JCC [Woody Allen, among others]Can you separate a person's art, work and/or career from their actions?

What? I did no such thing. My point was to state that you cannot discount a 19th century figure for being an anti-Semite any more than you could hold homophobia or sexism against a 1940s or 1950s writer. I love Ian Fleming, the man was a dreadful chauvanist and racist (Havac, right?). Anti-Semitism was en vogue back then. Doesn't mean I have to be bound to it now.

Similarly, I don't weep over pro-Colonial thought from colonial times. All of it amounts to crying over historical spilled milk. I contend you can separate the art from the artist and in some cases, you have to.

That is all.

 

Memories are complicated, especially those formed at a very young age. It's possible to be moved by Dylan's op-ed and believe her memories are real to her but also believe that they're not necessarily factual. Obviously the recollection of the alleged victim should be taken into consideration, but it's not the only thing to consider.

 

I think I was probably inartful there. I diluted things with the reference to Kipling, but I chose Camus quite consciously because he wasn't from the height of the age of imperialism. He made arguments that were essentially rearguard defenses of a collapsing and outmoded system. Unlike Wagner's anti-semitism or Fleming's sexism, he was not just trending along with the prevailing thought among his contemporaries. Or at least not to nearly the same extent. Even among European whites, there was a pretty healthy stable of anti-colonialist thinkers, including his friend and colleague Sartre.

Even in this case, which I would count as distinct from the others you discussed, would you still think its appropriate to separate the art from the artist?Also, do you think there are any circumstances where one shouldn't separate the art from the artist?

 

Yes, but this isn't a typical memory... it's a trauma--those tend to replay in the mind in graphic detail. I mean, I don't know this person. I'm talking in general. Recalling (or reliving) a traumatic event is a lot different than recalling your first day of school.

 

Well, yes, because I specifically cited contemporary artists as examples.

Burzum is the one man project of Varg Vikernes, aka Count Grisnakh. Not only did Varg murder Euronymous (Øystein Aarseth) and show no remorse for it; he's continually been a violent anti-Muslim, anti-Immigration, racial purist national socialist.

I love this piece of music - not typical black metal, but dark ambient:



But then there's this. Chilling, horrible stuff.

http://www.burzum.org/eng/library/the_lords_of_lies13.shtml

Lords of Lies: Part XIII - On how Negroes became Fair-Skinned, Blue-Eyed and Blond in Europe​

If we are to believe the evolution religion (alias "science") each species and each race adapts to its environment over time. According to this religion the blackest Negro tribe moving into Europe will after some time turn white, change their nose shapes, grow a larger skull, grow a nose bone, grow larger pelvis bones, grow shorter lower arms, change the shape of their skulls, get thinner skin, get a little bump in the back of their heads (known in France as "the Math bump", because those who have it [i.e. fair Europeans...] are often very good with mathematics), change the angle of their forehead, change the length of their legs, change their metabolism, grow a larger brain, grow blue or gray eyes, lose their curly hair in favour of straight hair, grow blonde hair, and so forth, and they will also all of a sudden see a need for art, civilization, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, religion and so forth...

...sorry, but I have to stop. This is too bloody ridiculous. Yet, this is what most of us are taught to believe in. This is what most of us believe in today! Some even claim this happened in less than 12,000 years! In popular films about this subject (like the ludicrous "Ao") this even happened the moment the Negroes sat foot in Europe. Like *bang*!The Negro has become European in one generation! Very "scientific"...

Now, before these marvellous Negroes – who were obviously masters of adaptation – arrived in Europe there was another human species already living here, the Neanderthals, who were fair skinned, just like modern Europeans still are, had the same nose shape that Europeans have today, had an even larger skull than modern Europeans have, had the same nose bone that Europeans have today, had a larger pelvis, just like modern Europeans still have, had shorter lower arms, just like modern Europeans still have, had a different skull shape more similar to the skulls of modern Europeans than to anything else, had thinner skin, just like modern Europeans, had a little bump in the back of the head, just like modern Europeans, their children had the exact same angle of the forehead as modern Europeans have today, their legs were identical to those of modern Europeans, their metabolism wasprobably (we cannot know for sure about that) identical to the metabolism of modern Europeans, they had a much larger brain, even larger than that of modern Europeans, they had blue or gray eyes, they had straight hair, they had blonde hair, and so forth, everything just about exactly like modern Europeans still have.
Now I think it's fair to say that my insistence on equating racism with stupid, and my support for evolution, rules out any chance that I share his views. They are repellant, stupid, backwards, evil thoughts but I know this when I put a song like Tohmet on. I hate it, I disapprove, and I am aware it's there but it's not who I am. This may be deemed unprincipled on my behalf (and I do download his music, not buy) but if his songs aren't racist and stupid in subject mater (they tend towards Odinist subjects) is there harm?

 

Wow, formatting went nuts with that post.

I'm actually angry after having read his ramblings. The purity of Nordic blood... what a jackass.

 

Thor loves his mead!

 

THE REMOVE FORMATTING BUTTON IN THE TOP-LEFT CORNER OF THE TOOLBAR WILL PURIFY YOUR BLOOD POST

 

Yeah tried it, didn't work. It was clearly coded by non-pure blood.

 

He's not the best example of genetic superiority too, the guy aged 50 years in 20.

 

YOU HAVE TO HIGHLIGHT THE TEXT

 

Ah. Well, I don't think it's necessarily about sharing the person's views so much as it is expressing public disapproval of them. In this way, you incentivize them to change their behavior and demonstrate to the broader community that his behavior is unacceptable. If a misdeed has no negative consequences, why ought anyone turn away from it?

 

If you couldn't separate a person from their art, there would hardly be be any art you could enjoy. The entertainment industry is rife with scumbags, crooks, people who may (gasp!) hold political beliefs you don't agree with, and people who do or support things you don't approve of. Especially with something as big as movies and TV, somewhere in the cast and crew there is going to be a sexually predatory producer, a Truther writer, a director who supposedly hit his girlfriend in 1994, an actor with a string of DUIs, Alec Baldwin, somebody.

I think it's okay to enjoy a work of art without demanding moral and intellectual purity from everybody behind it -- I think ultimately you have to, and you're probably better off for it. If you have a problem with the art, then you have a problem with the art, but just because Roman Polanski is a horrible human being doesn't mean Chinatown isn't a great movie, or that the world should have to forget Chinatown because it's associated with a director who committed a terrible crime.

That said, I understand that lines can be drawn, and I think the issue is at its most relevant when you're dealing with people who are still on the scene, especially ones who are unrepentant about whatever the matter is. For Polanski, for example, I think you can appreciate the art that he's produced -- whenever it's produced -- but I find it kind of a shame that he has produced anything since his conviction, because I would like to think that no decent actor, actress, writer, or whoever would want to work with an unrepentant child-rapist. I think it's indecent that people still associate themselves with him and defend him rather than making him, as a person, a pariah for his actions and attitude. But I don't think that changes whether his movies are good or bad movies. They're not the same issue -- and I think that's where this gets obscured sometimes, because people don't let the separation cut both ways. You don't need to condemn Polanski's movies because of Polanski -- but you don't need to defend Polanski because of his movies. You don't need to give Alec Baldwin a free pass to act like a boor because he's great in 30 Rock and Glengarry Glen Ross, and you probably shouldn't. "Separating Mike Tyson from his career" doesn't mean saying Mike is really a great guy if you get to know him and he's just misunderstood, or it's just Mike being Mike and we should leave him alone and let him box, or that he shouldn't go to jail for committing crimes. Separation goes both ways.

I think there are lines that can be drawn, and I can understand refusing to separate the person and the art in some circumstances (it's not worth the effort to separate Chris Brown from his "art," for me), but overall, I can't agree with the assertion that you can't separate them, or should never do so. You have to most of the time, and I don't have a problem with that. That's just life.

 

I just find it odd that, of all people, Mia Farrow continually goes to bat for Roman Polanski given all of this...

 

No, I know. It wouldn't let me press "enter" to add another paragraph either. Probably a Chrome issue.

 

Yeah but they're defending his freedom, not what he did.

I think.

I dunno anymore.

 

Was not expecting this much VARG.



Shine on you abhorrently racist diamond.

 

That's from If The Light Takes Us, right? When he's in prison?

 

Just putting in my "no" vote.

 

I believe so. I just grabbed a Burzday gif off Google.

 

Why not?

 

A person is completely associated with their work for me. I'm completely absolutist about it. I will never ever watch another Woody Allen film again.

 

So you wouldn't listen to Wagner then?

 

When someone does something as despicable as raping their own children (or anyone else), my answer is "no". I don't care what they do for a living, or how famous they are; people who commit those crimes should be jailed for life.

 

Who did this?