Faceplams: 0
she/her/hers
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.Originally Posted by botley
24.24.2.2286
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.
God is an American
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, so to speak.
Last edited by botley; 08-01-2020 at 06:07 AM.
Throbbing Member
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.
Last edited by Patrick_Nicholas; 02-03-2021 at 10:17 AM.
Active Member
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.
Active Member
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.
tempus est umbra in mente
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.
Throbbing Member
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.
Active Member
"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.
Unintelligible Whispering
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.
Captain Rustleboots
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.
Only By Night
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.
she/her/hers
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.
Last edited by eversonpoe; 02-03-2021 at 06:00 PM.
Banned
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.
Throbbing Member
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.
Active Member
we all have different ways of burning money I guess.
Unintelligible Whispering
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.
Active Member
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.
Bite me
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.
Last edited by allegro; 02-04-2021 at 01:33 PM.
Flaccid Member
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.
BADGERS
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.
I was nobody. Nothing.
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.
Last edited by elevenism; 09-10-2021 at 10:13 PM.
Only By Night
^^^ 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.
Last edited by Self.Destructive.Pattern; 09-10-2021 at 06:10 PM.
I was nobody. Nothing.
@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 :/ )
tempus est umbra in mente
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.
I was nobody. Nothing.
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.)
Last edited by elevenism; 09-10-2021 at 09:15 PM.
Active Member
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.
Throbbing Member
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.
Throbbing Member
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.
Saul Williams fan.
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.
Posting Permissions
Likes: 
Reply With Quote