Does having an unsavory personal life cancel out artistic achievements

[Heroditus]

Any Mamas & Papas fans here? Pretty hard to think of another artistic type as twisted as John Phillips. He wrote some really great music though.

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by HHP

There are artists whose personal acts lead me not to follow or support them in any way...I differentiate between the run of the mill "saying and doing stupid stuff" and the actions that display indifference to causing real suffering to people.

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

...There are, however, some artists whose work I won't abide...The modern world seems to prefer to standardize the classifications of who are good and bad individuals and thus what art is acceptable or not. Then they want to demand that we boycott or not based upon their judgment. I find that this approach binds my conscience and prevents my freedom of choice so I simply choose not to slavishly follow the culture's demands...

Pretty much sums up my feelings...

[FrankHudson]

Yeah, it's a tough question isn't it?

I've generally come down on the Springsteen side: trust the art not the artist, maybe in this case substituting the word "judge" for "trust". There are artists whose work doesn't agree with me in some way that I avoid it, including those that simply bore me, but also those who outlook seems blind to things I think are important.

As to crimes and repulsive acts? As a consumer of art, I mostly think that's up to the legal system and then the artists own circle and family to judge. If the art has value to me, I'm likely to continue to consume it. Yes I have moments where a particular act or crime will cause me to question what could I have seen in that artists work. And some things seem more repulsive than others. I'm probably not philosophically consistent in this matter.

Someone's mentioned the that minor painter Mr. Hitler. I could mention Charles Manson the singer/songwriter. Neither's art compels me to consume it, so I don't have to choose. Bill Cosby's early story telling routines are still ingrained in my mind, and his work for progress on racial issues too. Would I go to a Bill Cosby stand up show or buy a Bill Cosby book? Probably not, but I would also have been unlikely to do that 10 years ago either. I'd say the same thing about Bob Newhart for whom I know no crimes or scandals. I'm an admirer of many early 20th century modernists, but several had outright fascist alliances and opinions. I won't give up Ezra Pound on those grounds.

[Gmountain]

Originally Posted by heni30

I agree it's a matter of degree. There's a difference between Miley Cyrus's twerking and Michael Jackson's kiddie escapades.

At least Micheal had some talent.

[heni30]

Many people here agree her solo un-plugged singing ain't too shabby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOwblaKmyVw

[tbeltrans]

Artists, as citizens of this country (and whatever city and state) are subject to the same laws norms as everybody else. If we do something that gets in hot water or ostracized or whatever, I would expect an artist who does similar to expect the same thing.

Is the work that an artist has produced negated because of any of these things? I don't think so any more than the work that anybody else produced being negated for the same things.

Though it seems to be human nature, I think it is a mistake that causes trouble all around to put artists or sports people on a pedestal.

Tony

[fumei]

Pete Rose is the all time hits leader and is banned from the game and not allowed in the HOF for gambling.
OJ Simpson won the Heisman and had a HOF career in the NFL, and he is shunned.

Ummm, I fail to see how you can even put these together as examples.

Should Pete Rose be "shunned", no I do not think so. But I do not think he should be in the HOF either. You can still celebrate his on-the-field achievements.

Simpson's fantastic achievements on the field can still be celebrated as well, but should he be shunned? Yes. He was a murderer.

[H165]

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Tiger Woods had continued his prowess on the golf course after his disastrous cheating scandal.

That would have been have been a tricky one to say the least.

Not as tricky for me as these:

David Crosby is as accomplished in his field as Woods was in golf. Yet Mr. Crosby has written reams about his own failings and others have fired heavily on him as well. So far, I have separated Crosby's accomplishments from his bad acts, something I'm unable do in another case:

As noted, these are judgements colored by individual personal experience, not numbers or logic.

[Earwitness]

No. It does call into question their "non-artistic " value.

[ewalling]

Another dimension to this, particularly in music, which often has words, is whether the art has any "offensive" message articulated within it. As a fairly serious Christian 14-year old (yes, really!), I loved ELP's Tarkus, my first rock album, but I had real difficulty with the song 'The Only Way' on the second side, which was openly atheistic.

But how can we find purely instrumental music offensive? Does Wagner's music suddenly depreciate because of his links with Nazism? Do you love the music one day and hate it the next upon finding out the ugly truth about the man himself? It's a piece of music that either works for you or it doesn't. Does a house design cease to be exquisite because the designer had a thing about sheep? I don't think so. Mind you, if he pens an explicit and juicy ode to a particularly handsome Friesian, we might, if we're squeamish about such things, bristle with disapproval! Otherwise, it makes little sense, as far as I can see. When we like a piece of art, it's the art we're enjoying - the guy who created it and the petty paraphernalia of his existence are not the issue.

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Another dimension to this, particularly in music, which often has words, is whether the art has any "offensive" message articulated within it. As a fairly serious Christian 14-year old (yes, really!), I loved ELP's Tarkus, my first rock album, but I had real difficulty with the song 'The Only Way' on the second side, which was openly atheistic.

But how can we find purely instrumental music offensive? Does Wagner's music suddenly depreciate because of his links with Nazism? Do you love the music one day and hate it the next upon finding out the ugly truth about the man himself? It's a piece of music that either works for you or it doesn't. Does a house design cease to be exquisite because the designer had a thing about sheep? I don't think so. Mind you, if he pens an explicit and juicy ode to a particularly handsome Friesian, we might, if we're squeamish about such things, bristle with disapproval! Otherwise, it makes little sense, as far as I can see. When we like a piece of art, it's the art we're enjoying - the guy who created it and the petty paraphernalia of his existence are not the issue.

This becomes partuclarly obvious with the passage of time. One might not wish to buy works from an artist who is alive today and doing unsavory things. But learning that an artist who died 300 years ago did some unsavory things is rarely a consideration for a consumer of art (whether music,,sculpture, painting, or written word).

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by veryzer

This really goes back to ad hominem as an argumentative fallacy. Judgment is based on the product, not the individual creating it.

^^^^^This.
How many of us would turn down a life saving medicine that was the life's work of a brilliant scientist who was subsequently found to have committed heinous crimes?

[LSemmens]

It is really about the profile of the person who is convicted of any crime. If, say, the top gospel artist were outed as an out and out Atheist who preyed on the young and vulnerable should they be treated any differently to the local car salesman who was also guilty of the same? Why?

[HHP]

Originally Posted by LSemmens

It is really about the profile of the person who is convicted of any crime. If, say, the top gospel artist were outed as an out and out Atheist who preyed on the young and vulnerable should they be treated any differently to the local car salesman who was also guilty of the same? Why?

In law, they're the same. In media, they are vastly different.

[Mr. Jelly]

Originally Posted by heni30

Do you think a person's artistic achievements can or ought to be completely separated from their personal life behavior?

Yes ... okay it depends. It's hard for me to get past a serial rapist that I never really cared that much for anyway. Minor stupid things I can overlook to a point. If they do allot of really stupid things that makes it hard for me to get into the artist. David Crosby is my litmus test. He was involved in some great music and was blessed with a talent. He has issues that are not good. I enjoy his music that he made but I don't overlook the person. Pretty much the same I do for most people. Firstly you have people. Then you have people that have some talent. But just because a person has a talent it doesn't give them a pass on principals and human behavior that I feel we should foster in ourselves.