posted
Forgive me if this has already been posted, I can't recall a discussion on it or not. If there has been one, please link to it, and I will delete this, and read that instead.
The other day I watched a movie I have seen a couple of times, called Powder. It's a movie about an abused Albino boy with high intellect, and unnatural abilities. I really enjoyed the movie, and thought it was beautifully presented both in cinematics and characters. I was interested to see what else the Director/Writer had done, and found out the dude was a convicted child molestor.
This information immediately made me reevaluate the movie, and whether or not I enjoyed it. I began looking for "the meaning behind the art" so to speak.
The movie didn't change. My view shouldn't have changed. After thinking about it longer, I kept my view of the film I held previously, that it was indeed a beautiful movie, despite the artist behind it.
In the couple of years I've been here, I've seen a couple of posts where people have stopped liking OSC's books because of an article or two he's writen.
So does the art change when an audience member gains a different perspective of the artist?
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know for me it doesn't really change a lot. Example: Just because I don't care for all the hoo-hah that Michael Jackson has been in in the past few years doesn't mean I don't like his music. He made great music and I still like it.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't think of an instance where it's done that for me either. There have been a few times where I've found myself reevaluating actors, writers and movies because of something like that, but ultimately it doesn't change my opinion too much.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me it matters. It's personal. The art affects my view of the person, and the person affects my view of the art.
For instance, I know that W.B.Yeats is a great poet, and I can appreciate some of his stuff, but the fact is that I really detest him as a person, so it flavors everything he writes for me.
I do think that people are elevated by their art. Their art can be better than they are. And it can call them to be better people overall. I guess I give someone a lot of credit for making great art. It's a part of who they are for me. But sometimes, like with Yeats, it isn't sufficient to redeem them in my mind (not that anyone needs my approval, of course).
That said, I liked Powder a lot myself. I loved the trick he had of touching two people and letting one feel what the other felt. Do you see it as a Christ-figure story? That's how I saw it I think. The bit at the end was his ascension into heaven.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, finding out something distasteful about an artists doesn't usually change my view of the art. This is a matter of degrees, for the most part. And it also depends on the medium. It's easier to enjoy a painting or story regardless of one's distaste of the personal life or views of the artist (insofar as they don't come across in the work, of course). It's a lot harder, for instance, with some actors I think. It's especially hard to disassociate personal views, and even past performances from an actor. That's why some actors get type-cast, and why many Vietnam vets can't watch a Jane Fonda movie.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like a lot of Wagner's music. I listen to it, too. And that's despite who he was and the symbolism of his having been virtually the official musician of the Third Reich.
Despicable people can produce wonderful art. That is not to suggest that OSC is such a person. Some people just can't help demonizing someone they disagree with.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It greatly affects how much benefit of the doubt I'm willing to give the artist's work.
It's much like how I react to posters on this forum. If Geoff posts something critical of Mormon culture, I'll definitely pay attention. But if King of Men does the same thing, it's going to be a lot more difficult for me to seriously consider his criticism.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I agree with m_p_h and KarlEd - it is a matter of degrees and it certainly affects the benefit of the doubt I'm willing to extend.
For example, I greatly considered never buying anything that George R. R. Martin writes again after his comments about conservatives after the last election. I was angry that he was so insulting to what has to be a pretty large percentage of his readership. But, later, I realized that A) everybody makes mistakes and says things they regret and I certainly wouldn't want to be judged forever for something I said in the heat of emotion and B) if I only bought books by people who agreed with me politically and otherwise I'd probably have a pretty short reading list.
But there are limits, for example. I can buy and read AFFC now, but I wouldn't if he came out and said he was donating all the proceeds to Planned Parenthood to fund abortions.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It greatly affects how much benefit of the doubt I'm willing to give the artist's work.
It's much like how I react to posters on this forum. If Geoff posts something critical of Mormon culture, I'll definitely pay attention. But if King of Men does the same thing, it's going to be a lot more difficult for me to seriously consider his criticism.
I don't know that this is an entirely valid comparison. It seems to me that you're saying that what you think of an individual will effect what kind of consideration you give when they express their opinions about something. I don't think you can equate expressed opinion with art. While art is often used to express an opinion, I don't believe that makes them synonymous.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
T_Smith poses an interesting question: art VS the artist. I guess I never changed my love of Van Goh after learning that he cut off his ear for a woman--definitely odd.
I also wonder about artist (i.e painting, poetry, music, authors etc.) who produce art that is contrary to their personal values. In the case of the movie T_Smith mentioned, the artist is obviously not of the highest moral values. His story (although I am not familiar with it) appears to be a contradiction of those low values.
Was he trying to reach out of his immoral behavior to do something morally good?
Conversely, are those artists who present lower morale values in their works than those they privately and publically adhere to sending a message that they trying to cross over from moral behavior to immoral behavior while using their morality as a facade?
Posts: 56 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me it depends on how much of the artist's personal views is portrayed in their art. If they use their art as a medium to promote something that I disagree with then I would stop paying attention to their works. It would be impossible however to not be affected by what you know about a person when you look at their art. To what degree it affects you depends entirely on the individual.
I know a lady who used to be in the same stake as OSC and after a fireside he gave (or comments he made at a meeting I can't remember which) will not read any of his books. Her husband on the other hand is a big fan and I talk to him about the books frequently (that reminds me... he still has my signed copy of the poetry book...).
So if a convicted child molester started using his works as a medium to promote man-boy love then I would absolutely stop watching/viewing what he was doing.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
An inescapable fact of showing art is the viewer brings their own experiences into play. Things you intended to mean one thing may have completely different meanings to the viewer.
So if part of what you bring to the viewing is some knowledge about the artist then yes that will change your opinion of the art.
You may look at a work of art and think it is OK, but if you found out the artist is a quadriplegic you would be far more impressed.
So what you know about the artist will definitely affect your opinion of the art. The converse would be true also. Your knowledge of the art will affect your opinion of the artist. I would have thought Peter Jackson was a overweight slob if I didn’t know he made the LOTR movies. Instead I think of him a great director.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know that this is an entirely valid comparison. It seems to me that you're saying that what you think of an individual will effect what kind of consideration you give when they express their opinions about something. I don't think you can equate expressed opinion with art. While art is often used to express an opinion, I don't believe that makes them synonymous.
I never said that they were synonymous. If they were synonymous, then it wouldn't be a comparison, would it?
I still think it's a valid comparison. Because I know that Joss Whedon refers to God as "The Great Boogie-Man in the Sky", I tend to not take too seriously anything he says about religion.
Because of Heinlein's views on sex (and because of what I've read in his stories before), I gloss over the parts of his stories dealing with that. But if I were reading the story and thought that OSC had written it, I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
