah_Munn]

It's very difficult, the multitude of ethical warrens to get lost in. It's not even just the behaviour of artists but also the cultures they are part of. Until recently sex with often star struck fans, maybe naive and vulnerable, was considered perfectly acceptable (if not expected) in the music and movie industries. Hopefully that is changing.

I struggle to separate art from artist. Sexual abuse/murder/rape/pedophilia/racism/
homophobia I cannot move past and it would affect my enjoyment of that individuals art.
Politics, where it involves approving or promoting any of the above behaviours would also lead me to reject that person's art.

I have had moments with artists when they've done or said shitty things that I personally see as detrimental to their character (many might disagree with me too) and I've had to almost have a break from their work because I'm pissed off. I can work those things through and accept they are not perfect and are just crappy if talented humans, no different in that respect from the rest of humanity.

[allegro]

Or with Polanski, who seems to be the central figure in this debate. Rosemary's Baby is one of my favorite movies, I can't help it, but if I watch it, the scene where she has a fever dream where she's raped by Satan, every time I think about what the director of the film really did. .

And David Bowie and Jimmy Page and plenty of other “rock stars” were having sex with pre-pubescent girls in the 70 (https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/music/11-rock-stars-who-allegedly-slept-with-underage-girls-7980930)s.

[onthewall2983]

This is a thorny issue and one likely not to have an answer, unless done on an individual basis. I came around to changing my mind on Polanski, from feeling sorry for him for losing his parents in the holocaust to losing his wife and unborn child to realizing he'd probably be the same had those things not happened. About the only MAGA celeb I refuse to cancel is James Woods. He's about the only one of them who is actually talented, or was. I think he's gone into real estate now.

[allegro]

Ugh, James Woods, I CANNOT STAND THAT GUY!

[Jinsai]

Yes and it’s hard for me, as a woman, to take a LOT of hip-hop and rock seriously, when it’s filled with so much sexism if not outright misogyny. That’s a no-tolerance zone, for me. I don’t care if “bitch” or “ho” etc. is common parlance in your culture, whatever culture that is, it’s bullshit and it must stop.

It's something that isn't brought up enough, and I have no idea what to think of it. When I was younger, I thought it was ridiculous and humorous. It didn't bother me at all, I just thought the whole "bitches aint shit but ho's and tricks" was just kinda dumb. I didn't think about it much.

When I got older it wasn't so harmless anymore, and I don't know how much of that is just growing up or how much is societal change. You still see it all over the place, but it's generally more facetious now, or toned down way below from what it was.

Oh yeah, even though I love Videodrome, fuck James Woods. I wish they could just digitally edit him out of the movie.

[NotoriousTIMP]

Ugh, James Woods, I CANNOT STAND THAT GUY!

Love his movies, but he is a terrible person. Also, I think he's gone off the deep end, didn't twitter block his account?

[ton]

Of all the individuals mentioned, Kanye is probably the most complicated one. He hasn't actually gone out of his way to harm anyone but he is willfully ignorant of the social implications of supporting Trump. He has extreme narcissistic tendencies obviously - I think a lot of musicians and celebrities we admire are better at hiding that than others. However, he has actually done a lot of good for the black community, whether people want to see that or not. He was also one of the earliest artists to speak out against homophobia in hip hop music, back around 2004-2005. He's also stood up for the transgender community.

I totally understand why someone would think that he isn't a good person though. His controversies and past behavior overshadow most good of what he's done. I know this post seems like I'm trying to cover him up or defend him, but I'm just trying to say there's a scale when it comes to canceling these celebrities. Some people draw the line for me, like Michael Jackson after the HBO documentary - I believe the two men who came forward with their allegations against him. Gene Simmons has said despicable things about Muslims. R Kelly is a pedophile. I can't get past those things, they're all just reprehensible acts of human behavior.

[allegro]

Of all the individuals mentioned, Kanye is probably the most complicated one. He hasn't actually gone out of his way to harm anyone but he is willfully ignorant of the social implications of supporting Trump. He has extreme narcissistic tendencies obviously - I think a lot of musicians and celebrities we admire are better at hiding that than others. However, he has actually done a lot of good for the black community, whether people want to see that or not. He was also one of the earliest artists to speak out against homophobia in hip hop music, back around 2004-2005. He's also stood up for the transgender community.

I totally understand why someone would think that he isn't a good person though. His controversies and past behavior overshadow most good of what he's done. I know this post seems like I'm trying to cover him up or defend him, but I'm just trying to say there's a scale when it comes to canceling these celebrities. Some people draw the line for me, like Michael Jackson after the HBO documentary - I believe the two men who came forward with their allegations against him. Gene Simmons has said despicable things about Muslims. R Kelly is a pedophile. I can't get past those things, they're all just reprehensible acts of human behavior.

I don't want to go all ableist, here, but he has been diagnosed as bipolar and he won't take his medication because he says it causes him problems, and there are insiders in his life saying he's on the spectrum and doesn't see life the way we do, although that has not been confirmed by him. He's also been in the Kardashian Bubble for a while, and his mother is dead, although I guess he IS in contact with his Dad a lot, again, and has found Jesus, and is grounded with that and his old friends in Chicago, again, which I guess is helping him. But his wanting to try to see the "good side in all people" seems to be what has led him down some of these "questionable" paths. Sometimes artists are eccentric people, anyway. Their eccentricities are what fuels or sparks creativity. He was deemed harmless until Candace Owens got ahold of him, but I see that more Candace Owens' fault than Kanye's fault.

His "I am the greatest" schtick simply mimics that of others before him, like Mohammad Ali.

I see him as no way as harmful as people like James Woods.

And Billy Corgan on Infowars? I cannot ever reconcile that. I follow his partner on Instagram, she's nice, they live in my city. But, nope. I've tried, I've really tried. He's an asshole.

[ton]

I don't want to go all ableist, here, but he has been diagnosed as bipolar and he won't take his medication because he says it causes him problems, and there are insiders in his life saying he's on the spectrum and doesn't see life the way we do, although that has not been confirmed by him. He's also been in the Kardashian Bubble for a while, and his mother is dead, although I guess he IS in contact with his Dad a lot, again, and has found Jesus, and is grounded with that and his old friends in Chicago, again, which I guess is helping him. But his wanting to try to see the "good side in all people" seems to be what has led him down some of these "questionable" paths. Sometimes artists are eccentric people, anyway. Their eccentricities are what fuels or sparks creativity. He was deemed harmless until Candace Owens got ahold of him, but I see that more Candace Owens' fault than Kanye's fault.

His "I am the greatest" schtick simply mimics that of others before him, like Mohammad Ali.

I see him as no way as harmful as people like James Woods.

And Billy Corgan on Infowars? I cannot ever reconcile that. I follow his partner on Instagram, she's nice, they live in my city. But, nope. I've tried, I've really tried. He's an asshole.

I agree with everything you said about Kanye. The medication thing is problematic obviously because it might also influence other people to not take their medications or get help. Yeah, him wanting to be positive about every single person he meets blinds him to the fact that people like Candace and Trump are harmful to the people he wants to help, quite fucking ironically. He is literally the most complicated artist I've come across whose creative work I appreciate. He's far removed from the person he was in 2004 but still the same also - if that makes any sense.

Also what the fuck was Billy Corgan doing on Infowars? I've never seen that but I do know he was praising Trump a few years back. I love the Pumpkins, the early records are incredible. But yeah, I'll have to find out more about this Inforwars interview.

[Tom]

The exchange in the other thread also prompted me to reflect on this a little.

I also used to think it better to separate my feelings about the artist and my feelings about the artwork, not allowing either to influence the other. But these days I find they're more likely to interact. For example, I haven't felt comfortable listening to Michael Jackson since the most recent round of child abuse allegations.

For me at least, I think my ability to empathise with the artist and their actions plays role. Jim Morrison is a good example here. As I mentioned in the other thread, though I know he often behaved terribly, I'm not inclined to take an especially reproachful stance towards him, and I'll happily still enjoy The Doors. My impression is that his age, insecurity, and alcoholism were all key factors in the explanation (not justification) of his behaviour. As I've mentioned in the 'Sober' thread, I had ongoing struggles with alcohol throughout my 20s, and regularly behaved pretty shamefully. I probably would have done a lot worse had I been in a similar situation to Morrison during this time. So I can empathise with Jim - the possible world in which I'm that stupid and unpleasant doesn't feel so far away to me. But compare that to MJ, or Manson for that matter - any world in which I'd behave in the ways that (allegedly) they behaved feels very remote indeed; I can't empathise with them at all. For these artists, a reproachful stance comes much more easily, and I feel a bit squeamish about enjoying their music.

[Jinsai]

And Billy Corgan on Infowars? I cannot ever reconcile that. I follow his partner on Instagram, she's nice, they live in my city. But, nope. I've tried, I've really tried. He's an asshole.

Again, I don't wanna armchair diagnose anyone, but there's something really weird going on with Billy Corgan. Like when he refers to himself as a "foremost scribe of the 90s." There's definitely some narcissistic thing happening there, clinical or not, and it comes across as just kind of ridiculous. I haven't seen this thing on Info Wars I don't think; I generally can't stand to watch any of that stuff.
ton, what awful thing has Manson done? I really think he's washed up and hasn't made a good record in 20 years, and he seems like a complete bastard, but I didn't know about a scandal that called him a horrible person. I have heard some stories from people I know who have interacted with him, and if those stories are true, then yeah, he's awful... but I'm not going to share those anecdotes because I don't know if they're true. I don't like to contribute to rumor mills.

[neorev]

I've found myself listening to Smashing Pumpkins less and less thanks to Billy Corgan. The dude is a narcissistic asshole. Trust me, I have experienced this personally with him thru private message. He can't even take a compliment without being a dick. If you want to get on his dick, just praise anything from Zeitgeist on, the newer the better. But even then, he'll turn it into something cunty.

[Jinsai]

yeah, I saw some Q&A with Corgan and fans, and every time one of the fans would start their question with something sycophantic like "I just wanted to say that your music and words are beautiful poetry" he looked like he was muffling an O-face.

But you know, he's not Bill Cosby or the Lost Prophets guy. He just seems like a narcissistic, insufferable asshole, prone to flights of fancy and conspiracy theories. Siamese Dream still kicks all kinds of ass.

EDIT: That brings up an interesting point though. I met Gillian Anderson once way back in the day at my work, and she was such a completely terrible person, I refused to watch X-Files ever again. Just seeing her face made me rage... so what does that say, that I'll make excuses for appreciating Rosemary's Baby but I completely boycott anything w/ Gillian Anderson in it, just because of a personal interaction with her. I'm not really sure what that says about me or my value system.

[Sesquipedalism]

@ton (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=6206), what awful thing has Manson done? I really think he's washed up and hasn't made a good record in 20 years, and he seems like a complete bastard, but I didn't know about a scandal that called him a horrible person. I have heard some stories from people I know who have interacted with him, and if those stories are true, then yeah, he's awful... but I'm not going to share those anecdotes because I don't know if they're true. I don't like to contribute to rumor mills.

Manson provided a particularly, for me, troubling issue when it comes to the discussion at hand. It's the end of the opening post.


Case by case stuff like this makes everything seem a little capricious, doesn't it? Like I should maybe say to myself something like, "Dude, everyone is problematic. Relax. This has been an issue since time immemorial and no one's solved it yet. Just separate art and artist—it's easier and better for everyone—and be done with it. Art is pure. Let it be pure."

And then I think about this.

Like I said, I grew up as a massive Marilyn Manson fan. Mechanical Animals is still a Top 50 record for me. When I was seventeen, if he'd asked me to step into traffic, I'd have said yes. And I'd crotch-punch anyone who suggested his art wasn't Great because he'd made some mistakes.

Marilyn Manson probably raped and assaulted Evan Rachel Wood when she was seventeen. She testified to as much in congress a few years back, but never named the man. The dates and ages line up, but maybe she was cheating on him. They were dating. They were eventually engaged. Sure. It could be someone else. In his whole debauched life, aside from the security guard who didn't like being hit with Manson's dick during a live show, I don't believe we have seen anyone directly accuse Manson of sexual or racial misconduct—I don't know why we all seem to "except" that incident, but we do. Moving along. Seems pretty goddamned cowardly to take this lack of a named accusation as ethical permission to keep listening, but I seem to have done so, because I've kept listening from time to time. To his early stuff, of course. You know, before he lost it. And before he probably became an alleged sex offender. But let's narrow the focus. Let's go back to the single question of whether or not it's ethically sensible to separate artist and art.

If Evan Rachel Wood accused him by name tomorrow, that would mean that his 2007 record, Eat Me, Drink Me—which I have loved since its release—is a work of art that he made when he was dating her, largely about her, and possibly while he was abusing and raping her. It contains a song with the chorus "There's not a word for what I want to do to you/ Murdercute, happyrape." It's honestly something he would have sung on his first record. Before that even. It's a rhetorical thing he's always done. Nevertheless.

Do I still relax, just separate the art and the artist, and regard the record as somehow separate and pure?

And that incident with the security guard that the whole world looked the other way on because it was just post-peak Manson being Manson? You had better believe if I were working a concert and the performer rubbed his dick on my head—or her labia—I'd feel assaulted and sexually exploited. I've been sexually assaulted. Would it be as bad as that? No. But even having that conversation about "Yeah but is this a 'bad' sexual assault?" is demeaning, upsetting, and outright enraging. And I'm not at all sure why everyone in the world decided it's not worth discussing when considering his character, but they did. And apparently, at some point, I did.

[Sesquipedalism]

Yes and it’s hard for me, as a woman, to take a LOT of hip-hop and rock seriously, when it’s filled with so much sexism if not outright misogyny. That’s a no-tolerance zone, for me. I don’t care if “bitch” or “ho” etc. is common parlance in your culture, whatever culture that is, it’s bullshit and it must stop.

When I was thirteen and getting into hip hop, I discovered the secret track on The Chronic. It's called "Bitches Ain't Shit." Here's the lyric sheet (https://genius.com/Dr-dre-bitches-aint-shit-lyrics) for anyone not in the know. Cool beat. But I was a suburban kid raised by a fifty-year-old single mom and I'd never heard talk like that. I kept spinning the record and, for maybe a year, my joke was, "Dude, how did they get a woman to sing on that? Can you imagine the conversation when they told her what she'd be singing?" No one ever really laughed.

Eventually I got two very loud answers to my question. The first was someone screaming "She got paid. A lot. Jesus. Shut up with that." Which seemed true at the time; I assumed every record had a movie budget and bit players were getting a million-dollar payout. I'm sure she actually got an hourly fee. The second was the "It's a Black thing" argument. And while there's some truth to a Black American version of Mexico's machismo/marianismo culture, that doesn't make it not an issue.

Thankfully, there is hip hop out there that I've found that doesn't include peak-Dre's level of misogyny (though I'll assume Snoop, RBX, or The DOC wrote the lyrics on "Bitches"). And when I see that kind of shit, I can at least talk about something other than separating the art from the artist—that shit is always right in the art, front and center. You don't have to make tricky ethical or aesthetic decisions. This one's simple.

"Bitches Ain't Shit" and tracks like it are works of art including or focused on a celebration of misogyny. No discussion needed. Do with that what you will.

[CAMEO172]

I had this kind of trouble with a MAJOR french singer, probably quite unknown in the USA : Bertrand Cantat. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Cantat) - fr wikipedia is more more longer

He was the iconic singer of the rock band french Noir Désir, a major band in the 90s/2000. every french know at least 5 songs from this band !

On July 27 2003, he killed with his hands Marie Trintignant, a great french actress. They were in an hotel, will probably too many drugs. But he hurt her something like 20 times and at least 4 times on face.. quite horrible...

He was judged and was in jail during more or less 7 years.

in 2013 he's back on stage with an other band, Detroit. They played their album and of course Noir Desir songs.

I was more than happy to see this guy live. Near the middle of the show i was ill at ease.. something was wrong. He was seducing very young girls in front row and they were giving his "love" back.. and I saw the monster he can be.. and I can't love him on stage.

Few months after, I did a second show, just to be sure of my first feeling. He had a bad article a day before by a woman journalist inside a local newspapers.
He stopped the show between two songs and was horrible on stage and even made a connection about her name and the Nazis. I definitly understood I can't separate art from artist.

I still love Noir Desir songs but I don't want to see this guy on stage anymore.

[Sesquipedalism]

Of all the individuals mentioned, Kanye is probably the most complicated one.
I think he's maybe the easiest, actually. That's why he was the opening example. I no longer support him politically; he puts his money and considerable platform to use when he believes in something. He has influence. Therefore, I choose to no longer support him financially.

I was considering that very issue when #metoo made me realize I had more than one artist in my iTunes library about whom I needed to have a discussion. In fact, I had 50 or 60. And virtually all of them had done shit worse than vocally support Trump and Candace Owens. Up to that point, Kanye had just always been an unignorably loud asshole—it's part of his brand. So, I'd been aware of it and choosing to ignore it. Asshole is asshole and, as I said, most artists are probably some flavor of insensitive egotist.

But my question—which I should clarify in the original text—quickly became this: If I'm willing to constantly have a debate about supporting someone who is often an unremitting asshole with some questionable opinions which may in part be due to an unmedicated mental disorder, why am I unwilling to at least consider that David Bowie fucked a fifteen-year-old? Or the guy from Real Estate maybe raped everyone he met? Those are actual sex crimes.

And the answer is, it seems, because thinking about the artist when considering his/her/their art might force me into a position where I either cannot ethically do a thing I like or, instead, a position in which I must admit that I don't care enough about criminal sexual misconduct if I happen to enjoy a piece of pop music.

Unless I can somehow solve the eternal philosophical question of whether it's right to always divorce artist from art. If that is the right thing to do, then hell, I can spin all the R. Kelly I want while watching a Polanski film fest, so long as I don't pay either of them—ethics of commerce are a different issue.

Nope. Kanye's the easiest discussion to have. It's just where it began for me.


He was also one of the earliest artists to speak out against homophobia in hip hop music, back around 2004-2005. He's also stood up for the transgender community.
I didn't know this! Thank you. That honestly would have balanced the scales a bit for me, back in the old days.

[Jinsai]

ah yeah, that's true. I actually saw Manson do that once at a concert, while wearing something that was kinda like a thong he tapped the security guard on the head with his junk. I was pretty shocked, the security guard just rolled his eyes and stepped away. I'm not sure how frequently he did that sort of thing, but it's strange. I mean, it clearly is unavoidably sexual in nature, it's uninvited... the theatrics of it are what make it "unique" in a way. In some way, the assault is maybe amplified by the fact that it's done in front of a huge crowd and you just have to stand there and take it.

Yeah, that's pretty awful. I've heard some stories that are worse, and one of them in particular I am inclined to believe, so... whatever, fuck him I guess. I'm pretty much over listening to his music anyway. Most of it hasn't aged very well for me, and some of it is flat out embarrassing. I guess I still think Portrait, Antichrist, and Mechanical Animals are good albums for what they are, even if I think I'm kind of over listening to music like that. It doesn't hurt my approach there to consider what an asshole he is.

[Sesquipedalism]

The artist I have a hard time separating, enjoying: Wagner

https://www.wqxr.org/story/cancel-culture-how-we-deal-wagner-21st-century/

I almost included Wagner in the original essay. I should have. You're definitely not alone there and I turn him off because my brain tells me I should do so to be in the clear because of what he still means to so many people today. But the question remains.

If a god came straight down from heaven and decreed we should all listen to Wagner's music because his art has nothing to do with him, I think I'd stand against this god and say, "Tell you what? I'll play it when there's no chance a Nazi will hear it and have his heart warmed, 'kay?" So even if I were ethically cleared and indeed mandated, I'd stand unethically against him?

This conversation drives me mad. I can't win.

[Sesquipedalism]

And Billy Corgan on Infowars? I cannot ever reconcile that. I follow his partner on Instagram, she's nice, they live in my city. But, nope. I've tried, I've really tried. He's an asshole.

I've stayed out of the Forum's Pumpkins thread because—despite the fact that two of my Top 15 records are by Smashing Pumpkins—Billy Corgan has long been intolerable to me. And I can't not mention it and I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. He's actually a lot like Kanye. A lot. So, like Kanye, I struggled with him, but less, because I didn't have to consider new music (I dismissed his post-Pumpkins output as trash more than a decade ago). I had my seven records and change from the 1990s and I could just ignore the guy. Even when he made it hard—which is, again, impressive, considering I don't have Facebook or Twitter or Insta or Snap or TikTok. Or cable. Or read tabloid news. And he hadn't done anything like go out of his way to praise Trump or let Candace Owens use him to put down a whole hurting community.

I didn't know about Info Wars. And I'm afraid to look. How worried should I be? Even appearing is bad enough. But how worried should I be?

Why the fuck can't artists retire?

[Jinsai]

I guess I missed this earlier... I did not know that about Wagner at all. Well, that really sucks.

[ton]

I think he's maybe the easiest, actually. That's why he was the opening example. I no longer support him politically; he puts his money and considerable platform to use when he believes in something. He has influence. Therefore, I choose to no longer support him financially.

I was considering that very issue when #metoo made me realize I had more than one artist in my iTunes library about whom I needed to have a discussion. In fact, I had 50 or 60. And virtually all of them had done shit worse than vocally support Trump and Candace Owens. Up to that point, Kanye had just always been an unignorably loud asshole—it's part of his brand. So, I'd been aware of it and choosing to ignore it. Asshole is asshole and, as I said, most artists are probably some flavor of insensitive egotist.

But my question—which I should clarify in the original text—quickly became this: If I'm willing to constantly have a debate about supporting someone who is often an unremitting asshole with some questionable opinions which may in part be due to an unmedicated mental disorder, why am I unwilling to at least consider that David Bowie fucked a fifteen-year-old? Or the guy from Real Estate maybe raped everyone he met? Those are actual sex crimes.

And the answer is, it seems, because thinking about the artist when considering his/her/their art might force me into a position where I either cannot ethically do a thing I like or, instead, a position in which I must admit that I don't care enough about criminal sexual misconduct if I happen to enjoy a piece of pop music.

Unless I can somehow solve the eternal philosophical question of whether it's right to always divorce artist from art. If that is the right thing to do, then hell, I can spin all the R. Kelly I want while watching a Polanski film fest, so long as I don't pay either of them—ethics of commerce are a different issue.

Nope. Kanye's the easiest discussion to have. It's just where it began for me.


I didn't know this! Thank you. That honestly would have balanced the scales a bit for me, back in the old days.

Here are some videos I found of Kanye discussing homophobia and the LGBTQ+ community:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp45-dQvqPo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voGnfeVofIg

I'm sorry I misunderstood your post initially - I do see now how you started with Kanye as the starting and why he was the easiest to talk about. Your points are always so well explained and articulated - I can't argue with anything. I really agree with you.

The discussion of separating the art from the artist is always going to be hard for us because it challenges our perception of who we thought these people were before. Art is so powerful that it's painful for people to come to the realization that someone they are inspired by could be a bad person. But I think you said it better than I ever can. I'm not a fan of Polanski since I've never actually seen his work but I did wrestle with Bowie's music and the stories of his past. Eventually the guilt of being a fan due to those allegations let me to gradually stop listening to his music. Whether people choose to listen to his music or not is their prerogative. And there's always the discussion among fans and his critics of whether or not they want to believe the allegations. I would like to believe that victims are justified or vindicated though. The entertainment industry also brings attention to the patriarchal construct of society. This is a really heavy conversation and I will still need to do more research to contribute more to it. There are people way ahead of me in that field.

[Sesquipedalism]

Here are some videos I found of Kanye discussing homophobia and the LGBTQ+ community:

Thank you! This is awesome to find. I hope some day he...returns to a state where I can just choose to ignore his prickliness. That first clip is wonderful—I'd've been thrilled to see that in 2005.


I'm sorry I misunderstood your post initially - I do see now how you started with Kanye as the starting and why he was the easiest to talk about.
Don't be sorry. And I actually went back and modified the original post with an altered version of my reply as it was clearly needed. Thanks for prompting me to articulate myself better.

[marodi]

Finally someone started a thread like this! I've been thinking about doing it for a long time but I could not find a good title for it. Am I'm very lazy.

May I suggest moving it to Speak your Mind, though? I don't have much to say on this subject about musicians but movies, oh boy. And we haven't even started with writers and painters and sculptors etc.

Heck, nobody has mentioned Charlie Chaplin yet.

[Jinsai]

Well, I guess I agree with @marodi (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=125) that this issue crosses every artistic medium, maybe in unique ways. It's not really about music or film specifically.

That said, if they decide that it should stay in the Music board, I feel that's a good choice too, considering that I guess music is primarily the unifying aspect behind this board and its approach to art. Whatever they decide.

I do think it's been a good discussion. I feel sure we've had it before, maybe in the previous incarnation of the board, but I feel like this is a good thing to go over

[onthewall2983]

ah yeah, that's true. I actually saw Manson do that once at a concert, while wearing something that was kinda like a thong he tapped the security guard on the head with his junk. I was pretty shocked, the security guard just rolled his eyes and stepped away. I'm not sure how frequently he did that sort of thing, but it's strange. I mean, it clearly is unavoidably sexual in nature, it's uninvited... the theatrics of it are what make it "unique" in a way. In some way, the assault is maybe amplified by the fact that it's done in front of a huge crowd and you just have to stand there and take it.

Yeah, that's pretty awful. I've heard some stories that are worse, and one of them in particular I am inclined to believe, so... whatever, fuck him I guess. I'm pretty much over listening to his music anyway. Most of it hasn't aged very well for me, and some of it is flat out embarrassing. I guess I still think Portrait, Antichrist, and Mechanical Animals are good albums for what they are, even if I think I'm kind of over listening to music like that. It doesn't hurt my approach there to consider what an asshole he is.

I've never liked his music or his shtick. His voice is like a rusty door, his lyrics suck and I've never discerned much musical value from it. The late 90's were so loathsome for rock music it only ages worse and worse given society's overdue intolerance of the kind of antics people like him and Durst and others seemed to revel in and endorse.

[Sesquipedalism]

I've never liked his music or his shtick.

See, this makes it easy for you. I find it easy to write off Kiss, instead of asking A) do I need to consider Gene Simmons when talking about his art or B) is it better, ethically, to not discuss his art at all? Essentially, a lack of interest allows me to both avoid the ethical implications and look like I'm considering them.

The true test of this is when it's hard. I put Michael Jackson and Prince to the side, most of the time, and I kind of like them. But I'm still a big Bowie fan. And, in the case where it matters to me—I like his music and his shtick—I'm asking A) do I need to consider David Bowie's sexual misconduct when talking about his art and B) is it better, ethically to not discuss Bowie's art at all?

And let's say I decide that A) I do need to consider it and B) it is better, ethically, not to discuss his art at all, will I then act in accordance with my conclusions or make no change, implicitly admitting that it is unethical to engage, but I'm doing it anyways because it feels good to me?

And if so, what the hell conclusions do I draw from that?

Think about an artist you do like whose behavior makes him/her/them ethically suspect and run the test on yourself.

[Jinsai]

I don't know how important it is that it's "easy for" someone to reject a shitty artist. I mean, for instance, I have no problem saying that The Lost Prophets made shitty music, I'd never heard of it before the controversy, and I think it's garbage. That opinion exists completely outside of how everybody obviously feels about the lead singer, who is clearly a monster.

I don't know what I'd feel if I actually liked their music... but their music doesn't feel like something IMPORTANT to me. Even if you liked it, it's pop bullshit. Nobody's going to go out on a limb to really defend the artistic merit there. Or maybe they will, but they'll be told to piss off resoundingly. Just like if someone tried to say "hey, some of Hitler's paintings are pretty good!"

[Magnetic]

I have a big argument here for people supporting artists and thinking it's of no consequence. My father told me to always follow the money.

When Strange Planet was picking up on social media, the creator Nathan W Pyle was outed for supporting March for Life, which is a pro-life organization. And then in the backlash came his response: he only talked about democratic or republican voting. There are plenty of republicans that are pro-choice. And I'm guessing there are some democrats that are pro-life? The language is evasive. He said publicly that he was involved with March for Life.

I have an uncle who is a March-for-lifer, and there's definitely involvement there. If you march, it's safe to assume you donate. Voting is one side of things, and donating money is another. If he's marching, I'm assuming he's donating. We live in an era where we're more informed. If he came out and said, I believe prolife, but I don't fund it, fine. But he didn't. So I'm going to assume that when he makes money, and wants to donate to charities for tax breaks, that's where his money will go. And therefore I will not support him.
If his hard-earned dollars are going to a prolife movement, which will fund legislature against women having rights over their own bodies, then that's a no-deal situation for me.

So every time a friend brings up these 'cute and funny' strange planet comics, this is my response.

[Krazy]

Not aware of what Prince did, anyone mind spilling the beans? Googling it doesn’t help since every bit seems to be about Prince Andrew.

As for the subject it should be up to the individual IMHO. If it bothers you then stay away from whoever it may be. If it doesn’t, or people are oblivious to it since they don’t follow the persons news or what not, then don’t let it consume you either.

[Jinsai]

Not aware of what Prince did, anyone mind spilling the beans? Googling it doesn’t help since every bit seems to be about Prince Andrew.

All I know is that he got really religious and preachy when he became a Jehova's Witness.

[piggy]

I've personally never been able to separate the art from the artist.

I dumped all of my Morrissey/Smiths stuff and have never looked back. I can't even listen to The Smiths simply because I get angry as soon as I hear that voice.

I've come to a place of compromise with Prince. I didn't like how he ended up in later years, but I appreciate his music and his private philanthropy enough to just own a best of compilation.

I grew up listening to The Mamas & The Papas, but haven't been able to handle them at all for years because of what John Phillips apparently did.

When Beck "came out" as a Scientologist in 2005, I lost respect for him and couldn't enjoy his music. Now I listen to it a little bit again because of his "I was never involved with Scientology" thing, facetious as it was, since I couldn't help missing my favorite albums of his.

With Bowie, I have to chalk it up to being young, horny, drugged-up and decadent. Not that it makes things any better, but there was an entire subculture during that time of mothers actually pimping out their adolescent daughters to rock stars in exchange for "sugar daddy" treatment. Bowie just didn't think to say no, I guess.

My newest issue on this front is Billy Corgan. I was never a Smashing Pumpkins fan growing up, but after years of seeking out albums with cool guitar sounds, I thought I was depriving myself of something by not owning the first two SP albums. I bought them around Christmastime last year, but I get that little pang of embarrassment listening to them.

[Lerxto]

Not aware of what Prince did, anyone mind spilling the beans? Googling it doesn’t help since every bit seems to be about Prince Andrew.

As for the subject it should be up to the individual IMHO. If it bothers you then stay away from whoever it may be. If it doesn’t, or people are oblivious to it since they don’t follow the persons news or what not, then don’t let it consume you either.
Try Sinead O'Connor. I don't believe her, btw.

[Sesquipedalism]

Not aware of what Prince did, anyone mind spilling the beans? Googling it doesn’t help since every bit seems to be about Prince Andrew.

As for the subject it should be up to the individual IMHO. If it bothers you then stay away from whoever it may be. If it doesn’t, or people are oblivious to it since they don’t follow the persons news or what not, then don’t let it consume you either.


All I know is that he got really religious and preachy when he became a Jehova's Witness.

There's a summary of some of it in the original post. He did get preachy, but it became more than that when he started to refuse to work with people outside his narrowed field of approval. And I know more than a few people from the queer community that not only felt betrayed, but felt basically campaigned against when someone who'd been more or less a gay icon used his considerable influence to speak out against marriage equality, at a time when it was a hot button issue.


Another case that came up: Prince.

I mentioned that I'll still listen, from time to time, but hadn't bought since '92 "because I refuse to forget his weird about-face decade-and-a-half against marriage equality, or that time he refused to work with an old a bandmate unless she quit being a lesbian and a Jew (https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/cover-story/7348538/prince-jehovahs-witness-life) (and then, years later, increasingly irrelevant, decided to do a self-promo one-off with her again)."

Prince was gave an incalculable assist to the queer community at a time when they really needed it. But he eventually converted to being a Witness, spoke against marriage equality, told his former friends and colleagues to renounce their sexuality and religion as evil, and suggested that his god was right to wipe out Sodom & Gomorrah because "people were just sticking it wherever." He was on that trip for at least a decade. So, I didn't buy his records. But I still occasionally spun his old ones. And I've never told a DJ to not play anything from his catalogue. Then he died. Do I now feel okay buying them? Every year, there's at least one long Prince set on Pride. Is it ethical to get down when they play "Kiss"? Does it matter that what he did for the queer community when he was at the height of his popularity very much outweighs the shit he pulled during his least relevant decade? Do my answers weigh less because I've never really liked Prince and thus find it easier to forget about him in ethical protest?

[Sesquipedalism]

I have a big argument here for people supporting artists and thinking it's of no consequence. My father told me to always follow the money.

This is true but, as I was saying, was more about the ethics of commerce. If you don't support the artist and you know he/she/they speak with their wallet, it's a pretty clear decision you need to make: Don't fund that artist. Hell—we do this every day with any business. Do I or don't I shop at WalMart or Home Depot? And so on.

The bigger question—and the one I don't know that I have an answer to—is that, when the commerce is stripped out of it, does one need to consider the artist? In 100 years, say, maybe pro-choice/pro-life won't be an issue. At all. Say they've solved it and found a 100% church-approved method for only planned conceptions to take place. Whatever. So Strange Planet guy's pro-life charities are all defunct. And he's not there to fund them, regardless. I don't know if the comics reflect his beliefs. Let's say they don't; let's say there's no overt pro-life or pro-choice commentary in his art. It's 100 years from now. Do I need to consider the artist when viewing the art?

And if not, what makes that so much different than viewing the comic today, so long as you're not funding him?

I'm not claiming to have an answer here. This is just the mess we're in.

[Sesquipedalism]

I don't know how important it is that it's "easy for" someone to reject a shitty artist. I mean, for instance, I have no problem saying that The Lost Prophets made shitty music, I'd never heard of it before the controversy, and I think it's garbage. That opinion exists completely outside of how everybody obviously feels about the lead singer, who is clearly a monster.

I don't know what I'd feel if I actually liked their music... but their music doesn't feel like something IMPORTANT to me. Even if you liked it, it's pop bullshit. Nobody's going to go out on a limb to really defend the artistic merit there. Or maybe they will, but they'll be told to piss off resoundingly. Just like if someone tried to say "hey, some of Hitler's paintings are pretty good!"

Pop music matters, at least at the moment. And who knows for how long. In the Elizabethan era, Shakespeare wrote some silly little plays—a lot like a lot of silly little plays of the era and, to many, they were very much considered lowbrow popular fodder.

And this pop bullshit matters outside of commerce—outside of choosing whom we fund—because we pay attention to it. Attention matters. I can't imagine it's more ethical to divorce the artist from his/her/their work in cases where the art is not terribly popular. Where would one draw the line?

[Sesquipedalism]

I've personally never been able to separate the art from the artist.

I dumped all of my Morrissey/Smiths stuff and have never looked back. I can't even listen to The Smiths simply because I get angry as soon as I hear that voice.

I've come to a place of compromise with Prince. I didn't like how he ended up in later years, but I appreciate his music and his private philanthropy enough to just own a best of compilation.

I grew up listening to The Mamas & The Papas, but haven't been able to handle them at all for years because of what John Phillips apparently did.

When Beck "came out" as a Scientologist in 2005, I lost respect for him and couldn't enjoy his music. Now I listen to it a little bit again because of his "I was never involved with Scientology" thing, facetious as it was, since I couldn't help missing my favorite albums of his.

With Bowie, I have to chalk it up to being young, horny, drugged-up and decadent. Not that it makes things any better, but there was an entire subculture during that time of mothers actually pimping out their adolescent daughters to rock stars in exchange for "sugar daddy" treatment. Bowie just didn't think to say no, I guess.

My newest issue on this front is Billy Corgan. I was never a Smashing Pumpkins fan growing up, but after years of seeking out albums with cool guitar sounds, I thought I was depriving myself of something by not owning the first two SP albums. I bought them around Christmastime last year, but I get that little pang of embarrassment listening to them.

I totally get you and do the same thing. Out of curiosity, does this approach not feel, to you, like the Blue Laws (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/5938-Is-It-Right-to-Separate-Art-from-Artist?p=499258#post499258) section above? It feels like Wheel of Fortune judgment to me which is why I keep picking the scab, so to speak.

[Magnetic]

And if not, what makes that so much different than viewing the comic today, so long as you're not funding him?


Because right now, in this day and age, clicks are revenue. What seems like harmless likes in FB or twitter *DOES* generate revenue for the artist. I'm sure you understand that? Or do I need to break that down?

Believe me, I had to break it down over social media to a friend of a friend, and I was finally able to break through and explain this to him.
What we think is harmless clicks....is no longer.

AND the other things....
This isn't just about abortion. It goes the full gamut to women's health. When you support March for Life, these places are looking to not only eradicate abortion, but to defund places like planned parenthood which provide birth control and health services to women. So YES, this is a big deal NOW. And it will affect policies now, which will continue to echo throughout society for a couple of decades. Please do no try to simplify this by extending time. This is relevant now, in how our society makes money and how it affects women's healthcare.

[allegro]

I almost included Wagner in the original essay. I should have. You're definitely not alone there and I turn him off because my brain tells me I should do so to be in the clear because of what he still means to so many people today. But the question remains.

If a god came straight down from heaven and decreed we should all listen to Wagner's music because his art has nothing to do with him, I think I'd stand against this god and say, "Tell you what? I'll play it when there's no chance a Nazi will hear it and have his heart warmed, 'kay?" So even if I were ethically cleared and indeed mandated, I'd stand unethically against him?

This conversation drives me mad. I can't win.

On the other hand, my husband loves Wagner and is able to reconcile Wagner because Daniel Barenboim, a Jew, has reconciled Wagner (https://danielbarenboim.com/wagner-and-ideology/). So, for my husband, if Barenboim was able to separate the art from the artist, then my husband can, too.

I, however, cannot yet do that. I adore Barenboim. I respect him beyond words. I guess I’m just not as sophisticated as Barenboim.

As far as Kanye, I am a white woman. Kanye is a black man. Kanye is highly respected by black people, in spite of his goofy Trump transgressions. Because black people are a hell of a lot less cancel culture. And they get, for the most part, what Kanye was trying (however inelegantly) to say: That black people shouldn’t be expected to vote for Democrats. That black people should have the freedom to vote, first, and then vote for whomever they want. Kanye was focused on the 13th Amendment during this time:



Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

And how Section 1 of the 13th Amendment never really outlawed slavery; it just moved slavery into prisons. And he’s right about that.

And he tried to be clear about how he didn’t vote for Trump but that he thinks he and all “super businesspeople” are cut from some same cloth, likely because he didn’t understand that Trump isn’t Walt Disney (another flawed man) or Steve Jobs (another flawed man); Trump is full of shit.

Kanye was used by Candace Owens and Blexit because Kanye is naive and wants better things for black people. Black people understand this. He’s unfairly characterized as supporting Trump.

Kanye wrote that he felt used and that he was distancing himself from all politics (https://www.insider.com/kanye-west-leaving-politics-blexit-logo-2018-10). Then he immersed himself in his “Sunday Services.” Since then, Chance the Rapper and Rhymefest (Chicagoans) are protecting Kanye and are pals with him, again.

[Sesquipedalism]

Because right now, in this day and age, clicks are revenue. What seems like harmless likes in FB or twitter *DOES* generate revenue for the artist. I'm sure you understand that? Or do I need to break that down?

Believe me, I had to break it down over social media to a friend of a friend, and I was finally able to break through and explain this to him.
What we think is harmless clicks....is no longer.

AND the other things....
This isn't just about abortion. It goes the full gamut to women's health. When you support March for Life, these places are looking to not only eradicate abortion, but to defund places like planned parenthood which provide birth control and health services to women. So YES, this is a big deal NOW. And it will affect policies now, which will continue to echo throughout society for a couple of decades. Please do no try to simplify this by extending time. This is relevant now, in how our society makes money and how it affects women's healthcare.

Okay. I'm sorry I seem to have angered you by using this example as an example.

First of all, I understand that clicks are revenue. I consider that funding.

Second of all, I certainly understand the importance of the issue in the moment and over time—that's why we're having this discussion. I understand that all of these things matter and are not inconsequential.

Third of all, the time factor is a real part of the issue of divorcing art from artist. You quoted the last sentence of the post, after a good long buildup which I had thought would make it clear that I'm asking for a broad ethical question. Would it ever be ethically okay to view these comics and, if so, when? If it's okay someday, and it's not an issue of commerce ​(direct pay, clicks), but an issue of art & artist, what makes "someday" different than "today, but no one else finds out about it"?

[allegro]

Because right now, in this day and age, clicks are revenue. What seems like harmless likes in FB or twitter *DOES* generate revenue for the artist. I'm sure you understand that? Or do I need to break that down?

Believe me, I had to break it down over social media to a friend of a friend, and I was finally able to break through and explain this to him.
What we think is harmless clicks....is no longer.

AND the other things....
This isn't just about abortion. It goes the full gamut to women's health. When you support March for Life, these places are looking to not only eradicate abortion, but to defund places like planned parenthood which provide birth control and health services to women. So YES, this is a big deal NOW. And it will affect policies now, which will continue to echo throughout society for a couple of decades. Please do no try to simplify this by extending time. This is relevant now, in how our society makes money and how it affects women's healthcare.
I totally concur.

I get migraines. Bad migraines. Having the right pillow is really important to me, because neck pain is a migraine trigger for me.

So, some years ago, my Mom bought me a MyPillow. I love it. I can launder it in the washer and dryer, which is also great for my allergies.

But, I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER MYPILLOW!! Because it’s since came out that the MyPillow guy is a March for Life asshole who donates a shitload of money to MFL and wants to totally eradicate Planned Parenthood.

If this stupid pillow didn’t help my migraines (and it wasn’t bad for landfills), I’d get rid of it.

[Sesquipedalism]

And how Section 1 of the 13th Amendment never really outlawed slavery; it just moved slavery into prisons. And he’s right about that.

And he tried to be clear about how he didn’t vote for Trump but that he thinks he and all super businesspeople are cut from some same cloth

Absolutely. I was lucky enough to be exposed years ago to things that are currently trending like The New Jim Crow and 13th—actually, I think it was a discussion about Kanye's "New Slaves" that brought 13th to my attention. Which sort of goes to my feeling that pop music matters, attention matters, and so does the use an artist makes of his/her/their platform.


Kanye wrote that he felt used and that he was distancing himself from all politics (https://www.insider.com/kanye-west-leaving-politics-blexit-logo-2018-10).
Being that my issue with him was that he was allowing his considerable platform and influence to be directed towards something that I feel is unethical, I'm glad to see that he's at least pausing for a moment to contemplate his utility. I should be clear, though, that I'm not of the "shut up and dribble" school of thought; I fully support Kanye's right to talk politics—even uninformedly, even if he's being less than careful, absolutely if he disagrees with me. It's America, after all. But, saying what he was saying and allowing his influence to be so directed, I felt his behavior was unethical, and I wasn't about to financially support him.

That's why I felt like he was the easiest one to tackle.


On the other hand, my husband loves Wagner and is able to reconcile Wagner because Daniel Barenboim, a Jew, has reconciled Wagner (https://danielbarenboim.com/wagner-and-ideology/). So, for my husband, if Barenboim was able to separate the art from the artist, then my husband can, too.

I, however, cannot yet do that. I adore Barenboim. I respect him beyond words. I’m guess I’m just not as sophisticated as Barenboim.

Agh. See, this is such a thorny fucking issue. I've seen things like this before and I've been right where you are—"I guess I'm not quite clever enough to get there myself yet." Barenboim, a Jew, has reconciled Wagner. (I'm excited to read that piece. Thank you.) But I'm not a Jew. Do I therefore get to Barenboim's reconciliation as "permission" for me to indulge? Would that be the same as asking Anthony Rapp if it's okay for me to watch American Beauty?

These aren't pointed questions suggesting I have an answer. I honestly don't know.


EDIT:

So, some years ago, my Mom bought me a MyPillow. I love it. I can wash it in the washer and dryer, which is also great for my allergies.

But, I WILL NEVER BUT ANOTHER MYPILLOW!! Because it’s since came out that the MyPillow guy is a March for Life asshole who donates a shitload of money to MFL and wants to totally eradicate Planned Parenthood.

As a side note, I discovered this week that I've been sleeping in a bed with two MyPillows for five years. I had no fucking idea. They were a gift.

[Magnetic]

Okay. I'm sorry I seem to have angered you by using this example as an example.

First of all, I understand that clicks are revenue. I consider that funding.

Second of all, I certainly understand the importance of the issue in the moment and over time—that's why we're having this discussion. I understand that all of these things matter and are not inconsequential.

Third of all, the time factor is a real part of the issue of divorcing art from artist. You quoted the last sentence of the post, after a good long buildup which I had thought would make it clear that I'm asking for a broad ethical question. Would it ever be ethically okay to view these comics and, if so, when? If it's okay someday, and it's not an issue of commerce ​(direct pay, clicks), but an issue of art & artist, what makes "someday" different than "today, but no one else finds out about it"?

I appreciate how you responded to my reply. I completely appreciate your sensitivity and acknowledgment.

And my apologies: I did glaze over your full and final point:
As an advocate for women right now, I don't know how these things will play out 3-4 decades from now.

My initial thought is that, for this particular artist, I don't think this will stand up 40 years from now as fundamental art of the age. This isn't something that will be in museums as "the best memes of 2018-2019 era." For Strange Planet itself, it's easy for me to say this is a cash grab/ profession for a pro-life supporter, and this will be one and done.

There is art that is much more than a modern meme. The Wagner argument is huge in my mind. Highly difficult to separate. For me...there are better artists to embrace with no ill politics associated.
I guess in a way, it's ok to listen to artists that no longer benefit financially....but I'm always going to say, "yah but...." in my head. It sucks the enjoyment away.

[burninglard]

To answer the the question I think it’s up to you as a individual. If you like an artist work then that is your right and choice. Now how I feel personally is different. If I like an artist and they turn out to be a piece of shit I probably will stop supporting them all together.

[piggy]

If this stupid pillow didn’t help my migraines (and it wasn’t bad for landfills), I’d get rid of it.
Dude. Get yourself a solid latex pillow. They are the SHIT. I have one and while I don't get migraines much, it totally fixed my fucked up shoulder from side sleeping. If that sounds like it might be beneficial to you, here are a couple of links:

https://www.hollandersleepproducts.com/search?q=latex+pillow&lang=default
https://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/store/product/therapedic-reg-latex-foam-pillow/3329191?keyword=latex-pillow

[piggy]

I totally get you and do the same thing. Out of curiosity, does this approach not feel, to you, like the Blue Laws (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/5938-Is-It-Right-to-Separate-Art-from-Artist?p=499258#post499258) section above? It feels like Wheel of Fortune judgment to me which is why I keep picking the scab, so to speak.
To me, it doesn't feel random. I go through more of a micro-judging process on a fairly detailed case-by-case basis. Like your "convicted in a court of me" approach, but with a jury of 12 more versions of me or something. I'm a woman and not to generalize, but some of us tend to analyze shit to within an inch of its life, LOL. But I have a small number of artists on my radar that I consider problematic, so I don't spend that much time thinking about it overall.

[SchwarzerAbt]

I don't know how important it is that it's "easy for" someone to reject a shitty artist. I mean, for instance, I have no problem saying that The Lost Prophets made shitty music, I'd never heard of it before the controversy, and I think it's garbage. That opinion exists completely outside of how everybody obviously feels about the lead singer, who is clearly a monster.

I don't know what I'd feel if I actually liked their music... but their music doesn't feel like something IMPORTANT to me. Even if you liked it, it's pop bullshit. Nobody's going to go out on a limb to really defend the artistic merit there. Or maybe they will, but they'll be told to piss off resoundingly. Just like if someone tried to say "hey, some of Hitler's paintings are pretty good!"

I was a big fan around 2004, when Start Something came out. I saw them play at a festival and they were one of the best acts there, despite playing in broad daylight in the early afternoon. Their music was filled with positivity, in contrast to most other bands of the screamo scene from which they emerged. It helped me to retain some optimism in a personal time of uncertainty.

They also introduced me to the concept of the straight edge. While I did never consider it for myself I found it an astonishing decision to make to persue this lifestyle and had much respect for this.

Their later albums turned into generic stadium rock territory and I kind of lost interest. So as you can imagine I was shocked to find out later Ian Watkins had turned into an active pedophile drugged up on cocaine. It was the opposite of what the band stood (for me) for in the first place.

I am not sure what happened in the meantime. My guess is that Watkins had always known something was wrong with him and deliberately refrained from using alcohol and other drugs. The larger than life rockstyle life (although they had this status probably only in Wales) could have given him a false sense of invincibility. Paired with the offering of all kinds of drugs that surely comes along with this lifestyle lead him to lose all sense of self control he might have wanted to retain earlier.

Whatever it was that lead to his downfall, his actions are more than inexcusable. So while he may have been another person at the time, I can not listen to this band's music anymore. Although there is no hint of these crimes in the lyrics of Burn Burn or Last Train Home all positivity is sucked out of these songs by the events that followed. And it is a good thing that myself as a person and society as a whole decide 'this is so far against all of our morals that we completely refrain from listening to this artist ever again'. Even if the music meant a lot to me. It's that bad.

Regarding Marilyn Manson it is a little different, as sex and violence have always been lyrical themes of his. And at least starting with GAoG it was also about how evil he is. So is it that surprising he actually does evil things in real live? Is it fair to boycott him when he has been kind of honest about this all along? Are we kind of complicit with him because we liked his music, even though it was always there in his lyrics? Or is it foolish to go into a relationship with this man, even after he put out videos like 'saint' and not expect to get hurt? I don't know... It's still inexcusable to rape someone. But as long as that is only speculation it is unfair to dismiss one artists work completely.

[allegro]

Get yourself a solid latex pillow. They are the SHIT. I have one and while I don't get migraines much, it totally fixed my fucked up shoulder from side sleeping. If that sounds like it might be beneficial to you, here are a couple of links:

Thanks, I agree, I love memory foam pillows, I have one, now. I’ve had I think at least three different kinds. MyPillow is basically shredded memory foam. But solid memory foam doesn’t always work for me, it’s a height thing. It’s embarrassing the money I’ve spent on pillows, including a BUCKWHEAT pillow. Lol, ugh. But, thanks much, I appreciate it.

[botley]

Is it fair to boycott him when he has been kind of honest about this all along?
Yep, it is. Hope that helps!

[halo eighteen]

I don't know how important it is that it's "easy for" someone to reject a shitty artist. I mean, for instance, I have no problem saying that The Lost Prophets made shitty music, I'd never heard of it before the controversy, and I think it's garbage. That opinion exists completely outside of how everybody obviously feels about the lead singer, who is clearly a monster.

I don't know what I'd feel if I actually liked their music... but their music doesn't feel like something IMPORTANT to me. Even if you liked it, it's pop bullshit. Nobody's going to go out on a limb to really defend the artistic merit there. Or maybe they will, but they'll be told to piss off resoundingly. Just like if someone tried to say "hey, some of Hitler's paintings are pretty good!"

You are aware that Ilan was in Lostprophets before joining NIN, no? Not that that immediately makes them any more or less artistically relevant or whatever.

[SchwarzerAbt]

Yep, it is. Hope that helps!

I guess your own view of what is acceptabe changes with time and experience. And if you come to the conclusion that it is not okay to listen to this artist any longer you should stop. It's not about fairness towards the artist in the first place but about your ability to enjoy a piece of art or not.

[botley]

^ Yes and that can change for ANY reason. Art isn't math, the answer isn't some unchanging constant.

[onthewall2983]

Think about an artist you do like whose behavior makes him/her/them ethically suspect and run the test on yourself.

Miles Davis, perhaps the most innovative musician of the 20th century. Also notoriously abusive towards some of the women in his life, cold towards most of his family and pretty much everyone besides the musicians he played with, a lot of whom bore witness to that behavior anyway. If such nasty behavior is done as natural as getting up and putting your pants on one leg at a time, that's where I check out. His drug problems, which became quite severe from the 50's to the 70's, explain a good deal of the chemistry behind the behavior. But also the fact that growing up his mother was quite abusive towards her children, provide deeper context. It doesn't excuse what he did, but if I can understand it I find it easier to forgive. And I still listen to his music quite a bit.

The one person I automatically cancelled in my mind right away was William Hurt, after reading about his abuse towards Marlee Matlin. I sold my Blu-ray of Broadcast News almost immediately, after reading that much of it took place during it's filming. It was a completely knee-jerk reaction but one I don't regret much.

[eversonpoe]

someone mentioned something earlier about multiple people being involved in a project, so i'll give a couple good examples for how i deal with things:

1) kevin spacey. i will never, ever watch a movie again in which kevin spacey is the star. but i will still watch a movie like Seven because he is such a small part of it (and especially because he plays such an abhorrent individual) that it allows me to still find him disgusting and awful.

2) roman polanski. i have only ever watched one of his films (the ninth gate) and it was before i knew anything about him. but because he is the director which essentially makes him the main creative force behind any film he makes, i can't abide him.

3) jesse lacey (of the band brand new). there are two Brand New albums ("the devil & god..." and "daisy") that both got me some of the worst moments of my life; provided emotional refuge from abuse and catharsis for moving on from it. while i had their next album on pre-order (which was their first album in 8 years), the news came out about jesse having groomed underage girls in preparation for being in their cities on tour. suddenly, the main songwriter in a band that had helped me through so much had turned out to be a sexual predator, and the music that had helped me overcome (among other things) my sexual assault was so tainted. i was listening to my phone on shuffle in my car a few days later and one of their songs came on. i found myself immediately heaving and had to pull over. i took all their stuff off my phone, out of my itunes library, and i sold their two records that i had. when the new album showed up a few weeks later, i immediately sold it without ever even listening to it. so, so glad i never got one of their lyrics tattooed on me (which i was strongly considering). a lot of people have brand new lyric tattoos.

so yeah, it's situational. it depends on how instrumental to a thing the offending party is.

[allegro]

The one person I automatically cancelled in my mind right away was William Hurt, after reading about his abuse towards Marlee Matlin. I sold my Blu-ray of Broadcast News almost immediately, after reading that much of it took place during it's filming. It was a completely knee-jerk reaction but one I don't regret much.

Omg I didn’t know this! That’s awful! I just Googled and read write-ups about her book, omg.

People knew about Miles Davis since forever. There are entire generations of men that were / are shitty to women and children, it’s like it’s passed down through generations like hair color, through all cultures and colors. We accept it as a “flaw” due to their own “history that they repeat.” Which is unacceptable. We need to fix this.

[GulDukat]

You think The Cosby Show will ever be on TV Land again? It's weird that such an iconic show that's been on reruns forever was just sort of erased from existence. I think once Cosby dies than there will be a reevaluation and that show will start popping up again.

[Magnetic]

I don't follow. Why would they start airing those shows again just because he's dead?
He's still a monster.

[allegro]

Yeah, Cosby's forever done.

"Roseanne." I hated that show, but - oddly enough - I *started* watching it after Roseanne WAS FIRED, and I like it, now. It's funnier, she brought that show WAY down.

If there was a way to cut out Bill Cosby from every scene of the Cosby show, then maybe it'd be possible to bring back the Cosby show in reruns, with everybody else except him.

[GulDukat]

I don't follow. Why would they start airing those shows again just because he's dead?
He's still a monster.
Agreed, he is a monster, but the topic is separating the art from the artist. So when is it "okay" to start airing the Cosby Show again? Or will it never be okay? It's a little different than renting a movie or downloading an album, because this involves a network actually airing the show.

[botley]

I think that show is completely unsuitable for public broadcast, but it should be studied academically as a perfect case of hiding grim realities behind false facades. This isn't something that people are suddenly discovering now that Cosby is in jail: that show was always about a de-fanged, White-centric idea of what a "good" Black family should look like. During its heyday, it was the most-highly rated show in apartheid South Africa. The Huxtables were cuddly one-dimensional characters, with clear-cut all-American morals and nothing challenging about their humour, and all of that made White people far more comfortable consuming their stories. Sure, you can argue that their presence on TV made the image of Black people more relatable to White South Africans. But... that's like saying, "it made them not want to drink poison every day". It's kind of chilling when you juxtapose that image with what we know now about Cosby himself and the erasure of Black experiences over the decades.

[piggy]

Thanks, I agree, I love memory foam pillows, I have one, now. I’ve had I think at least three different kinds. MyPillow is basically shredded memory foam. But solid memory foam doesn’t always work for me, it’s a height thing. It’s embarrassing the money I’ve spent on pillows, including a BUCKWHEAT pillow. Lol, ugh. But, thanks much, I appreciate it.
Latex is totally different from memory foam. Go to a Bed, Bath & Beyond if you can and check one out for yourself. They are AMAZING, trust me.

[allegro]

Latex is totally different from memory foam. Go to a Bed, Bath & Beyond if you can and check one out for yourself. They are AMAZING, trust me.

Hmmmmm ... interesting. I’ll have to see in-person. Do they make you hot?

[piggy]

Hmmmmm ... interesting. I’ll have to see in-person. Do they make you hot?
Nope. Mine feels great. That's why there are little holes all the way through the pillow. It lets the air/heat circulate.

[Jinsai]

Pop music matters, at least at the moment. And who knows for how long. In the Elizabethan era, Shakespeare wrote some silly little plays—a lot like a lot of silly little plays of the era and, to many, they were very much considered lowbrow popular fodder.

And this pop bullshit matters outside of commerce—outside of choosing whom we fund—because we pay attention to it. Attention matters. I can't imagine it's more ethical to divorce the artist from his/her/their work in cases where the art is not terribly popular. Where would one draw the line?

I was just being personally derisive towards their music. After the scandal broke out, I checked out their music and said "well, there's objectively no artistic loss here." There's lots of "pop music" that covers the gamut and is valuable in a variety of ways. The Lost Prophets, I dunno, I guess it's just my subjective opinion, but that shit was even worse than Creed

[SchwarzerAbt]

You are aware that Ilan was in Lostprophets before joining NIN, no? Not that that immediately makes them any more or less artistically relevant or whatever.

I remember that lostprophets posted a statement on their page how much they felt betrayed and let down by Ilan's departure using mostly NIN song titles as words. Then of course saying they're just kidding and are proud of Ilan scoring this gig with a legendary band and wishing him all the best for the future.

Those were fun times to be a fan of both bands, way before this mess really took off!

[eversonpoe]

oh, another really good (and current!) example:

JK Rowling. she has been gradually outing herself as a transphobe over time, and it recently came to a head. she's a flat-out piece of shit who thinks trans women are sub-human, and degrades and demoralizes us but pretends she's "just kidding" or "trying to help". she's turning out to be almost as bad as graham linehan (whose shows i absolutely ADORE but he is one of the worst proponents of anti-trans propaganda on twitter). i have a deathly hallows tattoo. i love harry potter (for all its flaws). i'll probably still watch the movies, but i will never read the books again. ever. fuck her and fuck her attitudes. using her platform to reach MILLIONS of people and spread lies and hate is a truly despicable thing to do.

[tricil]

oh, another really good (and current!) example:

JK Rowling. she has been gradually outing herself as a transphobe over time, and it recently came to a head. she's a flat-out piece of shit who thinks trans women are sub-human, and degrades and demoralizes us but pretends she's "just kidding" or "trying to help". she's turning out to be almost as bad as graham linehan (whose shows i absolutely ADORE but he is one of the worst proponents of anti-trans propaganda on twitter). i have a deathly hallows tattoo. i love harry potter (for all its flaws). i'll probably still watch the movies, but i will never read the books again. ever. fuck her and fuck her attitudes. using her platform to reach MILLIONS of people and spread lies and hate is a truly despicable thing to do.

So what’re you gonna cover the tattoo up with?

[eversonpoe]

So what’re you gonna cover the tattoo up with?

i'm not sure what i'm going to do about it, honestly. i still like the idea it represents (power without balance cannot be wielded responsibly, and very few can handle power even when it is balanced), so i don't know if i feel the need to cover it up.

[tricil]

i'm not sure what i'm going to do about it, honestly. i still like the idea it represents (power without balance cannot be wielded responsibly, and very few can handle power even when it is balanced), so i don't know if i feel the need to cover it up.

It’s so weird to me that she literally can’t accept transfiguration in real life.

[GulDukat]

I think that show is completely unsuitable for public broadcast, but it should be studied academically as a perfect case of hiding grim realities behind false facades. This isn't something that people are suddenly discovering now that Cosby is in jail: that show was always about a de-fanged, White-centric idea of what a "good" Black family should look like. During its heyday, it was the most-highly rated show in apartheid South Africa. The Huxtables were cuddly one-dimensional characters, with clear-cut American morals and nothing challenging about their humour, and all of that made White people far more comfortable consuming their stories. Sure, you can argue that their presence on TV made the image of Black people more relatable to White South Africans. But... that's like saying, "it made them not want to drink poison every day". It's kind of chilling when you juxtapose that image with what we know now about Cosby himself and the erasure of Black experiences over the decades.

I hear what you are saying, I was never a huge fan of the Cosby show and understand your criticisms. That said, that show meant a lot to a lot of people in the Black community (whom as a White person I certainly can't speak for), and I don't know if that show should be permanently swept under the rug. I just don't know how clear cut it is, in terms of how (and if) the show can continued to be enjoyed and recognized as a groundbreaking show. Here is a good article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/18/arts/television/how-to-think-about-bill-cosby-and-the-cosby-show.html) about the subject.

[eversonpoe]

It’s so weird to me that she literally can’t accept transfiguration in real life.

https://media.giphy.com/media/H6Qqxi3RsbyuCry8Ma/200_d.gif

[GulDukat]

Yeah, Cosby's forever done.

"Roseanne." I hated that show, but - oddly enough - I *started* watching it after Roseanne WAS FIRED, and I like it, now. It's funnier, she brought that show WAY down.

If there was a way to cut out Bill Cosby from every scene of the Cosby show, then maybe it'd be possible to bring back the Cosby show in reruns, with everybody else except him.
So it would come back as The Show?

[Sesquipedalism]

Regarding Marilyn Manson it is a little different, as sex and violence have always been lyrical themes of his. And at least starting with GAoG it was also about how evil he is. So is it that surprising he actually does evil things in real live? Is it fair to boycott him when he has been kind of honest about this all along? Are we kind of complicit with him because we liked his music, even though it was always there in his lyrics? Or is it foolish to go into a relationship with this man, even after he put out videos like 'saint' and not expect to get hurt? I don't know... It's still inexcusable to rape someone. But as long as that is only speculation it is unfair to dismiss one artists work completely.

First, I'm with @botley (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=469) here. Yeah, it's right to stand against something even if they've been candid about it and you'd been duped. Forthright honesty doesn't equal exculpation; previous muteness doesn't demand future silence.

Second, as someone who was a fan from '94, I feel like there was a seismic shift in Manson that occurred when he either forgot or willfully abandoned the notion that that his show was an ironic statement on the inherent flaws in a society that worships sex and violence. "I am your shit; you should be ashamed of what you have eaten" was originally an indictment. We were supposed to see the things he was "celebrating" as abominable. There's a reason he used to focus so much on things like his skin being an "eyesore mirror sketch pad" and "you are what you should fear." There was a point to getting people to chant "We hate love, we love hate." And the point of all of that was to show us back to us and have us be queasy.

It was deliberate. And that's why it was clever art.

Whenever the sea change happened—I'm sure one can argue when and why—it seemed like his celebration of our society's misguided ideals became less ironic, more sincere. The video for "Running to the Edge of the World." "Pistol Whipped." "Kill4Me." I no longer see ironic detachment here and, if he's still "got it," so to speak, if he's still doing what he's always done and showing us back to ourselves in order that we be disgusted, well, then I would offer him some advice from Kurt Vonnegut.

"We are what we pretend to be, so we should be careful about what we pretend to be."

There was always a high likelihood of fans not understanding the disconnect between what Manson pretended to be and what he was subtextually saying. I would argue that knowledge of it was built into the operation and is the primary reason for the "We hate love, we love hate" refrain and the song "I Don't Like the Drugs." But, as I've said, even if I am not qualified to declaim his present mental state—and I'm not, really—I am certainly qualified to observe his reception and comment back that he's no longer being widely received in accord with his original mission statement. Perhaps this means he's failing to achieve original goals or perhaps that means his goals have shifted. Either way, just because a fan bought in, he/she/they are not required to keep buying in or remain silent.

[eversonpoe]

So it would come back as The Show?

as allegro said, it shouldn't come back. it's irredeemable.

and as botley said, it's the "good black family" stereotype. black folks and families come in all sorts, and their "goodness" shouldn't be dictated by white culture. i'd much rather someone make a new show.

[Sesquipedalism]

The one person I automatically cancelled in my mind right away was William Hurt, after reading about his abuse towards Marlee Matlin. I sold my Blu-ray of Broadcast News almost immediately, after reading that much of it took place during it's filming. It was a completely knee-jerk reaction but one I don't regret much.
Well, that's horrifying. I didn't know any of that. And now I also want to dropkick Joy Behar (https://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/14/lkl.marlee.matlin/). "Sex with him was spectacular." Fuck you.

[Sesquipedalism]

Agreed, he is a monster, but the topic is separating the art from the artist. So when is it "okay" to start airing the Cosby Show again? Or will it never be okay? It's a little different than renting a movie or downloading an album, because this involves a network actually airing the show.

Part of me feels like The Cosby Show is a little like a Hitler painting. Stay with me now.

Both artists are, ahem, extremely problematic and, in the case of Cosby, virtually always visually present as a reminder. In both cases, I think the ask on the audience is too much—look at this art and ignore everything else you might know or be thinking. It's probably not going to happen. So, it's less a case of "should we" or "is it right to," and more a case of "it's probably not possible to."

Maybe when Cosby, his accusers, and their children are all long dead. But honestly, you really think the antics of Cliff Huxtable will be of much value in 2100?


I think that show is completely unsuitable for public broadcast, but it should be studied academically as a perfect case of hiding grim realities behind false facades. This isn't something that people are suddenly discovering now that Cosby is in jail: that show was always about a de-fanged, White-centric idea of what a "good" Black family should look like. During its heyday, it was the most-highly rated show in apartheid South Africa. The Huxtables were cuddly one-dimensional characters, with clear-cut American morals and nothing challenging about their humour, and all of that made White people far more comfortable consuming their stories. Sure, you can argue that their presence on TV made the image of Black people more relatable to White South Africans. But... that's like saying, "it made them not want to drink poison every day". It's kind of chilling when you juxtapose that image with what we know now about Cosby himself and the erasure of Black experiences over the decades.
Yes! Yes! Yes!

I have nothing to contribute here, but clicking "Like" didn't satisfy me.

[allegro]

I hear what you are saying, I was never a huge fan of the Cosby show and understand your criticisms. That said, that show meant a lot to a lot of people in the Black community (whom as I White person I certainly can't speak for), and I don't know if that show should be permanently swept under the rug. I just don't know how clear cut it is, in terms of how (and if) the show can continued to be enjoyed and recognized as a groundbreaking show. Here is a good article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/18/arts/television/how-to-think-about-bill-cosby-and-the-cosby-show.html) about the subject.

Nah, it seemed to mean a lot more to white people. There are a lot of black people who thought Cosby was just a sanctimonious asshole, bitching about black boys’ pants being too low or African American Vernacular English and code-switching as being totally unacceptable. Meanwhile, Cosby was drugging and raping women


as allegro said, it shouldn't come back. it's irredeemable.

and as botley said, it's the "good black family" stereotype. black folks and families come in all sorts, and their "goodness" shouldn't be dictated by white culture. i'd much rather someone make a new show.

Fixed.

[GulDukat]

Nah, it seemed to mean a lot more to white people. There are a lot of black people who thought Cosby was just a sanctimonious asshole, bitching about black boys’ pants being too low or African American Vernacular English and code-switching as being totally unacceptable. Meanwhile, Cosby was drugging and raping women



Fixed.I think that sanctimonious shit came later, not during the show's run.

[eversonpoe]

I think that sanctimonious shit came later, not during the show's run.

oh man, this article is incredible. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-05-04-ca-927-story.html

a choice quote:


Television, despite the liberal intentions of many who write its stories, has pushed culture backward. White people are not prepared to deal with the problem of racial inequality because they can no longer see that there is a problem.

NB: that article is from 1992, and the fact that it still resonates so perfectly right now is extremely upsetting.

[botley]

Here is a good article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/18/arts/television/how-to-think-about-bill-cosby-and-the-cosby-show.html) about the subject.
I like Mr. Morris's style very much (his interview on The Daily about reckoning with HBO's Leaving Neverland helped me recognize and let go of my Michael Jackson baggage, which I also had carried with me since childhood) but he rightly concludes the show is "condemned".

[GulDukat]

I like Mr. Morris's style very much (his interview on The Daily about reckoning with HBO's Leaving Neverland helped me recognize and let go of my Michael Jackson baggage, which I also had carried with me since childhood) but he rightly concludes the show is "condemned".

Michael Jackson is definitely another one to ad to the list.

[elevenism]

With me, I can usually do it with music.

But, JESUS, fucking Kevin Spacey.

I swear to god, I had a feeling that he wasn't a very nice person, while watching House of Cards. It seemed too easy for him to act so hateful and threatening.

And American Beauty: that WAS one of my favorite movies of all time. It got into some taboo shit, but, "hey, it's just Kevin actng, and he's a nice guy."

I can't imagine watching any of that shit, because he is out protagonist: our avatar, if you will. Music isn't like that, as MUCH, you know?

I can also handle watching stuff by a disgraced director, or producer.

What I'm saying, here, is about what I'm ABLE to separate, though.

Whether I SHOULD, or not, is a different issue. I've been a bowie fan since I was, like, six. I'm not sure if this might make me part of the problem.

[Archive_Reports]

For me personally, I think it depends on not only the infraction but whether or not there's any contrition on the part of the offender.

This particular moral issue is also prevalent in professional sports. Kobe Bryant, Michael Vick, and Ray Lewis were all tried for different offenses (rape, dog fighting, and murder, respectively) with outcomes ranging. Kobe went on to have a (mostly) celebrated career while Vick, who served time, was never fully accepted again.

[onthewall2983]

There's one big one in pro wrestling: Chris Benoit. Before the murder/suicide of his family that understandably stained his legacy, he had a lot of fans online. Some of them around still, who purport any number of silly conspiracy theories about his "innocence". In this case it lays more on the other side, of people who can say that stuff with a straight face. As for me, I do feel weird watching his matches but I feel it more whenever I see Nancy in something.

[allegro]

I already had Mel Gibson on my Asshole Bingo Card ...

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1275231873803980801?s=21

[Archive_Reports]

There's one big one in pro wrestling: Chris Benoit. Before the murder/suicide of his family that understandably stained his legacy, he had a lot of fans online. Some of them around still, who purport any number of silly conspiracy theories about his "innocence". In this case it lays more on the other side, of people who can say that stuff with a straight face. As for me, I do feel weird watching his matches but I feel it more whenever I see Nancy in something.

I think both Hulk Hogan and Vince McMahon would like a word.

[allegro]

oh, another really good (and current!) example:

JK Rowling. she has been gradually outing herself as a transphobe over time, and it recently came to a head. she's a flat-out piece of shit who thinks trans women are sub-human, and degrades and demoralizes us but pretends she's "just kidding" or "trying to help". she's turning out to be almost as bad as graham linehan (whose shows i absolutely ADORE but he is one of the worst proponents of anti-trans propaganda on twitter). i have a deathly hallows tattoo. i love harry potter (for all its flaws). i'll probably still watch the movies, but i will never read the books again. ever. fuck her and fuck her attitudes. using her platform to reach MILLIONS of people and spread lies and hate is a truly despicable thing to do.

Naomi Wolf posted this, which explains some scary stuff across the pond. Wtf. I thought the racist death threats to Meghan Markle were bad enough, now this shit. The COMMENTS in this tweet are horrible. There’s nothing “feminist” about this. This is simply “Terrorist.” Nobody should feel threatened by anyone else, we should all coexist peacefully and be welcoming and inclusive.

I’ve never read a Harry Potter book, but people on Twitter have been saying that there were already some pretty serious underlying issues in the themes and characters?

https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/status/1274328440116838400?s=21

[botley]

I just learned via Twitter that a young-ish actor, who a couple of years ago was in a play that was produced at my workplace (a small theatre company with a permanent space), stands accused of sexual assault by MULTIPLE people. What's even worse is that the show was notable for involving some 'challenging' (well, to the normie mainstream Toronto arts-patron types, anyway) depictions of sexuality, and used nudity in a boundary-pushing way, and of course the alleged rapist got to have a triumphant three-way scene in it and made us all believe he was just a healthy dude challenging hetero-normative stage conventions in rehearsals and his press quotes for the show. The whole time, he was just a piece-of-shit sex addict making rough sex without proper consent a nightmarish routine in his private life.

So what the hell am I supposed to do with this information, other than amplify voices calling for him to be cancelled and removed from the company he's currently in (which isn't performing anyway rn, because COVID)? I'm upset and angry, and want him gone from the position in our small artistic community he was enjoying. The director of the show, a queer cis white man with TV-writing money who insisted on burning sage into oblivion every night, waving it around the room like it was a fucking fog machine, made a (possibly unrelated? dunno) tweet about a week before the revelations started to make waves about cancel culture being "dangerous"... okay. What about letting an accused rapist back into rehearsal halls, is that not dangerous?

Anyway, this has me thinking A LOT about the creative workplace, and how to separate art that should push boundaries and make people uncomfortable and challenge notions of decorum, from preserving the BASIC FUCKING HUMANITY of the artists involved with making it. Like, looking back on movies now like Last Tango in Paris, where the director essentially colluded with a rapist, and plays where the rehearsal room is triggering and unsafe. What can I as a tech do, without a lot of power other than to lock people out of the building? To say "STOP," out loud, when I feel skeeved out? Is that enough? Is that too much? Ugh. I'm tired and logging off to have a long shower.

[ton]

I already had Mel Gibson on my Asshole Bingo Card ...

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1275231873803980801?s=21

Certainly sounds like the Mel Gibson I heard in those infamous audio recordings many moons ago.

[eversonpoe]

I just learned via Twitter that a young-ish actor, who a couple of years ago was in a play that was produced at my workplace (a small theatre company with a permanent space), stands accused of sexual assault by MULTIPLE people. What's even worse is that the show was notable for involving some 'challenging' (well, to the normie mainstream Toronto arts-patron types, anyway) depictions of sexuality, and used nudity in a boundary-pushing way, and of course the alleged rapist got to have a triumphant three-way scene in it and made us all believe he was just a healthy dude challenging hetero-normative stage conventions in rehearsals and his press quotes for the show. The whole time, he was just a piece-of-shit sex addict making rough sex without proper consent a nightmarish routine in his private life.

So what the hell am I supposed to do with this information, other than amplify voices calling for him to be cancelled and removed from the company he's currently in (which isn't performing anyway rn, because COVID)? I'm upset and angry, and want him gone from the position in our small artistic community he was enjoying. The director of the show, a queer cis white man with TV-writing money who insisted on burning sage into oblivion every night, waving it around the room like it was a fucking fog machine, made a (possibly unrelated? dunno) tweet about a week before the revelations started to make waves about cancel culture being "dangerous"... okay. What about letting an accused rapist back into rehearsal halls, is that not dangerous?

Anyway, this has me thinking A LOT about the creative workplace, and how to separate art that should push boundaries and make people uncomfortable and challenge notions of decorum, from preserving the BASIC FUCKING HUMANITY of the artists involved with making it. Like, looking back on movies now like Last Tango in Paris, where the director essentially colluded with a rapist, and plays where the rehearsal room is triggering and unsafe. What can I as a tech do, without a lot of power other than to lock people out of the building? To say "STOP," out loud, when I feel skeeved out? Is that enough? Is that too much? Ugh. I'm tired and logging off to have a long shower.

at first i thought you were talking about Ansel Elgort, who is also in a bit of hot water at the moment. (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/ansel-elgort-sexual-assault-itsgabby-deny-instagram)

[WorzelG]

oh, another really good (and current!) example:

JK Rowling. she has been gradually outing herself as a transphobe over time, and it recently came to a head. she's a flat-out piece of shit who thinks trans women are sub-human, and degrades and demoralizes us but pretends she's "just kidding" or "trying to help". she's turning out to be almost as bad as graham linehan (whose shows i absolutely ADORE but he is one of the worst proponents of anti-trans propaganda on twitter). i have a deathly hallows tattoo. i love harry potter (for all its flaws). i'll probably still watch the movies, but i will never read the books again. ever. fuck her and fuck her attitudes. using her platform to reach MILLIONS of people and spread lies and hate is a truly despicable thing to do.
Graham Linehan has got massive karma for what he’s doing though, have you seen this tweet where someone photographed him buying ingredients and utensils to make carbonara? - he’s divorced now. One of the many things that pisses me off about him is his using the phrase ‘protecting women and girls’ - he’s not speaking for me! Also he fucked off his own family, a woman and teenage children and is dragging their name through the mud, if you don’t even give a fuck about your own family, who believes he gives a fuck about anyone else? Anyway I could go on for hours about my hate for him, so I’ll stop. He’s an egomaniac and this is just about himself

https://twitter.com/sineadactually/status/1259208778777534464?s=20

[WorzelG]

With me, I can usually do it with music.

But, JESUS, fucking Kevin Spacey.

I swear to god, I had a feeling that he wasn't a very nice person, while watching House of Cards. It seemed too easy for him to act so hateful and threatening.

And American Beauty: that WAS one of my favorite movies of all time. It got into some taboo shit, but, "hey, it's just Kevin actng, and he's a nice guy."

I can't imagine watching any of that shit, because he is out protagonist: our avatar, if you will. Music isn't like that, as MUCH, you know?

I can also handle watching stuff by a disgraced director, or producer.

What I'm saying, here, is about what I'm ABLE to separate, though.

Whether I SHOULD, or not, is a different issue. I've been a bowie fan since I was, like, six. I'm not sure if this might make me part of the problem.
I find the complete opposite, actors are playing someone else, so it’s not like you’re rooting for them, also the only film I really like with Spacey in it is Seven and he’s an absolute villain so I have no problem watching.

[onthewall2983]

I think both Hulk Hogan and Vince McMahon would like a word.

Neither of them killed anybody. Benoit is most definitely cancelled, Hogan is still paid by WWE and Vince still runs things. That isn't indicative of their outer cancellations but comparatively speaking their crimes against wokeness are weak compared to the death of a woman and her child.

[Jinsai]

I just found out that HP Lovecraft, maybe my favorite world-builder in fantasy/sci-fi fiction circles, was apparently a really open white supremacist racist anti-semitic dick.

That really fucks me up, and not just because he influenced so many people that I love in fiction... he was more than an influence point for some, but really you could imply he was the initial inspiration for many.

My favorite video game of all time is Bloodborne, which has a world clearly modeled directly after HP Lovecraft's work. Does my appreciation for that, even degrees removed, become problematic if its influence was morally fucked? What if the people who made Bloodborne knew nothing about his racism, just like I didn't. Does that make it an acceptable rendering of something that otherwise should be shunned for the shittiness of its creator's beliefs?

That makes it even more confusing for me, re: where I stand on it all. But I'd thought I'd bump the thread.

[eversonpoe]

I just found out that HP Lovecraft, maybe my favorite world-builder in fantasy/sci-fi fiction circles, was apparently a really open white supremacist racist anti-semitic dick.

That really fucks me up, and not just because he influenced so many people that I love in fiction... he was more than an influence point for some, but really you could imply he was the initial inspiration for many.

My favorite video game of all time is Bloodborne, which has a world clearly modeled directly after HP Lovecraft's work. Does my appreciation for that, even degrees removed, become problematic if its influence was morally fucked? What if the people who made Bloodborne knew nothing about his racism, just like I didn't. Does that make it an acceptable rendering of something that otherwise should be shunned for the shittiness of its creator's beliefs?

That makes it even more confusing for me, re: where I stand on it all. But I'd thought I'd bump the thread.

1) most people refer to his works and what they've inspired as "cosmic horror" now, acknowledging that he had some amazing ideas while also being a horribly shitty person.

2) i'm assuming you never read his short story where the main character has a cat named "ni**er-man"? because yeah, that's a thing.

3) i would highly recommend checking out the book Carter & Lovecraft and its sequel After The End Of The World by Jonathan L Howard.

4) i am extremely excited for the upcoming series Lovecraft Country.

5) one of my favorite things people do with lovecraft-inspired stuff is use the good ideas but spit in the face of his racism, etc. for example, supernatural had an episode where he (in the past) is gay. the arkham horror deck-building game (which is amazing) is SUPER diverse in terms of characters and super inclusive in terms of leagues that play it. there's a lot of work being done to dismantle the horrible things he believed without erasing the undeniable impact he had on the sci-fi/horror world.

[Jinsai]

2) yeah I do believe I remember this, but using language isn’t an endorsement and we only need to stop at Twain there... but, sorry this one really pisses me off. I kinda felt like Lovecraft was “on my side,” and I don’t know how to explain that, especially considering what we’re talking about with his fucked personal beliefs.

I thought he was being “edgy,” not a racist dick. This scrambles so much for me. Up until a couple days ago, Lovecraft was my standard for gothic horror, and I just assumed he was a cool person. This is upsetting at least, but weirdly this actually messes with the way I appreciate some things in a clearly disruptive way. And if you want me to be honest and sound like a dick, primarily I’m just fucking annoyed

[allegro]

Are you mad at Mark Twain?

[botley]

Are you mad at Mark Twain?
I don't envy the Black artists who've had to go onstage and accept the Mark Twain Prize. I like that Chapelle addressed racism in comedy head-on during his acceptance speech, waving a cigarette at the audience, while the bust of a White man from the 19th century looms over his shoulder. It takes chutzpah:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeYA72NLaDE

[GulDukat]

I'll still watch and enjoy Kelsey Grammer on Cheers and Fraiser, but am disappointed that he's a Trump guy. He's so well spoken and seemingly intelligent, he should know better.

[allegro]

I don't envy the Black artists who've had to go onstage and accept the Mark Twain Prize


The Mark Twain Prize for American Humor recognizes individuals who have had an impact on American society in ways similar to the distinguished 19th-century novelist and essayist Samuel Clemens, best known as Mark Twain. As a social commentator, satirist, and creator of characters, Clemens was a fearless observer of society, who startled many while delighting and informing many more with his uncompromising perspective on social injustice and personal folly.

https://www.kennedy-center.org/whats-on/marktwain/

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/mark-twain-s-inconvenient-truths

[onthewall2983]

Here's a question that doesn't seem to be pondered much, and it kind of makes me mad in one very specific case although there are others. What happens when the actual truth is different from the popularized news item/scandal? Currently Johnny Depp is in court trying to disprove the abuse against Amber Heard, when in actual fact there is plenty of awful evidence to the contrary. This is a good enough example, because the hubbub about what's going on now doesn't seem to be as loud and as furious as when social media were lead to believe that another Hollywood leading man was accused of abusing his spouse.

My very specific axe to grind here is regarding Pete Townshend, and that the immediate response to him online goes back to his 2003 arrest for looking at child pornography. I always point to this as proof (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/pete-townshends-child-porn-treatise) that his misguided attempt at trying to take down that foul industry was nothing more than that, an emotional journey brought on by the deaths of a few people close to him in his life who experienced sexual abuse as children, as he did as well (part of which inspired him to write Tommy). But explaining such a thing can't be enough for the more rabid SJW's who want to prove how pure they are by ignorantly labeling him a pervert and pedophile. And that pisses me off, as does so much about the internet now.

[botley]

I am watching Shane Carruth self destruct in real time on Twitter. I do not wish I was doing this.

https://www.kennedy-center.org/whats-on/marktwain/

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/mark-twain-s-inconvenient-truths
I know, I loved Huckleberry Finn as a kid. I can appreciate the stuff that's great about Clemons' writing now. Black men may feel differently about him in America, though.

[allegro]

I am watching Shane Carruth self destruct in real time on Twitter. I do not wish I was doing this.

I know, I loved Huckleberry Finn as a kid. I can appreciate the stuff that's great about Clemons' writing now. Black men may feel differently about him in America, though.

J don’t think so. It’s generally an honor to receive a Kennedy Center award. That particular award just happens to be named for Twain because he was America’s premier humorist but also because he was such a huge advocate for social justice.

We read “ The Tragedy of Pudd’nhead Wilson” in a college American Literature class. One of my favorites. It’s a short little book so I gave copies to several friends and relatives.

Twain’s activism is legendary.

https://socialistworker.org/2010/04/21/the-twain-they-didnt-teach

[eversonpoe]

I am watching Shane Carruth self destruct in real time on Twitter. I do not wish I was doing this.

yeah, what the fuck? poor amy...

and seriously, the college student (?) that shane has repeatedly threatened with violence...fucking yikes.

[allegro]

What a horrible horrible asshole.

[Dan Drone]

It's up to each individual to decide that. Not everyone shares the same "that's it, line in the sand!" to answer this with a definitive answer.

[botley]

What a horrible horrible asshole.
I'm not going to be able to watch his films now without thinking "fuck me, was he behaving like that on set the entire time?"

[eversonpoe]

I'm not going to be able to watch his films now without thinking "fuck me, was he behaving like that on set the entire time?"

i only ever saw primer, which i loved, but he always seemed super pretentious. i know upstream color had a pretty rough sexual assault in it (from what people have told me) and i just never worked up the nerve to be able to sit through that.

[Sesquipedalism]

Upstream Color is fucking spectacular. Too bad its creator is an asshole. And it's interesting that I never ever would have run into that fact if it weren't mentioned in this thread.

[botley]

It's infuriating because he IS a brilliant filmmaker, clearly multi-talented. But I guess there are aspects to that brilliance which manifest as cruelty/fixation on people as well as work? Perhaps without the right cocktail of meds, speculatively.

eversonpoe I don't remember the film specifically depicting sexual assault, not in the sense of a literal depiction anyway... it may allude to that obliquely, however, in the aftermath of a similarly devastating situation, so I can see how that would be uncomfortable and even potentially triggering for someone watching it with trauma around assault.

This is an interesting analysis of the film in Vanity Fair through 2020 vision (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/05/shut-in-movie-club-upstream-color-coronavirus/amp), so to speak.

[Patrick_Nicholas]

I didn't really read this thread because I was kinda expecting it to get ugly (I don't even bother to read the Sexual Asshatery thread anymore) but I feel the need to bring it back in light of recent allegations made against a certain musician who put out some albums that some of us may have held close to us for years. Generally speaking, I have found myself capable of separating art from artist: I intentionally tested it in 2019 by watching a couple of Ren And Stimpy episodes when reruns were brought back to TV about a year after they were pulled over allegations against John K.

I get the impression that many of the regulars here have fully embraced Cancel Culture. I never bothered to look up the term (though I don't think any two people can agree in its exact meaning regardless) but it mostly appears to me as people rejoicing in someone's sins being exposed so they can feel morally superior to others by militantly despising EVERY aspect of that person's existence and demanding everyone else to do the same, insisting that the individuals be known STRICTLY for their wrongdoings and equating saying something remotely positive about any other aspect of them with supporting their wrongdoings. As in: Liking a Michael Jackson song is SUPPORTING child molestation, liking a movie with Johnny Depp in it is SUPPORTING domestic abuse, liking a Bill Cosby joke is SUPPORTING rape, liking the Harry Potter franchise is SUPPORTING transphobia, saying anything remotely positive about someone who stood within 100 yards of Epstein is SUPPORTING sex trafficking, etc.

I'm pretty sure those people are just a vocal minority in the world (how else do you explain CHRIS fucking BROWN, of all people, getting a number 1 album in the MeToo era?) but it may become harder and harder to talk about certain compositions/performances/etc. in certain parts of the internet, especially Twitter, without having to say "Say what you will..." a lot to (very reluctantly) acknowledge that many people who have done things that may have enhanced our lives at one point or another (for example, I probably would not have survived high school without Marilyn Manson's music) can also be seriously flawed individuals who are far from role models. It's important to acknowledge that people are (for the most part) neither completely good nor completely evil; sometimes "good" people do bad things, and "bad" people do good things.

[Archive_Reports]

Support is different, in my eyes, than appreciating someone's art. Bringing up MM for obvious reasons, he put out some great songs over the years. I would have little problem listening to one of those songs if I owned a physical copy or was able to stream from somewhere I knew did not generate any revenue for him. That said, I would be thinking, in the back of my mind, about what an awful person he was at some point during my listening.

[DVYDRNS]

If hitler came back from the dead and put out the best shoe gaze record ever recorded. I would burn it and slap anyone who told me I should give it a chance.

When people commit heinous acts, like Brian Warner, they deserve to have zero support from the rest of humanity. I dont care how great their "Art" is.

There is plenty of other great art, music and films in this world created by people who aren't complete bags of shit for all of us to enjoy.

[Jinsai]

I still think Manson's new album is good, despite what a terrible human being he is. I'm still going to throw it in the trash though. I honestly credit the production on it really selling it for me, but whatever. I'm embarrassed to even own it, and I don't need it around.

[zecho]

I didn't really read this thread because I was kinda expecting it to get ugly (I don't even bother to read the Sexual Asshatery thread anymore) but I feel the need to bring it back in light of recent allegations made against a certain musician who put out some albums that some of us may have held close to us for years. Generally speaking, I have found myself capable of separating art from artist: I intentionally tested it in 2019 by watching a couple of Ren And Stimpy episodes when reruns were brought back to TV about a year after they were pulled over allegations against John K.

I get the impression that many of the regulars here have fully embraced Cancel Culture. I never bothered to look up the term (though I don't think any two people can agree in its exact meaning regardless) but it mostly appears to me as people rejoicing in someone's sins being exposed so they can feel morally superior to others by militantly despising EVERY aspect of that person's existence and demanding everyone else to do the same, insisting that the individuals be known STRICTLY for their wrongdoings and equating saying something remotely positive about any other aspect of them with supporting their wrongdoings. As in: Liking a Michael Jackson song is SUPPORTING child molestation, liking a movie with Johnny Depp in it is SUPPORTING domestic abuse, liking a Bill Cosby joke is SUPPORTING rape, liking the Harry Potter franchise is SUPPORTING transphobia, saying anything remotely positive about someone who stood within 100 yards of Epstein is SUPPORTING sex trafficking, etc.

I'm pretty sure those people are just a vocal minority in the world (how else do you explain CHRIS fucking BROWN, of all people, getting a number 1 album in the MeToo era?) but it may become harder and harder to talk about certain compositions/performances/etc. in certain parts of the internet, especially Twitter, without having to say "Say what you will..." a lot to (very reluctantly) acknowledge that many people who have done things that may have enhanced our lives at one point or another (for example, I probably would not have survived high school without Marilyn Manson's music) can also be seriously flawed individuals who are far from role models. It's important to acknowledge that people are (for the most part) neither completely good nor completely evil; sometimes "good" people do bad things, and "bad" people do good things.

I'm at work and don't have time to type out a long articulate post about this, but I feel the need to post something. There is no such thing as "cancel culture". People have been demanding consequences for actions since the dawn of civilization. I think we can all agree that the people claiming to be victims of "cancel culture" have been far less "cancelled" than say, Julius Caesar or Marie Antoinette.

[allegate]

I didn't really read this thread because I was kinda expecting it to get ugly (I don't even bother to read the Sexual Asshatery thread anymore) but I feel the need to bring it back in light of recent allegations made against a certain musician who put out some albums that some of us may have held close to us for years. Generally speaking, I have found myself capable of separating art from artist: I intentionally tested it in 2019 by watching a couple of Ren And Stimpy episodes when reruns were brought back to TV about a year after they were pulled over allegations against John K.

I get the impression that many of the regulars here have fully embraced Cancel Culture. I never bothered to look up the term (though I don't think any two people can agree in its exact meaning regardless) but it mostly appears to me as people rejoicing in someone's sins being exposed so they can feel morally superior to others by militantly despising EVERY aspect of that person's existence and demanding everyone else to do the same, insisting that the individuals be known STRICTLY for their wrongdoings and equating saying something remotely positive about any other aspect of them with supporting their wrongdoings. As in: Liking a Michael Jackson song is SUPPORTING child molestation, liking a movie with Johnny Depp in it is SUPPORTING domestic abuse, liking a Bill Cosby joke is SUPPORTING rape, liking the Harry Potter franchise is SUPPORTING transphobia, saying anything remotely positive about someone who stood within 100 yards of Epstein is SUPPORTING sex trafficking, etc.

I'm pretty sure those people are just a vocal minority in the world (how else do you explain CHRIS fucking BROWN, of all people, getting a number 1 album in the MeToo era?) but it may become harder and harder to talk about certain compositions/performances/etc. in certain parts of the internet, especially Twitter, without having to say "Say what you will..." a lot to (very reluctantly) acknowledge that many people who have done things that may have enhanced our lives at one point or another (for example, I probably would not have survived high school without Marilyn Manson's music) can also be seriously flawed individuals who are far from role models. It's important to acknowledge that people are (for the most part) neither completely good nor completely evil; sometimes "good" people do bad things, and "bad" people do good things.
"I didn't read..." "I didn't even bother..." "I never bothered to look up the term..." and posts three paragraphs anyway.

you do you bud.

"I tested myself!"

Jesus Christ on a Bicycle.

[Shadaloo]

I'm still processing all of this.

Not defending, not condemning, not posturing...just being as open and honest as I possibly can:

I honestly don't realistically think I'll ever look at the music Manson gave me the same way, but I don't believe I have it in me to throw it all in the trash either. It came along at the exact right time in my life when I needed it, and, for better or worse, it became a part of me.

It's very easy to say "there is so much better work out there by people who aren't monsters" - yes, but that music is not interchangeable for me. It didn't inform the person I became. Manson's did.

It should go without saying, but If I felt a need to throw my Manson stuff in the trash, I'd be doing it for myself, not for anyone else. I wouldn't be doing it, or telling people I was doing it, to display any kind of moral high ground. When people talk about "cancel culture" - I think that's what that's supposed to refer to - individuals who are engaging in condemnation of a disgraced individual for the purposes of artifice, display. To be noticed doing so, not necessarily because they really give a shit one way or another.

I have no doubt such people exist, but regardless of whether one agrees they do or not - I don't think this forum has any of that going on. Many of us here grew up with NIN AND Manson. Two peas in a pod. I'm not going to question anyone's outrage, and I don't think it's anyone's place to. This is really, really heinous shit that's come to the fore.

I'm not just pissed off, I'm disgusted and sickened. This is the guy who taught me to have faith in myself, trust myself, believe in myself, when I was young and weak and insecure. And here he is - and has always been - abusing people, weakening them, praying on their insecurities and fear.

For what it's worth, I don't ever see myself supporting him financially in the future. I was already done going to shows. I have my CD and LP collection, so there's no need for me to stream anything. There's that.

What I do feel obligated to do now, though, is re-examine a lot of the lyrical content - when I'm ready to listen again, supposing I can - and distance myself from it when/as appropriate.

I find it very difficult to even think about listening to Sweet Dreams at the moment.

[tony.parente]

Prob gonna do what I did when the Jessie Lacey stuff came out. Shelve it for a year and then maybe put on a track and see if his voice still disgusts me.

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

Very good thread.

This topic brings up what Ian Watkins did from Lostprophets for me. I actually like a decent amount of their discography, but after all that heinous news came out, I could not help but hear the lyrics in a different light at first. Enjoying these songs since high school though, there are good and nostalgic memories that are attached to said songs so I can still find enjoyment in the music even if the lead is a complete monster.

[eversonpoe]

...but I don't believe I have it in me to throw it all in the trash either...


Prob gonna do what I did when the Jessie Lacey stuff came out. Shelve it for a year and then maybe put on a track and see if his voice still disgusts me.

my advice would be to do what i did a few years ago when stuff started really coming to light about manson - sell your vinyl for whatever the market price is right now, and donate the money you make to RAINN or another organization that provides resources for victims of abuse. that way you're not actually profiting off him or those whom he's hurt, and you're using it for a good cause.

[Helpmeiaminhell (is now in hell)]

This is a question Morrissey fans must ask themselves on a daily basis.....Personally, I don't like to listen to artists who are abusers or scumbags. It has nothing to do with cancel culture or PC culture or anything. Its just I like to listen to artists who I think are actually cool people. If the artist comes off like a massive cunt (ie: Billy Corgan, Morrissey) or a psychopath (Manson), I can't really justify spending money on their music when I could spend that same money to track down some out of print Mike Patton noise album from the mid 90s.

[Max]

You know, Manson was everything to me as a teenager. I think everyone is going to come to their own decisions about this. Whatever we decide to do with the art itself that we may possess, that means something to us, that's one thing. What we as a society decide to do in response to a person for what is revealed is something else. I think Manson has had plenty of time to change and he has continued in his abuses to this day. I think that "cancel culture" fills a gap that our justice system has failed to fill: to end these kinds of abuses, hold people like this accountable, and believe women. So we have the collective opportunity to do just that. We can demand that his music not be hosted by any streaming service or YouTube. We can ensure that his career is finished. That there is some level of accountability going forward and some small bit of justice for the people he harmed. That is not just about punishing him, it is helping the people he harmed to feel safer and listened to and valued. I think that's a reasonable outcome if you ask me.

[allegate]

This is a question Morrissey fans must ask themselves on a daily basis.....Personally, I don't like to listen to artists who are abusers or scumbags. It has nothing to do with cancel culture or PC culture or anything. Its just I like to listen to artists who I think are actually cool people. If the artist comes off like a massive cunt (ie: Billy Corgan, Morrissey) or a psychopath (Manson), I can't really justify spending money on their music when I could spend that same money to track down some out of print Mike Patton noise album from the mid 90s.
we all have different ways of burning money I guess.

;)

[Shadaloo]

my advice would be to do what i did a few years ago when stuff started really coming to light about manson - sell your vinyl for whatever the market price is right now, and donate the money you make to RAINN or another organization that provides resources for victims of abuse. that way you're not actually profiting off him or those whom he's hurt, and you're using it for a good cause.

Thank you. I respect and love you for doing that. :)

That verges on something I've been thinking about for a few months now: I don't think I actually want to part with my stuff in an angry fit. Leave it on the shelf or in a box, sure. I can't even look at it right now.

Last month I was discussing this hereabouts, and I deliberated over what I'd do if one day Manson's back catalogue got the reissue treatment....which would be maybe the only thing at this point that would get me to even consider the notion of spending money and thus supporting him financially.

I came to a decision: If the time ever comes when that happens, and I'm still in a place where I feel like that would be something I need in my life - not saying it will - I think what I'll do is along the lines of what you suggested - match or double whatever it is I spend with a donation.

[WorzelG]

I think it depends on the artist, your relationship with them and how bad what they’ve done is. For example I’ve been recently reading about underage groupie sex by bands of the 70s and honestly I saw the Rolling Stones a few years ago, love Led Zeppelin, honestly it just never enters my mind what they’ve done when I listen to them, but I guess because they’re such older bands they were never part of my growing up and I don’t have that more personal connection with them.

[allegro]

I think it depends on the artist, your relationship with them and how bad what they’ve done is. For example I’ve been recently reading about underage groupie sex by bands of the 70s and honestly I saw the Rolling Stones a few years ago, love Led Zeppelin, honestly it just never enters my mind what they’ve done when I listen to them, but I guess because they’re such older bands they were never part of my growing up and I don’t have that more personal connection with them.

I know it sounds ridiculous to say "things were different, then" but things WERE different, then. People didn't think as they do, now. Romeo and Juliet? She's 13. These teen groupies were doing this stuff by choice, and with their parents' knowledge, and that's pretty ridiculous and unacceptable by our standards, but it's hard to explain the 60s or 70s by current standards. Just like it's unacceptable when we look at what Hollywood has done to child stars for many many years, even giving them DRUGS back in the 40s. So when we watch old Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney movies, can we "enjoy" them knowing that Louis B. Mayer called Garland "my little hunchback" and relentlessly belittled her as an ugly duckling and forced her to work endless hours and pumped her full of amphetamines? Many of the people who participated in those types of behaviors apologized later and admitted that they were reprehensible. And that's often "good enough" to allow us to continue to enjoy their art?

I was a child and teen while rock stars were with these teen groupies, and I thought boys had cooties. I didn't understand any of it. So gross. But, I was raised by a single mother who'd worked for a talent agency for several years, and she saw some pretty eye-opening shit from these rock bands and artists during the time and kept instilling in us the idea that none of these artists should be "idols" and that most of them were actually pretty flawed humans. She'd say, "just remember, they take a crap every day just like you." When this behavior veers into the criminal, they should be arrested and judged by a jury of their peers. And, as has been eloquently said in this thread, there are plenty of other artistic offerings besides those from heinous criminals. It's often a struggle, like the Wagner one previously mentioned. I don't listen to Wagner, there's tons of other more worthy classical offerings. Fuck Wagner.

[VirtualBalboa]

that most of them were actually pretty flawed humans.
I think this gets forgotten often. Entertainers are put onto pedestals by people who don't know them whatsoever. We're all flawed humans. I'm not going to try to tell someone else that they can/can't listen to an artist because of something that happened in the artists life, and I'd expect the same in return from others. I also believe that redemption is possible for human beings, and the casting out of society that often happens I don't think solves much of anything. Most of the art I like is explicitly about being a flawed human, so I don't find myself surprised when something comes out that people don't like about said artist. I also think it's important to remember that there's usually a collaboration between many people in the creation of a work, having the participation of one individual sully the whole thing seems a bit silly to me imo.

[Wretchedest]

I can't, but there's some caveats. For instance in mediums where many people work on a piece like film, television or video games, I am not willing to place the accountability of an individual on all involved. As someone who has been emotionally abused on the set of a high profile television show, there is no part of me that wants people to not watch the stuff that I worked on. The two works that stand out to me as tough to put away are Chinatown and rosemary's baby, and there are many people who worked on those movies who aren't Roman Polanski.

That's said, it's tough to put out of my head, especially if a financial pipeline is easy to establish, like give money to chill FIL a, give money to organizations that harm LGBTQ+ people once a friend told me about Maynard Keenan being abusive to venue staff and it's something I think about Everytime I listen to his music. Recently on this forum someone alleged that the drummer for Deftones is a trump supporter, albeit with zero evidence, and I'm a Deftones die hard... But if the money I give them partly goes to some maga stop the steal bullshit? I can't do that.

I think "flawed humans" is overly abstracting. Accountability is a very clear cut thing. There's flaws like.... This person has or has had a heroin addiction, and there's flaws like, this person stalks or tortures women. This person abuses their employees during every project. There's differences in the details that matter and we shouldn't pull away from them.

[elevenism]

I've been thinking about this a lot.

And for me, ultimately, the answer is a resounding YES. It's ok to make the separation, IF you can, or care to do so.

Beloved Renaissance artist Cararvaggio murdered a man by castrating him.

Charlie Chaplin fucked, and married, underage girls, as did Jerry Lee Lewis and Edgar Allen Poe, with the latter two marrying their own cousins. And these relationships weren't TOTALLY "okay back then." They were scandalous by contemporary standards.

Iggy Pop bragged about fucking a 13 year old Sable Starr in his own song lyrics.
Bowie fucked at least one 14 year old girl, including Lori Maddox. And with Maddox, it wasn't an accident. Rather, he pursued her until she finally relented.
Later that year, Jimmy Page literally had the same girl kidnapped. He apparently controlled most aspects of her life for the next couple of years.
Steven Tyler had a relationship with a 16 year old, impregnated her, and broke her heart by insisting she have an abortion.
William Golding (Lord of the Flies) wrote in his journal of trying to rape a 15 year old girl.

Walt Disney was a racist and a misogynist, and that's just the beginning. And, again, I would argue that it wasn't just "the way things were back then." Many of his ideas and actions were pretty damn rough, even for the time.

John Lennon reportedly beat his son Julian. And, while THAT may be debatable, he openly admitted to history of assaulting women during an interview, saying "I used to be cruel to women, physically-ANY woman. I was a hitter...i hit women."
Also, he claimed that his macrobiotic diet made him immune to disease. Today, he'd almost certainly be an anti vaxxer.

Pablo Picasso was equally cruel to women-perhaps, he was crueler. He said that women are "machines for suffering." He based his work on the women in his life, two of whom committed suicide. His granddaughter wrote "He submitted them to his animal sexuality, tamed them...and crushed them onto his canvas...Once they were bled dry, he would dispose of them."

Roman Polanski, of course, raped a 13 year old.

Salvador Dali was, apparently, a violent, misogynistic narcissist, and was cruel to animals. You know that badass cat photo everyone loves? To get that shot, three cats were flung in the air and pelted with water, nearly 30 times.
He openly sympathized with Hitler, writing that "Hitler turns me on," and painting pieces called "The Enigma of Hitler," and "Hitler Masturbating."
He was friendly with fascist leader Francisco Franco, calling him "the greatest hero of Spain."
In his autobiography, he describes trampling a woman "until they had to tear her bleeding, out of my reach."
He, by his own admission, pushed a childhood friend off of a suspension bridge. (Luckily, the child suffered injuries, but survived.)
He described kicking his three year old sister's head as though it were a ball.
He called HIMSELF a necrophile.

And, i could go on and on and on.

SO:
Do you see Chaplin as a legend?
Do you enjoy The Raven or the Masque of the Red Death?
Ever marveled at Caravagigo's David With the Head of Goliath?
Have you ever appreciated a Disney cartoon or character-say, Mickey Mouse, or Donald Duck, perhaps?
Did you like The Pianist, or Rosemary's Baby?
What do you think of Picasso's Guernica? Or do you prefer his blue period?
Do you like anything by The Beatles?
Do you dig Led Zeppelin?
How about David Bowie? Remember that time when Trent Reznor was inspired by Bowie's Low, and it led to the creation of The Downward Spiral? Ever hear the live songs and studio remixes they did together? How about Trent reverently covering I Can't Give Everything Away the last time NIN toured?

What about those amazing Dali paintings, with the melting clocks?

Obviously, i say all of this to say that, YES. We CAN separate artists from their works. Artist's personal transgressions seem to fade away with time, while the work endures. And some of the best, most complex art originates from seriously broken people.

-That's how i feel about the subject.

Edit: with all of that being said, there are definitely limits. I'll never be checking out a Lostprophets album.
I was never much of a MM fan, so it's not a big issue for me.
There are also PERSONAL boundaries. Someone mentioned Ren and Stimpy. I absolutely cannot watch that show anymore. I can't think of anything but the allegations, and now I can SEE the tendencies echoed in the show's artwork.
Furthermore, I don't think I can enjoy Kevin Spacey anymore, even though he's one of my favorite actors of all time.
My argument is that it isn't necessarily WRONG to appreciate good art created by a bad person, NOT that it's wrong to STOP consuming someone's work once they've done something bad.

And the other thing is the passage of time. It seems like a lot of the sordid personal lives of artists and musicians are eventually forgotten. Hell, Dali was ejected from the official "French Surrealist Group," yet he remains the most recognizable surrealist painter of all time.

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

^^^ I was waiting for Lostprophets to pop up somewhere lol... I had this conversation with some friends a few months ago and they came up in the convo. I grew up liking the band and when I found out about this, I followed the case as closely as I could, because it was just so hard to believe that Watkins could be a fucking gigantic monster with the fame they all got in their hometown as the band grew in popularity. But with everything that came to light, along with the documentary that BBC aired, I just could not find myself to listening to them again.

Of course, being a human being, I had to see how the music would hit me after all the disgusting, unforgivable shit I learned he did indeed do. Lyrics made my mind wander thinking maybe he was singing and screaming about other things, instead of what we thought... Ugh... But with all of that said, if I do hear some songs that I like, I cannot say I won't listen to it from time to time. Definitely a good topic to talk about, and the juxtaposition between the thoughts of why and why not really makes you think.

Glad that the rest of the band was able to stray away and join Geoff Rickly in No Devotion.

[elevenism]

Self.Destructive.Pattern , i appreciate your honesty on the Lostprophets issue. You're really going out on a proverbial limb with that one.
I know i liked their breakthrough single, but i don't remember it. That was a LONG time ago.
If it came on the radio today, i'm sure i'd like it again, but i wouldn't recognize the band.
And i think that helps to illustrate the idea that people are not their art.
Their actions, however vile, are USUALLY separate from their work.

Unless the artist explicitly alludes to foul activities in the work, i don't think the crimes they commit have any more to do with the work than the $20 they gave a homeless guy, or the lovely mother's day gift they bought, or what they eat for breakfast, or watch on TV, or ANYTHING.

With Dali, though, well, he's a bit different.
I mentioned Dali last because i think he's the one who is most like MM.
The darkness is right there, hidden in plain sight, and quite intentional.
Dali wasn't kidding.
Everyone knows "melting clocks," and a good percentage of them know the name.
BUT, they don't usually think "clocks...Dali...Hitler...Rxpe...necrophile."
We just like the paintings, and the strange discomfort they produce.
This unease, though, this WAS what the artist was shooting for.
MM was aiming at the same target: he wished to illustrate SERIOUSLY dark themes that were actually part of who he was.
The truth of Dali and his misdeeds are already more or less lost to time, or, at least, overshadowed by the work.
I think the same thing will happen with MM. I mean, i think it's ALREADY happening.

Edit: (i still love Portrait. i stopped when he made an ep called SMELLS LIKE CHILDREN. I was raised to not cut for the chomo stuff. YOU awful bastards insisted that i listen to SuperAntiJesus and AnimalFucker or whatever :/ )

[Jinsai]

I don’t know… this is such a tricky line to toe in even discussion because you don’t want people to get the wrong idea. Do I really want to say there’s a big difference between rape and statutory rape? It feels like a shitty exoneration. It feels like a shitty way to split hairs to say Bowie didn’t do things on par with Polanski. Is that splitting hairs? Is Bowie given a pass while I give Polanski the finger?

is it a lazy distinction?

Either way, I have to reconcile that I’m a fan of both artists. I guess. I love Rosemarys Baby and Chinatown. I can tell myself that a film is less the personal jurisdiction of a single creator… but the truth is Polanski helmed the ship.

I feel less conflicted with Marilyn Manson, because outside of liking his first few albums, I already knew the guy was a horrible person, and I guess I used that reconciliation to justify the fact that I was surprised by how much I liked his last album. Then I found out the depths to his horrible bullshit, and realized the lyrics in the album were literally screaming it out, so I never wanted to hear it again. I didn’t feel like I needed to even think deeper at all about it, and I wasn’t sad that I was going to have to give that up.

I can only imagine how awful fans of Lost Prophets felt, but I hope they all just threw their merch in the trash and moved on.

And that’s the most difficult part of this consideration… do we exonerate Polanski only because his best works are indisputably masterpieces? Chinatown is just great stuff. I feel it warrants some accolade and defense.

The guy who made Jeepers Creepers hasn’t earned that defense. Yeah, thats a tricky bit of hypocrisy, but it’s just not even worth my time to play Devils advocate for that piece of shit.

But sure, I’ll admit that I’m playing mental gymnastics with Polanski.

[elevenism]

I don’t know… this is such a tricky line to toe in even discussion because you don’t want people to get the wrong idea. Do I really want to say there’s a big difference between rape and statutory rape? It feels like a shitty exoneration. It feels like a shitty way to split hairs to say Bowie didn’t do things on par with Polanski. Is that splitting hairs? Is Bowie given a pass while I give Polanski the finger?

is it a lazy distinction?

Either way, I have to reconcile that I’m a fan of both artists. I guess. I love Rosemarys Baby and Chinatown. I can tell myself that a film is less the personal jurisdiction of a single creator… but the truth is Polanski helmed the ship.

I feel less conflicted with Marilyn Manson, because outside of liking his first few albums, I already knew the guy was a horrible person, and I guess I used that reconciliation to justify the fact that I was surprised by how much I liked his last album. Then I found out the depths to his horrible bullshit, and realized the lyrics in the album were literally screaming it out, so I never wanted to hear it again. I didn’t feel like I needed to even think deeper at all about it, and I wasn’t sad that I was going to have to give that up.

I can only imagine how awful fans of Lost Prophets felt, but I hope they all just threw their merch in the trash and moved on.

And that’s the most difficult part of this consideration… do we exonerate Polanski only because his best works are indisputably masterpieces? Chinatown is just great stuff. I feel it warrants some accolade and defense.

The guy who made Jeepers Creepers hasn’t earned that defense. Yeah, thats a tricky bit of hypocrisy, but it’s just not even worth my time to play Devils advocate for that piece of shit.

But sure, I’ll admit that I’m playing mental gymnastics with Polanski.

There are many great points, here, and important questions.

I'm too tired to get into all of it, but I absolutely think that there's a difference between forcible and statutory.

For instance, my brother dated a girl who was about 2 years younger than him, for YEARS...like, starting from age 10 and 12 or something.
In the late nineties, he turned 18. She was 16, going on 17.
They got caught by the POLICE, playing adult style kissyface in the car on the side of the road.
He was threatened with rape charges. It was REALLY absurd. The cops weren't kidding, though.
They called her mother to the scene. They REALLY wanted charges to be pressed.

Furthermore, age of consent varies widely around the world.
So, yes: there's ABSOLUTELY a difference between violent rape and violating a provincial law. I mean, it's all BAD (except for teenage first loves that might be 2 or 3 years apart.) But if "first world countries" can't even come to a consensus on an age of consent, well...

These are serious questions.

(for the record, i only sleep with women who are at least 40, and there's only one of her.) ;)

[MrLobster]

The darkness is right there, hidden in plain sight, and quite intentional.
Dali wasn't kidding.
Everyone knows "melting clocks," and a good percentage of them know the name.
BUT, they don't usually think "clocks...Dali...Hitler...Rxpe...necrophile."

In the "Root of Evil: The True Story of the Hodel Family and the Black Dahlia" there is a pretty compelling argument that the dismemberment and subsequent placement was a surrealist work. And while I don't normally check out photos of crime scenes, that theory made me look... and uh... yeah. There's something to that.

[burnmotherfucker!]

Bowie fucked at least one 14 year old girl, including Lori Maddox. And with Maddox, it wasn't an accident. Rather, he pursued her until she finally relented.


I'm not trying to totally rule this out. But specifically with Maddox's story, there isn't a whole lot of credibility there from what I've read. But with the amount of coke Bowie did back in the day and the way the culture was I also wouldn't be surprised if similar stories were true. I also think this whole modern cancel culture lacks nuance and is fascist in its mindset. It will be it's own undoing. Every case of a person doing shitty things is going to have multiple layers to it because of how complex humans are. Just assume the Bowie story is true. Ok, it should matter that at some point that guy grew the fuck up and became a decent human being despite not really having to. Contrast that with Manson, who basically became a man child shell of himself. Further contrast that with a Weinstein, who is just a piece of unremorseful shit on every level it seems. Yet, many who buy into the modern day bullshit would treat all three cases the same. They're not the same.

But, yeah, on the whole I agree with the point of your original post. For me, the answer has always been a resounding yes, they should be separated because they are seperate. And on a very basic level, humans aren't the origin of their own thoughts, and art comes from those thoughts. So it's not hard to seperate art and artist. And yet there are still times when an artist may inscribe a work with traces of their fucked up tendencies in such a way as to make it unpalatable. But in those cases I'd argue that disliking the artist and the art are still two seperate things.

And because I'm tired, I'll leave with a controversial thought. The Ignition Remix is, was, and always will be a banger if it plays at a party. And R. Kelly is a piece of shit. Those things can both be true at the same time.

[burnmotherfucker!]

But sure, I’ll admit that I’m playing mental gymnastics with Polanski.

Are you though? It seems to me you are saying Polanski is a scumbag but that you think Chinatown is a great work of art. I see nothing contradictory in that opinion.

Actually I just remembered that I saw the film "The Pianist" a long time ago and when I caught it I missed the opening. I really enjoyed it and thought it had some great things to say. It was only later I discovered it was directed by Polanski. It would be ridiculous for me to change my opinion about the film just because of that, imo.

[wizfan]

I re-binged Parks and Recreation after the Louis C.K. revelations happened (but before the Aziz Ansari controversy, I think). While I enjoyed the series even more the second time around, I felt very uncomfortable every time C.K. appeared on screen.

[allegro]

Beloved Renaissance artist Cararvaggio murdered a man by castrating him.


Whoa wait a second …

I have a minor in Art. Caravaggio is MY FAVORITE ARTIST. He was a Baroque artist.

It’s complicated.

https://www.biography.com/news/caravaggio-italian-painter-criminal-murderer


I'm not trying to totally rule this out. But specifically with Maddox's story, there isn't a whole lot of credibility there from what I've read. But with the amount of coke Bowie did back in the day and the way the culture was I also wouldn't be surprised if similar stories were true.
I was 13 back then and read the teen groupie mags. It was totally bizarre shit. I couldn’t believe these girls’ moms let them out like this. I still thought boys were gross, and these girls were having sex with rock stars.

https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/i-lost-my-virginity-to-david-bowie

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/vintage-june-1973-star-magazine-1883026409

This was way before Bowie’s cocaine phase. He absolutely did fuck Lori Maddox. Bebe Buell confirmed it, as did Pamela Des Barres.

But, “it was a different time” is actually the truth. It was the 70s.

[Jinsai]

I didn't know there was an Aziz controversy...
The Louis CK thing definitely threw me for a confounding loop.

I found myself wanting to defend him, because I loved that episode New Year's Eve, Season 3 Ep 13. I still think it's genius. Louis CK wrote, starred in, directed, and edited it. He did practically everything except the sound/music.
It reduced me to tears. I really felt like I identified with the conflicting emotions the central character is navigating in a situation that I identified with way too much.
At the very least I felt that the guy who made this knew enough about the human condition, and displayed a connection to empathy that was hard to not empathize with.

But really, just because he's a brilliant person who is very attuned to his emotions and has some really insightful things to say about our shared condition...
It doesn't spare him if he's a terrible person. Maybe we should watch what he made, and strive to fail less.

[burnmotherfucker!]

Whoa wait a second …

I have a minor in Art. Caravaggio is MY FAVORITE ARTIST. He was a Baroque artist.

It’s complicated.

https://www.biography.com/news/caravaggio-italian-painter-criminal-murderer


I was 13 back then and read the teen groupie mags. It was totally bizarre shit. I couldn’t believe these girls’ moms let them out like this. I still thought boys were gross, and these girls were having sex with rock stars.

https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/i-lost-my-virginity-to-david-bowie

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/vintage-june-1973-star-magazine-1883026409 (https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/vintage-june-1973-star-magazine-1883026409)

This way before Bowie’s cocaine phase. He absolutely did fuck Lori Maddox. Bebe Buell confirmed it, as did Pamela Des Barres.

But, “it was a different time” is actually the truth. It was the 70s.

Interesting, yeah from what I understand it was pretty much the norm in rock n roll back then. But I wasn't there of course and I've barely looked into it but from the little I've read there were inconsistencies in Maddox's claims and I hardly think a playboy model and another memoir author confirming it makes it a fact. It doesn't mean it isn't true. But I'm just never convinced by hearsay.

One of the links you posted was about her claim that she lost her virginity to Bowie. Problem is she had already claimed to have lost it banging one of the dudes from Zeppelin. So yeah as far as I'm concerned nothing she says can be seen as truth, I'd need more evidence.

Here is another article that points out some major inconsistencies with her stories. Hell, maybe she did fuck Bowie, I sure wouldn't know as I wasn't there. But the facts seem to indicate she was a bit of an opportunist. And apparently Des Barres account actually invalidates her claim that she lost her virginity to Bowie. Who knows?

https://medium.com/@msullivangates/a-word-on-david-bowie-lori-mattix-and-the-speed-of-information-b38681f24cf4

[allegro]

I hardly think a playboy model and another memoir author
Bebe Buell is the mother of Liv Tyler; Bebe was living with Todd Rundgren for years (Liv thought Todd was her Dad for a long time), you don’t know much about Bebe Buell, but everybody back then knows about her. She was also friends with Bowie.

https://wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-features/david-bowies-beb-buell-early-rock-n-roll-days-in-new-york-city-10312467/

Pamela Des Barres was whom Jimmy Page was bonking before he ran off with Lori Maddox. Maddox opportunist? She was a GROUPIE. And rock stars took FULL ADVANTAGE of them. Groupies were assumed to be there to “service” rock stars.


https://medium.com/@msullivangates/a-word-on-david-bowie-lori-mattix-and-the-speed-of-information-b38681f24cf4

“That seems especially strange given that — in no small part due to his publicly proclaimed bisexuality — Bowie’s sex life was, if anything, subject to more scrutiny and intrigue than the average rocker’s, not less.”

This person obviously didn’t grow up in the 70s. Bowie’s sexuality was positively boring compared to others.

Bowie said, years later, that he never was bisexual; that he only said that to drum up publicity.

If he had sex with someone ONE TIME, why would anyone have pictures?

Des Barres is also a head case whose books are full of flowery ramblings about her wasting her life chasing rock stars around and bonking them. The Jim Morrison chapter in “I’m With the Band,” OMG gag.

At any rate, who cares? She was stating this back when Bowie was alive, he didn’t dispute it. Bowie’s pal Iggy was in fact with Sable. It was the 60s and 70s, it was really weird. And Bowie is dead.

Maddox (Mattix) now says: “I wouldn’t want this for anybody’s daughter. My perspective is changing as I get older and more cynical.”

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/mar/15/i-wouldnt-want-this-for-anybodys-daughter-will-metoo-kill-off-the-rocknroll-groupie

MeToo has changed all this, especially. This can’t happen, anymore.

[burnmotherfucker!]

Bebe Buell is the mother of Liv Tyler; Bebe was living with Todd Rundgren for years (Liv thought Todd was her Dad for a long time), you don’t know much about Bebe Buell, but everybody back then knows about her. She was also friends with Bowie.

https://wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-features/david-bowies-beb-buell-early-rock-n-roll-days-in-new-york-city-10312467/

Pamela Des Barres was whom Jimmy Page was bonking before he ran off with Lori Maddox. Maddox opportunist? She was a GROUPIE. And rock stars took FULL ADVANTAGE of them. Groupies were assumed to be there to “service” rock stars.



“That seems especially strange given that — in no small part due to his publicly proclaimed bisexuality — Bowie’s sex life was, if anything, subject to more scrutiny and intrigue than the average rocker’s, not less.”

This person obviously didn’t grow up in the 70s. Bowie’s sexuality was positively boring compared to others.

Bowie said, years later, that he never was bisexual; that he only said that to drum up publicity.

If he had sex with someone ONE TIME, why would anyone have pictures?

Des Barres is also a head case whose book is full of flowery ramblings about her wasting her life chasing rock stars around and bonking them. The Jim Morrison chapter, OMG.

At any rate, who cares? She was stating this back when Bowie was alive, he didn’t dispute it. Bowie’s pal Iggy was in fact with Sable. It was the 70s, it was really weird.

You are right, I have no idea who Buell is. My point wasn't that her story isn't true. Just that it isn't backed by evidence (that I've seen).
Maddox isn't an opportunist because she was a groupie, she's an opportunist because she sold interviews while telling stories that were in fact lies. That kind of kills credibility no? I mean she couldn't have lost her virginity to both Jimmy Paige and Bowie so on at least one of those occasions she told a blatant lie. Des Barras, whom you mentioned, says it was Paige according to the article.

The article mentions Bowie's claim of being bisexual because it is relevant to the topic at hand and it gives context to the times. Bowie claimed that and afterward every interview he did for a long time they asked him about his sex life. Hence, his sex life was under scrutiny. It's irrelevant that he later recanted that statement because the point is people back then talked about him in the gossip magazines.

That article mentions that Maddox's stories about Bowie spanned a period of 10 years. Bowie was a big rock star, its reasonable to expect that he would have had at least one photo snapped of them during that time period. But yeah, its possible there was just never a photo.

I'm not disputing any of it either because again, I don't know. I just make it a point to never believe hearsay without solid evidence. The only fact I can actually pull from all these articles is that Maddox lied about losing her virginity on at least one occasion. Everything else is circumstantial and leaves too much open to interpretation.

[allegro]

Lori admittedly was and is a goofball and it’s absolutely possible that she’s a total liar. There’s a web site dedicated to debunking Lori’s stories.

https://lorimaddoxdebunked.tumblr.com/manystoriesoflorimaddox

Everyone’s sex life was under scrutiny back then so that wasn’t really isolated to Bowie.

Really, I thought it was worse when Bowie and Page were doing some Nazi imagery. Page was wearing an SS hat on stage. He wore a Nazi Storm Trooper uniform sometimes during the ‘77 tour. Bowie was just a straight-up Nazi. Or fear the Nazi. Or something.

https://thequietus.com/articles/03598-david-bowie-nme-interview-about-adolf-hitler-and-new-nazi-rock-movement

[burnmotherfucker!]

Lori admittedly was and is a goofball and it’s absolutely possible that she’s a total liar. There’s a web site dedicated to debunking Lori’s stories.

https://lorimaddoxdebunked.tumblr.com/manystoriesoflorimaddox

Everyone’s sex life was under scrutiny back then so that wasn’t really isolated to Bowie.

Oh wow, thats a lot of info in that link. I'm just about to pass out though so I'll have to give it a read another time.

And I believe you that Bowie wasn't special when it comes to being under scrutiny. I don't think that was the point the article is making. It isn't about Bowie being unique in that regard but rather that he was in fact under scrutiny. Hence, it would have been unlikely he would have been able to hide a 10 year affair with someone at that time without some evidence eventually surfacing.

And in an attempt to steer this back into the topic at hand, even if it were all true, I'm not giving away my Bowie records. The art is just too good.

[allegro]

Losing her virginity took 10 years? Jesus, he took way longer than Sting. LOL

Maddox’s story about Bowie was always just one quickie, not a longer relationship thing.

She was with Page after that.

And Page had a gf and a child at home.

That kid is Scarlet Page, now a famous photographer.

[burnmotherfucker!]

Losing her virginity took 10 years? Jesus, he took way longer than Sting. LOL

Maddox’s story about Bowie was always just one quickie, not a longer relationship thing.

She was with Page after that.

And Page had a gf and a child at home.

That kid is Scarlet Page, now a famous photographer.

Come on now, I clearly said an affair over 10 years. I was referring to this section of the article that states...

"One problem is that despite the fact that Mattix — who, in addition to Bowie and Page, claims to have had affairs with Mick Jagger, Jeff Beck, Ronnie Wood, Mickey Finn, Angela Bowie, Keith Emerson, Carl Palmer, and Jimmy Bain —asserts that she encountered Bowie multiple times over a period spanning ten years"

Part of the problem is that this girl lied so much she probably moved that one story of her losing her virginity around the calendar over about a ten year span. In fact, I hadn't read about any of this since it came out a while back. I had remembered thinking that it seemed sketchy at best. But after this conversation and revisiting the article and seeing just how numerous the inconsistencies are, yeah, its enough to set off my bullshit detector.

[elevenism]

Whoa wait a second …

I have a minor in Art. Caravaggio is MY FAVORITE ARTIST. He was a Baroque artist.

It’s complicated.

https://www.biography.com/news/caravaggio-italian-painter-criminal-murderer


Oh, i know. I was going "wide lens," if you will.

And surely we're in agreement that he'd be cancelled now, probably WITHOUT his...defense of his lady's honor.

Edit: as far as baroque vs renaissance, i'm sure you're right. I've forgotten 99% of what i learned in the few art classes i've had in my life. i just liked the pictures :P

[WorzelG]

To be fair, you can’t say Caravaggio never got his comeuppance in his life. Cancelling him now would be absolutely moot.

[r_z]

So I've finally decided that I won't be able to separate art from its artist any longer. Congratulations, Roger Waters, you're an insufferable asshole.

[bobbie solo]

Rogers Waters heart is in the right place generally (not always), but his takes are so often too extreme, lacking any nuance or wiggle room, or just plain wrong.

[r_z]

Being celebrated by Putinists these days should give him an idea what he's become.

[botley]

They conveniently forget all the times he's called out Putin's thuggery and aggressions, though, because he has the balls to call out America's.

[cdm]

So I've finally decided that I won't be able to separate art from its artist any longer. Congratulations, Roger Waters, you're an insufferable asshole.

Ridiculous shit from Roger. His unwillingness to acknowledge the connections between the things he rails against and what he champions is really fucking bizarre. Wilful ignorance.

[DVYDRNS]

I hear hitler was a great painter.

[MrLobster]

I hear hitler was a great painter.

...so great he got kicked out of art school.

[richardp]

https://thescriptlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/itsalwayssunny8.jpg

[DVYDRNS]

probably because he hated jews. and jews run the art world. duh /s

clearly he didn't suck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintings_by_Adolf_Hitler


I hate that I may need to clarify. I am not a supporter of Hitler in any way.

[jmtd]

Speaking of separating things, it’s kinda hard to separate Hitler the artist from not just Hitler the Hitler, but any modern day interest in his work into merit versus the external context. I doubt anyone would be looking at his art today if it weren’t for WW2.