Discussion Can you separate a creators character from their work?

[Forever Sleep]

I feel like this has been posted as a thread before but, it didn't come up in the 'is this already being discussed?' bit- maybe because I phrased it differently. But, apologies if it has been discussed and, to who made it first...

Does knowing that a creative person/ inventor/ whoever- a famous person had a reputation for being unpleasant in some way change how you view their work? Should we separate art/ job role and artist/ person? And appreciate the art/ job role as a stand alone thing?

That goes the same for presidents and rulers. Does it matter if they have affairs etc? Are there some things we should forgive and, some not?

For example, the sculpture by Eric Gill outside the BBC head quarters has been attacked on a few occassions:



Eric Gill was found to later have admitted to sexually abusing his daughters. I'm actually kind of amazed that the BBC- who already has very dubious connections to paedophilic stars- Jimmy Saville and Huw Edwards would still risk displaying it.

Another example is the 'painting' by Marcus Harvey of Myra Hindley (a notorious child serial killer in the UK.) Created using plaster casts of children's hands- to print the various tones. In this case, it isn't the artist but, the subject matter and aplication that (obviously) caused distress. A member of the public threw ink at it when it was displayed in the 'Sensation' exhibition. I appreciate art but at the same time, I support what the member of the public did here. In itself, it felt like an artistic expression to attack it.

As I see it- Art can and should shock. It can even serve politically. But, this just felt like a sick attempt to provoke people. What deeper meaning could there even be to represent a child murderers face with child hand prints? It's surely just done to hurt and shock people. The Hindly murders weren't even that long ago- in the 60's. Some of the victims families were most likely still alive to see that.

Are there any artists or media pieces you have been outraged by? Can you still enjoy work after finding out a nasty truth or suspicion about the creator?

 

[Scythe]

Personally yes, I will continue to apperciate artwork no matter the art form(that includes games!) no matter what the creator did. Even if it's Trump, I'm gonna be disappointed that artist is a shitty person but I'd still apperciate the art. I do also feel emotions differently to most people and care about less things so that's something to take into account.

The artist being a shitty person just means I will pirate/not support the artist is all. I'm still gonna enjoy the artform.

The current most common agrument I hear revolving around this statement is J.K.Rowling, and yeah, don't give her money. I'm trans and I don't care if people play the franchise games or watch the movies as long as they aren't paying for it. I don't really care if they go see her movie on release date either, just after a while, pirate it instead of watching on streaming platforms.

 

[Dot]

Th/ 2 xampls tht u gve r diffrnt tho

Xampl 1 ws of a persn wh/ mde gd art bt wh/ ws dscovrd 2 b a pred8tr

Th/ othr ws of art whch intentlly mde a st8mnt & ppl cld nt hndle thr own dscomfrt @ wht th/ art ws sayng

Slf interpratn of th/ Myra Hndley pce ws of givng childrn th/ finl wrd in hr legcy whn sh/ hd spnt hr lfe takng autonmy awy frm thm - or outlinng tht sh/ hs th/ blood of childrn on hr hnds whch = tru - or also makng sre tht visully as wll as histrclly MH wll alwys b remmbrd as sme wh/ cmmittd evl crmes & as warnng fr othr ppl wh/ intentlly hrm childrn

Am nt insultng u fr hw u percivd tht art bt slf wld nevr wn2 giv 'permssn' t/ othr ppl t/ destry thngs jst bcse thy d/ nt undrstnd thm or hve th/ capacty t/ interprt wht an artst mght b sayng

Anothr xample of th/ 1st persn wld b hw mny ppl wll nt spport currnt or futre Hrry Pottr frnchise bcse thy d/ nt lke JK Rowlng impct on cultre 2wrds trns ppl & d/ nt wn2 spport or rward hr financlly fr doin tht -- also jst b4 postng slf cn C tht @Scythe alrdy mentnd hr

Am torn on idea of dstructn of art fr eithr reasn - bt thn agn Nzi status & artfcts wre takn dwn bcse sciety ds nt wnt certn ideas 2 b visble

 

[Forever Sleep]

Slf interpratn of th/ Myra Hndley pce ws of givng childrn th/ finl wrd in hr legcy whn sh/ hd spnt hr lfe takng autonmy awy frm thm - or outlinng tht sh/ hs th/ blood of childrn on hr hnds whch = tru - or also makng sre tht visully as wll as histrclly MH wll alwys b remmbrd as sme wh/ cmmittd evl crmes & as warnng fr othr ppl wh/ intentlly hrm childrn

That's an interesting interpretation. As I see it though, it was still a sort of 'celebration' of the killer- displaying their image in the public realm. Children also use their hands to paint more as a form of joy. So, to juxtapose the two- obviously did what it said on the tin (the name of the exhibition was 'Sensation'.) It certainly caused a sensation!

I found it interesting the artist used plaster casts of children's hands to make the prints. So- one step removed. Maybe they didn't want the responsibility of lots of children in their studio. Maybe they didn't want paint and hand prints everywhere or, maybe they just didn't fancy the question- 'What are we painting?' And, 'Who's that?' 'She was a mean lady that helped her lover brutally rape and kill children.' How many do you imagine would want to continue the painting if they knew that?

But, I take your point. One of the joys of art as I see it is that we can interpret ut as we see it. I suppose ultimately though, I don't see any kind of triumph over a person that brutally took away young lives. And I doubt the artist was doing it out of recompensing loss or, triumphing over 'evil'. I think it more likely they did it for notoriety/ infamy. I could be wrong though. Maybe their intentions were entirely pure.

As for the destruction of symbollic art- it's very complicated. There has also been destruction of monuments to people now considered tyrants or, overthrown throughout history. I can understand the sentiment. It's so sad really that the swastika- which is quite a pleasing symbol on its own has such heinous connotations now. Even worse that it was stolen from more ancient sources. It also makes sense that sculptures celebrating slavers aren't appreciated now.

But, I agree- it's complicated. The work itself could be beautiful. It could be the best example of that artist's skill. It's sad really that it's their work that is destroyed along with what it represents. I suppose, I would agree with it being removed from popular public spaces but think, it should be preserved in a museum somewhere.

But yes- as you pointed out, they are two different things. Either a creator that was or is suspected to have done something heinous or, a creator that creates something that represents something considered heinous. In the second though- maybe we start to question their morals because of what they created.

For example, there was another very extreme art installation by Marco Evaristti, which consisted of 10 blenders. Each with a live fish in. Ultimately, it's down to the public I suppose as to whether any will actually die but- the mind to come up with that and actually do it? Pretty disturbing. Although again- maybe not, when so many will condemn that but then, happily eat meat. I believe Art is supposed to hold a mirror up to ourselves or, it can. But, at what cost?

Really though, I have a much more cynical view about a lot of it. I think a lot just try to shock to cause notoriety, become famous and earn lots of money.

 

[Ashu]

Yeah. I don't know anything much, or at all, about the lives of most of the artists I love, but their art still works for me.

 

[Dot]

That's an interesting interpretation. As I see it though, it was still a sort of 'celebration' of the killer- displaying their image in the public realm. Children also use their hands to paint more as a form of joy. So, to juxtapose the two- obviously did what it said on the tin (the name of the exhibition was 'Sensation'.) It certainly caused a sensation!

I found it interesting the artist used plaster casts of children's hands to make the prints. So- one step removed. Maybe they didn't want the responsibility of lots of children in their studio. Maybe they didn't want paint and hand prints everywhere or, maybe they just didn't fancy the question- 'What are we painting?' And, 'Who's that?' 'She was a mean lady that helped her lover brutally rape and kill children.' How many do you imagine would want to continue the painting if they knew that?

Yh

Cld also b th/ juxtapsitn of inncnce vs evl - usng chldrn hnd prnts t/ cre8 imge of womn wh/ killd childrn Mphsies hr evlnss evn mre - espclly bcse whle killrs in genrl r cnsidrd evl thre = anothr levl t/ a womn killng childrn bcse womn r cnsidrd 2 b mothrly & protctve of childrn

Whchevr th/ interprtatn ws am sre = nt celbratn of hr

Usng plastr of hnd-prnt prbbly jst gve thm contrl ovr tme & physcl applcatn

ok jst googld

"Harvey intended the work to highlight the iconic power of the photograph through obsessive media reproduction, juxtaposing the innocence of a child's handprint with the depravity of Hindley's crimes."

Intrstng cncpt as sme killrs r seekng tht infmy whch happns dirctly bcse of mdia sensatnlistn

For example, there was another very extreme art installation by Marco Evaristti, which consisted of 10 blenders. Each with a live fish in. Ultimately, it's down to the public I suppose as to whether any will actually die but- the mind to come up with that and actually do it? Pretty disturbing. Although again- maybe not, when so many will condemn that but then, happily eat meat. I believe Art is supposed to hold a mirror up to ourselves or, it can. But, at what cost?

Yh tht = actully harmng animls - nt jst represntng smethng s/ cld nevr Ndorse tht

Really though, I have a much more cynical view about a lot of it. I think a lot just try to shock to cause notoriety, become famous and earn lots of money.

Yh cn apprci8 tht

 

[EternalHunger]

I hold the same belief on everything that someone's successes don't define a person and vice versa; there's plenty of creators, particularly important historical figures, who's life work changed the entire world in a better way or brough great happiness and yet are utterly deplorable people, this doesn't 'invalidate' those successes especially as they would later evolve separate from the individual but is just an insight on the origins on it and shouldn't represent that at all.

I don't really like supporting such people if they are still alive personally, but appreciating their work from afar and especially once they are dead is completely fine in my eyes. (I'm not saying someone who does 'actively' support their work i.e buy an album is a bad person for it, I just wouldn't as it's a more personal thing on whether you feel it is right to do so.)

 

[SilentSadness]

Those examples that you gave are very extreme, and would sicken me. But in general, a character exists in my head, not in the author's pen.

 

[Cosmophobic]

It depends. Certain things such as sexual abuse will put right off an artist's work regardless.

If it's something like horrible/racist opinions, like in the case of Burzum for example, I don't mind as long as the horrible opinions aren't consistently expressed through the artist's work.

 

[Dejected 55]

There's a lot of nuance and context necessary.

I'll try with some examples.

I used to really like Kevin Spacey as an actor. But then he became known as a horrible sexual harasser. The movies and past performances of his that I loved, these are still movies and performances I can enjoy... but I do cringe a little as some of them do come close to his real-life problems. BUT, knowing what I know now about him as a person... I have no interest in seeing him in any new roles if anyone ever took a chance and cast him again. I just couldn't support anything new involving him because of what I know now.

Michael Jackson became dicey too... I don't think anything was concretely proven about him, so I hate to see someone ruined by rumor and innuendo, but I have to at least consider the possibility he might have been guilty with some things involving children. But he is dead, long dead, so I don't have to worry about new music from him... and his songs that I liked all predate when I knew the potential bad things... so I can usually separate that.

Harvey Weinstein is all over a bunch of movies... but he was a producer. He wasn't in the movies. I can more easily enjoy a movie he was involved in because I would have been watching for the stories and the actors... not because he produced it. But if he ever gets out of jail and produced something else? I'd have to think about it, because who would knowingly take money from him and let him be involved?

So... for me... it's a little easier to separate existing art from creator IF I already liked the art before the creator was "ruined" in my eyes. I couldn't support new art, though, once I have seen the real person.

I also understand if someone else cannot at all support anything new or old once they know a person's true horrible self.

 

[nuva]

Yeah. I don't know anything much, or at all, about the lives of most of the artists I love, but their art still works for me.

totally agree.
If you don't want to be disappointed in some art work/project, it's better not to look for information about the author on the Internet. «Ignorance is bliss»

 

[Dejected 55]

I would also add... people sometimes will get really self-righteous about this... and judge you for liking art more harshly than they actually judge the perpetrator of the bad thing that they say means you shouldn't like the art. BUT, these people never want to look beyond the surface themselves. They will wait for someone else to do the work... they will judge everyone harshly, urge corporate boycotts or whatever... but they will not take the time to investigate every artist they like or every company they "support" because they don't want to know just how many bad people are out there and how many of those bad people are responsible for things they like themselves.

It's easy for people to cast aside art they didn't really care much for anyway as a "sign" of their virtue... but they absolutely will not look to see if their favorite artist has done anything wrong... and worse, sometimes one of their favorite artists will be outed for something and they will rush to defend their artist.

So, for me, I don't defend the artist as having done a bad thing to try and excuse them... I just detach the art from the artist where I can and enjoy the art while hating the artist going forward... but these most critical people who want you to hate the artist... they will NOT do that when their artist is revealed to be a monster... instead, they will try and excuse the artist, blame the victims, anything they can so that they don't have to make the choice they demand you are wrong for not making.

 

[bleeding_heart_show]

I see separating art from artist as myopic. How can you hope to fully understand something while ignoring major aspects of it?

 

[Dejected 55]

I see separating art from artist as myopic. How can you hope to fully understand something while ignoring major aspects of it?

Separating is not the same as ignoring. Also, do you deeply and thoroughly research every artist you like? Every place you spend money? Because if you don't, then you're probably enjoying something while ignoring major aspects already. I'm not saying that's a problem. I'm just saying the folks that get self-righteous about a particular artist being shady and wanting to retroactively cancel them entirely from existence really don't want to know everything about everyone because they might not be able to enjoy anything anymore.

 

[bleeding_heart_show]

Also, do you deeply and thoroughly research every artist you like? Every place you spend money? Because if you don't, then you're probably enjoying something while ignoring major aspects already.

This is a fair point. I tend to only be obsessive in areas of interest while taking most other things at face value.

I'm just saying the folks that get self-righteous about a particular artist being shady and wanting to retroactively cancel them entirely from existence really don't want to know everything about everyone because they might not be able to enjoy anything anymore.

If I stop being so opinionated for a moment I can understand this desire.

For example; I enjoy Roman Polanski's filmography, but also will acknowledge that some of his films with female protagonists would be difficult for some to watch with knowledge of his actual treatment of women. He wrote what he knew.

 

[Dejected 55]

Exactly... and perhaps a more benign example is... you have no doubt observed people not washing their hands properly or at all... many of these people work in kitchens... you have no doubt eaten at countless restaurants where if you could see just a few minutes behind the curtain into the kitchen, you would be astounded at the lack of hygiene and cleanliness... I choose whenever I go out to blissfully ignore it as long as they don't parade it in front of me, otherwise I could never eat anything I didn't completely prepare from fresh myself.

 

[amerie]

I mean I see why some people want to do that but I personally find it hard because a lot of art is inspired by their experiences in life and how they view others and oftentimes the art IS the problem.

But ngl I do enjoy a good kiof song once in a while, and MSI is lowkey kinda banging, but I listen like once in a while and not everyday streaming.

 

[ConfettiSpaghetti]

Not really. the creator created the creation. You cannot separate something that is directly linked. This is a common excuse used to feel better about the media and products people consume/use. By supporting the creation you ARE supporting the creator in some form, financially, their business via reputation or introducing their work to new people, whatever method that is. Some support the creator more some less, but you are supporting them regardless. However, people don't like that and want their cake and to eat it at the same time. They want to be able to consume/use the product/art/service, which they can even if they are directly and morally supporting the worst most disgusting human being to ever exist that you could think of (nothing is stopping you), but they don't want to be viewed as supporting the creator, which they are, and so this argument is often used. Of course there are exceptions, but in general, if you do not want to support the creator, do not support the creation, if you do you are supporting the creator in some amount in some way whether due to ignorance or because you don't care. However, apathy doesn't put you in another universe where the two aren't linked and you aren't making a conscious decision. That does not make you a bad person necessarily, but it doesn't change the truth either.

 

[Namelesa]

I can ignore what kind of person the creator is if I can enjoy what they made for free or what they did was minor or they are just dead but otherwise I would feel uncomfortable supporting or enjoying what they made.

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

No I can't separate art from artist and neither do I want to. I can't really see it whole again, it sours the entire thing for me.

 

[Dejected 55]

If a bad person creates a good thing and you love it before you find out the person is a bad person... BUT you argue that you have to discard the good thing because it was made by a bad person and the good thing is a reflection of the bad person and the two cannot be separated... then WHY did you now always know the good thing was created by the bad person and not love it in the first place?

The answer is simpler than anyone wants to make it.

The good thing is still a good thing even if it came from a bad person. It's one thing to no longer want to deal with the bad person once you know, and not want to like the next thing the bad person creates... but if you cut yourself off from the think you liked previously because of new information now about the creator of it... that doesn't help anyone the bad person hurt.

There are countless works of art and inventions made by people who did things you or I might not support. If you have a heart transplant that saves your life and you learn years later that the surgeon who performed your surgery OR the donor of the heart was a serial rapist that took a long time to get caught... do you rip that heart out of your chest and die because living with that heart "supports" the evil of the bad man that made it possible for you to live?

Where do you draw the line?

What if you run a company... and your company grows from a small operation to a large one over the next decade... but you find out some of your biggest supporters in the beginning of your enterprise were horrible people and you never knew it? Do you discard your fortune and close your business because it is built on horrible people? Should all your customers boycott your business because of the horrible past of your primary supporters?

Nobody wants to do a deep dive into everything they support and everything that supports them... because you'd find a lot more bad people and bad things than you want to know about... and you know you would start making excuses why you can't discard everyone and stop partaking in everything that touches a bad person or bad event... but it's prime virtue signaling to boycott one piece of art and one artist and then chastise everyone else for not doing the same.

I mean, people can do whatever they want... but at least be honest that it is selective outrage unless you go down the whole rabbit hole of everything you've ever invested or who has ever invested in you and make sure its all squeaky clean.

 

[ConfettiSpaghetti]

If a bad person creates a good thing and you love it before you find out the person is a bad person... BUT you argue that you have to discard the good thing because it was made by a bad person and the good thing is a reflection of the bad person and the two cannot be separated... then WHY did you now always know the good thing was created by the bad person and not love it in the first place?

Because "good" isn't an objective idea that automatically reveals itself. It's an interpretation that can change with knowledge, context, and moral awareness. Good and bad are labels you apply to something not something inherent to it. Someone thinking something was good before learning the artist was bad does not mean it was always good, it means they viewed it as good before and there view of it changed when receiving new information.

The answer is simpler than anyone wants to make it.

The good thing is still a good thing even if it came from a bad person. It's one thing to no longer want to deal with the bad person once you know, and not want to like the next thing the bad person creates... but if you cut yourself off from the think you liked previously because of new information now about the creator of it... that doesn't help anyone the bad person hurt.

The good thing is good if you still think it good. If you think its now bad, then its now bad. Are you implying people can't change their mind based on new information? That what they like or don't like is somehow set in stone after first impressions?

One. It can absolutely help. Cutting ties can affect finances, reputation, and cultural influence. That pressure might push the creator or others to take some amount of responsibility or change. Sharing their work also spreads their views and can sane wash them and make them more appealing.

Two. Why does it have to help? Not enjoying something because of the association with the creator does not have to help. If that impacts someone's enjoyment or makes them uncomfortable, then it is natural they will no longer want to engage with it.

There are countless works of art and inventions made by people who did things you or I might not support. If you have a heart transplant that saves your life and you learn years later that the surgeon who performed your surgery OR the donor of the heart was a serial rapist that took a long time to get caught... do you rip that heart out of your chest and die because living with that heart "supports" the evil of the bad man that made it possible for you to live?

This is such a bad faith argument. You're equating life saving surgery with buying a painting. One is survival, the other is optional consumption. Nobody is suggesting you should die to avoid benefiting from a bad person but people can choose not to spend money or give cultural support to an artist whose bad.

Where do you draw the line?

Wherever you want. The fact that there isn't one perfect universal line doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't draw any. People set boundaries all the time in law, ethics, and their personal life.

What if you run a company... and your company grows from a small operation to a large one over the next decade... but you find out some of your biggest supporters in the beginning of your enterprise were horrible people and you never knew it? Do you discard your fortune and close your business because it is built on horrible people? Should all your customers boycott your business because of the horrible past of your primary supporters?

Again, this is a bad faith argument. Running a company with a mix of unknown supporters is not the same as knowingly choosing to support an individual or business after you learn they've done harm. Nobody is saying you should shut down your life's work because of something hidden in the past. And why do you keep presenting the nuclear option? Ripping out a heart transplant and shuttering a whole company are not equal to not buying a product, getting something second-hand, pirating it, or choosing an alternative?

Nobody wants to do a deep dive into everything they support and everything that supports them... because you'd find a lot more bad people and bad things than you want to know about... and you know you would start making excuses why you can't discard everyone and stop partaking in everything that touches a bad person or bad event... but it's prime virtue signaling to boycott one piece of art and one artist and then chastise everyone else for not doing the same.

You don't have to be perfect. No one ever will be. Acting like it's "all or nothing" is just an excuse not to try at all. Progress doesn't require perfection. People draw lines where they can and writing that off as "virtue signalling" is dismissive. Wanting your actions to line up with your values isn't performative, it's trying to be consistent within the limits of living in society.

And if we are being honest you're actively trying to paint being conscious of what you support as extreme and hypocritical by twisting and exaggerating. You muddy the water by equating everything so it seems impossible to draw any kind of line. You frame it as if imperfection makes any effort pointless. All for what? So you can feel morally superior while having to do nothing? Isn't that also just virtue signalling?

I mean, people can do whatever they want... but at least be honest that it is selective outrage unless you go down the whole rabbit hole of everything you've ever invested or who has ever invested in you and make sure its all squeaky clean.

"selective outrage" is a very bad faith interpretation of not physically being capable of being perfect but making an attempt anyway no matter how misguided or how much you conflict with other people views and lines in the sand. My point isn't that you should care, or that others should judge you for not caring. You're just going out of your way to present conscientious action as pointless and hypocritical.


People do have a point in drawing lines and making imperfect efforts. You're framing it as wrong so you can negate judgment of being indifferent. Instead of admitting you don't care, you try to make other people look absurd or hypocritical. It's just seems like a rhetorical dodge to avoid saying you don't care regardless of the consequences of consumption which is fine.

Sorry if I come across as arrogant or aggressive I have social anxiety and have not had any friends for a long long time so I am very unsocialised, awkward and have the social awareness of a slug.

 

[Dejected 55]

The point I was making is... Some people, including in this thread, have been making a stance that they can't separate art from the artist if they find out the artist is a bad person, because the art is a product of the artist and therefore was always bad because it is a reflection of the bad in the artist.

I'm not the one arguing for an absolute. The people who support the above stance that you must boycott a store for supporting a cause you don't like or cancel the artist and all previous works because of something you learn bad about the artist now. That's the absolute that people have been arguing for in this thread and all over.

*I* have merely been pointing out that the above stance is only being supplied selectively when you want to apply it, and no one encouraging the hard cutoff of an artist ever actually does or wants to do the work to find out if their favorite song or favorite painting or whatever might have been created by a horrible person. And, worse, if their very favorite song is discovered to be created by someone horrible, they sometimes will jump through hoops to defend their continuing to like that song or maybe even defend the artists as "you don't know, you can't convict him on rumor" or whatever... excuses they wouldn't make for the others they are willing to casually discard.

My point is... I separate the art from the artist. I'm not better than you. I'm just consistent. The people taking the other side of the argument, being unable to separate the art from the artist, are never consistent. They don't behave the same in all instances. They vehemently argue for cancellation of one artist while avidly supporting another, depending on how much they liked that artist beforehand.

IF it is all about the art being a reflection of the artist, and knowing a bad thing about the artist ruins the art for you, and you are consistent across the board... then I have no argument with you. I can respect that decision. But when your position changes depending on who the artist is to you or how much you like the art... then it isn't about the artist being good or bad that is making you cancel them.

Be consistent. That's all I've been arguing. My position is consistent because I'm arguing everything is on a case by case basis, and has room to ignore the artist retroactively or just ignore new creations while continuing to enjoy old ones you already liked. I'm not demanding anyone follow my path. I'm just asking why others assert their path is the true path and then they hop on and off of it at a whim.