A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist

[milstar]

I think we as common human often make the error of putting someone on pedestal, even when that person has some flaws (whatever they are). And the fact is that great men and women alike, often had or have some negative factor about them. Nikola Tesla in his youth thought that women are superior to men and was quite fond of them, only to revisit that view in his later years, by 180 degrees, thinking that women's biggest fault is trying to imitate men (I don't find this sexist btw, and his take can be seen as plight for femininity). And many people simply do not care about it. Churchill, leader he was, if I mention in a crowded street "Churchill sucks!", people would throw bricks at me. Probably same would be with Margaret Thatcher. In art, it's similar. Someone might say "who cares about JKR views, I love her books". Which is to say, we all draw our lines. And vice versa. For e.x, I love Howard Chaykin, even though we would probably disagree on a lot of things.

[Funt Solo]

Kurt Russel got mentioned in the movie thread - another case where I love his acting, but his politics are dire.

He's pro-South, stating that he believes in the right to fight a war to keep slavery - as he explained to an inordinately calm Whoopie Goldberg. Of course, he didn't mention slavery out loud - but that's what the south was fighting for. People dress it up as "States' rights" - but that's just code for "States' rights to keep slaves".

And he's pro-gun and anti-restrictions, so he also (inference) believes that people who are murdered with guns are just part of the natural collateral damage you can expect when upholding everyone's freedom to carry a death toy around with them.

So that they can fight back against tyranny. Apparently. (Whisper it: "they are the tyranny".)

---

But that's what he gets hired for - being a tough, grizzly bastard - right? Nobody hires on Kurt expecting him to be reasonable and to talk his way out of problems.

[Funt Solo]

One of my students informed me today that the creator of Dilbert is an ass-hat (after I used a Dilbert cartoon to illustrate a point).

---

Wait - are all creators ass-hats?

[sintec]

Wait - are all creators ass-hats?

are all people ass-hats?

FTFY

[TordelBack]

Under every hat, an ass.

[Funt Solo]

Under every hat, an ass.

 

That's cheered me up rather a lot.

[Jim_Campbell]

Under every hat, an ass.

And in every dream home, a heartache.

[Funt Solo]

Lost Beautiful South lyrics.

[sintec]

I thought it Jim was referencing Roxy Music - can't say I've got more than a passing familiarity with the Beautiful South though.

[Funt Solo]

Ah - you've got the right of it, Sintec - I just thought it sounded like a Beautiful South lyric. They often tend towards the morose.

Roxy Music - In Every Dream Home a Heartache
Beautiful South - Who's Gonna Tell?

[IndigoPrime]

One of my students informed me today that the creator of Dilbert is an ass-hat (after I used a Dilbert cartoon to illustrate a point).

Yeah, his masked slipped long ago. Again, one of those people when you go back and revisit his business books, you’re like OF COURSE. Same, to some degree, with the cartoon strips. To answer another question, no, not all creators are arseholes. I’d imagine most aren’t. But we are increasingly finding out about those who are. (And also, some at a certain level of arsehole are fortunate enough to have a shield placed around them. Chris Pratt is a good example of this.)

[JayzusB.Christ]

I can't reconcile the popular image of Rowling the Hater with her books, or her charity work, or even the interviews I've seen. I don't agree with her views on trans women, and using her platform to spread those views was stupid.

I hate to end with "one of my friends is trans"...but one of my best buds from school transitioned during a period when we were completely out of touch. It took me a looong time to come to terms with who she is now, the same person I hung out with, but presenting entirely differently. It didn't just click into place. My brain needed time to reorganise, and I kept my distance while that happened. What did that make me?

The first, and I think only, time I've ever chatted to someone about their own transition was with one of our own; here on this very forum.  Haven't seen her around here for quite a few years.  I think in my younger years I would have found a personal friend transitioning hard to deal with; though I like to think I would have accepted it anyway.  Sadly, in my school, nobody, absolutely nobody, was even gay, let alone trans.  Even the ones who are married to same-sex partners nowadays.  We've come a long way, thankfully.

[sintec]

An interesting comment on this topic from Steve Albini (outspoken record producer and musician):

“The idea that we can remove the artist from the art means that art isn’t communicating anything after all, it’s just decoration, an amusement. I refuse to look or listen that way.”

https://consequenceofsound.net/2021/03/steve-albini-joe-rogan-barstool-sports-trash-garbage/

I'm not sure I agree - I can enjoy the technicality of a piece of art without needing to agree with the message that's being communicated for example.
Is that turning the art into mere decoration?
Is there anything actually wrong with art purely as amusement/decoration (that feels like it's veering into the high art vs low art argument that I detest)?

Sometimes the message of a piece of art I disagree with can be as important in helping to shape my world view as the stuff which I already agree with.

[Barrington Boots]

That is interesting. I don't agree either - I'd take the view that art impacts different individuals in different ways and when something really speaks to you it's in a way unique to you, and if that has nothing to do with the intent or artist then that's how it reached you and so be it.

That of course means Albini's statement is correct for himself - he needs to know the artist's original message to properly get what the artist is. That's not unusual I think, as a musician himself, because when he's making music he'll be wanting to convey something to the listener and I expect it can be a little frustrating if people miss that.

I would disagree that art without intent becomes mere decoration, because if it triggers a strong reaction in an individual then it's art. What he's suggesting is that without intent art regresses to the sort of thing you'd see on a cereal box. But I guess that's just how he sees it.

[Jim_Campbell]

An interesting comment on this topic from Steve Albini (outspoken record producer and musician):

“The idea that we can remove the artist from the art means that art isn’t communicating anything after all, it’s just decoration, an amusement. I refuse to look or listen that way.”

I really like Nick Cave's thoughtful take on this issue. I'd be doing it a disservice to try and paraphrase it here, but it's well worth a read.