The Artist and their Art

[Gyakuto]

UK’s Channel 4 have bought pieces of art created by Adolf Hitler, light entertainer and convicted paedophile, Rolf Harris, sexual abuser Eric Gill and Pablo Picasso (what did he do?). The brilliant, astute and close-to-the-knuckle comedian, Jimmy Carr, will host a debate with a studio audience who will decide if the piece of art and the artist can be separate, or if they should be destroyed. Then they will either spare, shredded or flame-torch it.

A UK TV station bought a painting by Hitler. A studio audience will vote on whether to destroy it

British broadcaster Channel 4 has received stinging criticism over plans for a new show that will allow a studio audience to decide whether to destroy a painting by Adolf Hitler.

edition.cnn.com

The celebrated Baroque artist Caravaggio was notorious for his drinking, gambling, sword-carrying and brawling and eventually murder and yet his paintings hang in galleries throughout the world, praised by all who witness them. Does this set the precedent?

What do you think of the show’s concept and the idea? Can a piece of art be separated from the insane, disgusting, degenerate artist who created it or is it a direct expression of their evil character and thus shouldn't be allowed to exist?

 

[Jimmythebull]

Can a piece of art be separated from the insane, disgusting, degenerate artist who created it or is it a direct expression of their evil character and thus shouldn't be allowed to exist?

I just wouldn't look at the pictures but to answer your question unfortunately many brilliant people in all walks of life were insane, border line alcoholics drug addicts...sexuel preditors. Even friends with Royalty.
Their Art work will always have a place & a following from people for what ever reason. So yes it probably should still have it's place as undesirable it is to people like me ( who don't understand Art anyway)

 

[Darksoul]

This is a discussion that I've run into in the last year or so, especially if we can separate the artist from the art. I was never a huge Marilyn Manson fan but liked some of his work; then find out at some point what a slimeball he is. Now if his song comes on the radio I change the channel. Certainly not buying his albums or concert tickets. J.K Rowling is also someone I take issue with; do I shun the world of Harry Potter. Honestly I've never seen the movies, and I've only made it through the first 4 books, maybe halfway through the fifth? I think its a good story, especially for kids, but where should I draw the line? The books I have belong to my mother, who has had them for years now. If I watch the movie on t.v. am I "paying" for it? Would it, in a sense, be putting money in J.K Rowling's pocket? I don't think so, not at this point. The movie studios, the distribution companies, even the streaming/cable services have all taken their cut and passed it along, so not sure it matters.

Interesting topic.

 

[Gyakuto]

This is a discussion that I've run into in the last year or so, especially if we can separate the artist from the art. I was never a huge Marilyn Manson fan but liked some of his work; then find out at some point what a slimeball he is. Now if his song comes on the radio I change the channel. Certainly not buying his albums or concert tickets. J.K Rowling is also someone I take issue with; do I shun the world of Harry Potter. Honestly I've never seen the movies, and I've only made it through the first 4 books, maybe halfway through the fifth? I think its a good story, especially for kids, but where should I draw the line? The books I have belong to my mother, who has had them for years now. If I watch the movie on t.v. am I "paying" for it? Would it, in a sense, be putting money in J.K Rowling's pocket? I don't think so, not at this point. The movie studios, the distribution companies, even the streaming/cable services have all taken their cut and passed it along, so not sure it matters.

Interesting topic.

I read ‘Marilyn Monroe’ for a second there and thought…’what did she do’

J.K. Rowling’s assertion the the term ‘women who menstruate’ could be simplified to ‘women’ hardly compares to the crimes of the artists above (it’s her children’s fiction that’s the real crime, in my opinion ) and it sounds like since you didn’t really like her output anyway it was and easy to distance yourself from the boy-wizard. But what if the ‘criminal’ was somebody who’s work you really respected and even adored? The highest-paid, BBC presenter and disc jockey still plays Michael Jackson’s music because he feels the art can be removed from the artist.

I knew someone who was a huge fan of the Welsh popular beat combo ‘The Lost Prophets’, but when their lead singer was convicted of the most awful crimes imaginable, he stopped listening to their music, disposed of all their albums and was glum for a long time!

 

[Darksoul]

I read ‘Marilyn Monroe’ for a second there and thought…’what did she do’

J.K. Rowling’s assertion the the term ‘women who menstruate’ could be simplified to ‘women’ hardly compares to the crimes of the artists above (it’s her children’s fiction that’s the real crime, in my opinion ) and it sounds like since you didn’t really like her output anyway it was and easy to distance yourself from the boy-wizard. But what if the ‘criminal’ was somebody who’s work you really respected and even adored? The highest-paid, BBC presenter and disc jockey still plays Michael Jackson’s music because he feels the art can be removed from the artist.

I knew someone who was a huge fan of the Welsh popular beat combo ‘The Lost Prophets’, but when their lead singer was convicted of the most awful crimes imaginable, he stopped listening to their music, disposed of all their albums and was glum for a long time!

Definitely seems to be a very personal choice. I think some artist can be let go without a second thought. If it was someone like Freddie Mercury, I would truly be sad.

 

[Gyakuto]

Definitely seems to be a very personal choice. I think some artist can be let go without a second thought. If it was someone like Freddie Mercury, I would truly be sad.

A hypothetical scenario for the sake of this thread: Say Mercury is found in ascending levels of heinousness, to have a) Denied anthropomorphic climate change b) was an anti-vaxxer c) Beat his lover -and not in the good way d) cooked crystal meth and supplied dealers with it e) killed people in a war f) killed people in a war but on the morally questionable side (like whichever side you think were the baddies in the American civil war) g) denied the Moon landings (the worst crime of all).

At which level would you abandon his music or maybe not at all? (I can’t imagine Freddie doing any of these things really )

 

[Darksoul]

A hypothetical scenario for the sake of this thread: Say Mercury is found in ascending levels of heinousness, to have a) Denied anthropomorphic climate change b) was an anti-vaxxer c) Beat his lover -and not in the good way d) cooked crystal meth and supplied dealers with it e) killed people in a war f) killed people in a war but on the morally questionable side (like whichever side you think were the baddies in the American civil war) g) denied the Moon landings (the worst crime of all).

At which level would you abandon his music or maybe not at all? (I can’t imagine Freddie doing any of these things really )

Do I abandon all of Queen's work, or just Freddie's solo material? Brian May and Roger Taylor have solo work themselves so I suppose there is room to maneuver lol. A lot of those hypotheticals are damning but it would be hard to give up Queen. '39 is in my top 5 songs ever, granted May sang lead on that one. I honestly don't know. Seems like it could be easier from artist to artist but picking and choosing sounds...wishy washy.

 

[Gyakuto]

Do I abandon all of Queen's work, or just Freddie's solo material? Brian May and Roger Taylor have solo work themselves so I suppose there is room to maneuver lol. A lot of those hypotheticals are damning but it would be hard to give up Queen. '39 is in my top 5 songs ever, granted May sang lead on that one. I honestly don't know. Seems like it could be easier from artist to artist but picking and choosing sounds...wishy washy.

Hmmm that’s a good point. In this scenario Dr May and Mr Taylor are innocent of Freddie’s denial of the Moon landings, but by supporting them you are supporting Freddie and Brian has a PhD in astrophysics which makes Freddie’s denial even worse! Neil and Buzz left mirror reflectors up there, for goodness sake!

 

[Jimmythebull]

A hypothetical scenario for the sake of this thread: Say Mercury is found in ascending levels of heinousness, to have a) Denied anthropomorphic climate change b) was an anti-vaxxer c) Beat his lover -and not in the good way d) cooked crystal meth and supplied dealers with it e) killed people in a war f) killed people in a war but on the morally questionable side (like whichever side you think were the baddies in the American civil war) g) denied the Moon landings (the worst crime of all).

At which level would you abandon his music or maybe not at all? (I can’t imagine Freddie doing any of these things really )

Weird

 

[Damien]

I've always maintained that you can separate art and artist. As mentioned above many artists did bad things but we still appreciate their art. This questioning is very much a modern phenomenon. Perhaps society as a whole has become more moral? Or perhaps just more self conscious?

Say you have two pieces of art of whatever type, you know nothing about either. One is amazing and the other really rather sub par. When asked which you would like to own you are going to go for the amazing one (save silly arguments like insurance or risk of theft, depending on the art form).

If you then find out that the artists were a murderer and someone who donated lottery winnings to end poverty in a 3rd world country, your opinion will stay the same on the art, though you may well wonder which is which.

If you are then told the murderer did the amazing art, how does it suddenly become not amazing? The art is the same. All that has changed is your perception of the artist. What if you are then told that it was actually the other way round? Does the art become good again? It's non sensical. Art is art and not the person who created it.

Also remember that people have many layers to them. One may be terrible, the other quite nice. Which part is their art expressing? Does it matter?

Now if the art is promoting something bad, then that is a different story.

When it comes to remuneration we have to consider things carefully too. Do I want to financially support someone I believe to be a bad person? I would say no. Once that person is dead though, they aren't benefiting from me buying their album or film, their (probably) innocent descendents are. If it's free, then who really loses out from you not consuming? Just you, if it is good art.

 

[Gyakuto]

I've always maintained that you can separate art and artist. As mentioned above many artists did bad things but we still appreciate their art. This questioning is very much a modern phenomenon. Perhaps society as a whole has become more moral? Or perhaps just more self conscious?

Say you have two pieces of art of whatever type, you know nothing about either. One is amazing and the other really rather sub par. When asked which you would like to own you are going to go for the amazing one (save silly arguments like insurance or risk of theft, depending on the art form).

If you then find out that the artists were a murderer and someone who donated lottery winnings to end poverty in a 3rd world country, your opinion will stay the same on the art, though you may well wonder which is which.

If you are then told the murderer did the amazing art, how does it suddenly become not amazing? The art is the same. All that has changed is your perception of the artist. What if you are then told that it was actually the other way round? Does the art become good again? It's non sensical. Art is art and not the person who created it.

Also remember that people have many layers to them. One may be terrible, the other quite nice. Which part is their art expressing? Does it matter?

Now if the art is promoting something bad, then that is a different story.

When it comes to remuneration we have to consider things carefully too. Do I want to financially support someone I believe to be a bad person? I would say no. Once that person is dead though, they aren't benefiting from me buying their album or film, their (probably) innocent descendents are. If it's free, then who really loses out from you not consuming? Just you, if it is good art.

What a great post! I agree completely! <dusts off Hitler painting of child kicking a puppy>

 

[Oily Dragon]

John Lennon was a fine artist. And if you're limiting that assessment to his simple little sketches, you're kind of missing the forest for the trees. He was one of the greatest artists of the 20th century, in music, poetry, conception, even though his personal drawings were innocent and not really intended to revolutionize the art scene. It was all about love, who cares what a critic thinks?

I'd put this on my wall. Only $3,000!

 

[Gyakuto]

John Lennon was a fine artist. And if you're limiting that assessment to his simple little sketches, you're kind of missing the forest for the trees. He was one of the greatest artists of the 20th century, in music, poetry, conception, even though his personal drawings were innocent and not really intended to revolutionize the art scene. It was all about love, who cares what a critic thinks?

I'd put this on my wall. Only $3,000!

View attachment 29184

Yes, I like it’s Zen simplicity! The hanko in a nice touch too.

 

[Gyakuto]

I had a relation who wrote to George Harrison’s mother, in the early days of the Beatles, asking for his autograph (he still lived at home at that stage). In the return post was a nice letter from her and the pocket material ripped from his overcoat Bet that annoyed him! She says there are early photos of the Fab Four and George’s pocket is missing from his overcoat

 

[granfire]

To each Their own. Some people won't listen to Queen because he was gay and that is against their morals but the music is still played on the radio. Michael Jackson is still very popular all over the world. Look at what a mess he was.
The entire notion of the TV show is nothing more than a corporate piggy back on cancel culture for ratings. So if your all for taking down statues and changing street names, you'll love to watch the art burn so you can feel great about your moral superiority. As for the rest of the world we won't be watching, I wasn't going to buy any of that art anyway, so go ahead and destroy it. Frankly I find it childish and ignorant but hey civilization after civilization destroys the past and it has nothing to do with art and artist even if they say it does.
Hitler was not a good artist, either was John Lennon but people pay good money because of the historical significance and in Hilers case a fascination with the macabre. You can do a 90 min tour of the Lizzy Borden house for $22. You can stay the night in the room where the family was murdered for about $250 a night. Is that more or less messed up than a painting? People have strange values.

well, MJ was not played on the radio for a very long time after the allegations broke (and I think he did it, too). Only after his death are his songs receiving airtime again.
He was a mess (abused, for sure. the cult he was raised in is horrible!) but he was also a creative genius.
Oh, at least very good at his craft.

Hitler was a decent artist. Not great, by no means.
So there is the question, is it bad taste to look at his paintings? His book is still sold. Sometimes even for historical purposes.
it is safe to say his family does not profit from his estate though. I am not sure who holds the copyright to the book, and the paintings had been sold (for pennies) at their creation or been taken by the Sovjet forces in '45.

I am not buying new Brian Adams music, but still enjoy my old CDs (on the scale of evils, he is just a PeTA supporter but still, they do cultivate ties to eco-terrorists)

I am watching Nacked Gun with mixed feelings. Thank goodness OJ is the butt of the jokes.

On the other hand, we still celebrate Columbus....
And even his contemporaries knew him to be a vile man.

 

[hoshin1600]

Allow me to ask this question.

If a cancer patient only has 6 months to live. Will you recommand him to do sitting meditation, or will you recommand him to explore the beautiful world for the next 6 months?

Also, for the sake of the spiritual discussion, will it be better to let your soul to be integrated among the natural instead of to be isolated by yourself?

When I were young, going into the woods for 3 weeks was my way of meditation. To be closer to the nature is the key. Sitting meditation is the opposite.


View attachment 28875

well, MJ was not played on the radio for a very long time after the allegations broke (and I think he did it, too). Only after his death are his songs receiving airtime again.
He was a mess (abused, for sure. the cult he was raised in is horrible!) but he was also a creative genius.
Oh, at least very good at his craft.

Hitler was a decent artist. Not great, by no means.
So there is the question, is it bad taste to look at his paintings? His book is still sold. Sometimes even for historical purposes.
it is safe to say his family does not profit from his estate though. I am not sure who holds the copyright to the book, and the paintings had been sold (for pennies) at their creation or been taken by the Sovjet forces in '45.

I am not buying new Brian Adams music, but still enjoy my old CDs (on the scale of evils, he is just a PeTA supporter but still, they do cultivate ties to eco-terrorists)

I am watching Nacked Gun with mixed feelings. Thank goodness OJ is the butt of the jokes.

On the other hand, we still celebrate Columbus....
And even his contemporaries knew him to be a vile man.

As I'm reading I'm thinking, oh no what did Brian Adam's do, thinking the worst. But if it's just PETA.... I'll listen to his music while enjoying my steak, with a smile. I'm a big beatles fan and Sir Paul is a big non animal person. However his sports car probably has leather seats.

I think reading Hitlers book could be important to some, like reading the columbine killers diary. It gives you insight into their minds. So we don't go there again.

 

[Gyakuto]

As I'm reading I'm thinking, oh no what did Brian Adam's do, thinking the worst. But if it's just PETA.... I'll listen to his music while enjoying my steak, with a smile. I'm a big beatles fan and Sir Paul is a big non animal person. However his sports car probably has leather seats.

I think reading Hitlers book could be important to some, like reading the columbine killers diary. It gives you insight into their minds. So we don't go there again.

Pauli-baby‘s (as I call him in private) ideology is probably ‘if the installed seats are leather in my vintage car, use them with thanks and humility. When they need replacing do so with a non-animal derived material’ I am currently wearing out my leather boots with a similar philosophy.

Mein Kampf are the ravings of an idiot who blames everyone else for the short-comings of Germany and himself rather than the geopolitical situation and himself. It really is a waste of paper and ink!

 

[hoshin1600]

Mein Kampf are the ravings of an idiot who blames everyone else for the short-comings of Germany and himself rather than the geopolitical situation and himself. It really is a waste of paper and ink!

I haven't read the book and any translation may not be accurate, so while you may be correct I do think that the direct words of those who wish evil in the world can give a psychological understanding on why people do what they do and help us stop things in the future. Victims always want to know "why" .. well, if we can read their words it's right there for everyone , to know exactly why.

 

[Gyakuto]

I haven't read the book and any translation may not be accurate, so while you may be correct I do think that the direct words of those who wish evil in the world can give a psychological understanding on why people do what they do and help us stop things in the future. Victims always want to know "why" .. well, if we can read their words it's right there for everyone , to know exactly why.

I feel certain psychiatrists etc have pored over this tome and come to the obvious conclusion: he was a nutter that we should forget. There are plenty of new nutters in charge around the world right now.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Mein Kampf is probably one of the most important pieces of political writing of the 20rh century.

The versions you can buy today in many languages are so full of detailed scholarly annotations, it's far more than than just mad ramblings and unfortunately, it's very well written a edited. And in .any places, persuasive depending on your personal biases.

If you didn't know the person writing it was laying out the political architecture for World War III and the Final Solution, you might miss it.

Should everyone read it? Well read Nietzsche first and put on your spiritual armor, and every time you catch yourself nodding in agreement with the author, remember whose book you are reading. Nietzche? Hmm. Hitler? Eww.

Forget? Never forget. That's the only way to spot the next one.