A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist

[IndigoPrime]

Didn’t Cave just do something with Warren Ellis as well?

[IndigoPrime]

This bit warrants quoting:

The charge that defending a person’s right to their opinions somehow aligns one with their views makes no sense at all and strikes at the heart of the problem itself – that of conflating the concept of free speech with bigotry. This is very dangerous territory indeed.

This is a very real threat now, because we see the far right warping the concept of free speech and aligning it with their own ideologies. Of course, they don’t mean free speech—they mean freedom to say whatever racist/hateful shit they want, without repercussions, and even without retort, while simultaneously (and without irony) denying other people the freedom to say what they want and/or skewing public discourse to their own beliefs.

But that’s not as catchy as ‘free speech’.

[Jim_Campbell]

Didn’t Cave just do something with Warren Ellis as well?

Dunno, but almost certainly the other Warren Ellis, who he's worked with since forever.

[IndigoPrime]

Aha. That makes a lot more sense! (And, yes, Carnage by Cave/Ellis, the two Aussies.)

[The Legendary Shark]

 

“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'm not convinced by this argument. The ultimate removal would be death, reducing the work of every dead artist to "just decoration." Similarly, artists change - a kind of minor death, if you will - and this constant change means that the artist who produces Piece A is not entirely the same artist who produced Piece Z. How much must the artist change so that Piece A remains art but Piece Z becomes decoration? Or vice-versa? Or neither? Or both?

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.

Yep, that's more or less how I see it as well (but go further, into very unpopular opinions concerning copyrights and patents). As soon as my pen leaves the paper for the last time, so to speak, that art or story is a thing in itself, a thing which belongs to me and me only. However, as soon as I sell (I wish!) or give away (you're welcome) my art or stories, they aren't mine any more - they belong to whoever wants them. The last two stories I posted here are also on a friend's website, she posts stories and reviews, and I don't think her readers care who I am or what I think. I'm just some random name under a title - almost completely separated from the "art" - so I think people routinely judge art and artist differently.

[CalHab]

Aptly enough it was an encounter with Cave (who I idolised) which made me realise that I don't have to like artists whose work I love.

In short, he was a bit behaving like a bit of a dick.

But then, everyone has days like that.

[JayzusB.Christ]

However, as soon as I sell (I wish!) or give away (you're welcome) my art or stories, they aren't mine any more - they belong to whoever wants them.

I think I've just spotted Pat Mills with an angry look and a harpoon.

[milstar]

Yep, that's more or less how I see it as well (but go further, into very unpopular opinions concerning copyrights and patents). As soon as my pen leaves the paper for the last time, so to speak, that art or story is a thing in itself, a thing which belongs to me and me only. However, as soon as I sell (I wish!) or give away (you're welcome) my art or stories, they aren't mine any more - they belong to whoever wants them. The last two stories I posted here are also on a friend's website, she posts stories and reviews, and I don't think her readers care who I am or what I think. I'm just some random name under a title - almost completely separated from the "art" - so I think people routinely judge art and artist differently.

Ditto. I like to think that piece of art starts its own way of living, like a kid who separate from his parents in search for creating a life for him/herself.

[Rara Avis]

I've had to have the transgenderism vs. feminism debate explained to me really carefully before I got it - and even now I feel like a fledgling who would have difficulty arguing the case well to an opponent. Up-thread, a year or so ago, I basically side-stepped it as too problematic an issue to figure out.

What is all this about? It seems that even asking questions around this is transphobic. I'm also not sure exactly what JKL is supposed to have done / said. There is apparently a very lazy and inaccurate depiction of a trans serial killer in one of her books that offended people (both for stereotyping and for terrible writing) and then some twitter comments were she doubled down but other than that I have no idea what's going on.

[milstar]

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/11/dakota-johnson-cancel-culture-downer-incredible-time-working-with-armie-hammer-shia-labeouf

Reminded me on this thread.

[Rara Avis]

Reminds me of a cartoon I saw recently. It shows two birds and one is saying to the other 'Mr. Hawk has always been very nice to me, I don't know what Mr. Mouse is talking about'.

[Funt Solo]

That's a weird article - because it suggests that an ephemeral idea ("cancel culture") is somehow responsible for the career problems being suffered by people who (it appears) enjoy hurting women.

Surely it's their behavior that has caused their career problems.

In the article, Dakota says "people can change", but none of the three actors mentioned have even admitted there was any wrongdoing, so it's not as if there is a desire for any change at the coal face.

I await the article where someone who is completely innocent of any wrongdoing and only has everyone else's best wishes in their heart is cruelly cancelled by political co-woke-ness gone mad.

[Rara Avis]

She is also the daughter of Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith and her boyfriend is Chris Martin. It can be argued she is somewhat protected by her connections in the industry. She's not a struggling actress trying to make it; it doesn't quite put her on par with the victims of these guys. It's sad that her anecdotal argument is given more or less the same weight as the stories I read about the women victimised.

[milstar]

I always say that these abuser often come as the nicest guys. I don't wanna comment on the trio, all three are fundamentally different and cases are fundamentally different and one of them is still in the legal battle. But I firmly think that some excesses can be forgiven; mildly innocuous from the more severe incidents (someone is caught drunk in the public, for example). Tom Hardy admitted for example he had drinking problem, but when I see him in a film, I don't see him as an alcoholic.

But so that we are not over yet with the cancel culture (although this may belong to a different thread):

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-59237741

I'll be honest, I love John Cleese. I disagree with some of his personal views, but his legacy as comedian is remarkable.

[IndigoPrime]

Cleese is awful. Sure, he was responsible for some great comedy moments, but he is utterly incapable of understanding that things have changed during his lifetime. He gripes about UK taxes while living overseas. He moans about cancel culture due to progressive thinking, despite during his day pushing boundaries. He’s become what he fought against: an old conservative git, unable to live in the present. That he’s making a documentary on “woke culture” is all you need to know.

(That said, it’s always worth remembering that as much as Python pushed comedic boundaries, it was still very white, very male and very upper class. That he and Gilliam have turned out the way they have probably shouldn’t come as a great shock. At least Palin seems like a good egg.)