Does having an unsavory personal life cancel out artistic achievements

[Bikewer]

My wife and I have discussed this many times. There are still people, all these years later, who think that Jane Fonda should be tried for treason.

Most people have some sort of skeleton in the closet if you dig deep enough....

I recall being quite shocked when stories of the extensive drug use of Fleetwood Mac started to emerge (Evidently, Mick wanted to put the name of their "supplier" on the credits for Tusk....Warner Brothers declined...)

I also recall that Richard Pryor's little drug escaped resulted in some very funny material.....

"If you are running down the street, on fire...People will get out of your way."

[HHP]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

My wife and I have discussed this many times. There are still people, all these years later, who think that Jane Fonda should be tried for treason.

Most people have some sort of skeleton in the closet if you dig deep enough....

I recall being quite shocked when stories of the extensive drug use of Fleetwood Mac started to emerge (Evidently, Mick wanted to put the name of their "supplier" on the credits for Tusk....Warner Brothers declined...)

I also recall that Richard Pryor's little drug escaped resulted in some very funny material.....

"If you are running down the street, on fire...People will get out of your way."

Pryor and Fleetwood's drug use was not admirable, but largely only damaged themselves.

Fonda's was a bit different in that she provided "aid and comfort" to a country we were at war with. Had she simply protested the war, OK, but posing on an anti-aircraft gun that was used to try and kill fellow Americans put it in a different category.

Celebrities who praised and supported regimes in Cuba and Venezuela, by contrast, are only exhibiting their dimwittery.

[Scott O]

Originally Posted by fumei

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.

I still laugh at OJ in The Naked Gun. Heckuva an actor!

[heni30]

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?

It's an equation that has in it the scope of artistic contribution.

The used car salesman met his quota for the month.
Chuck Berry invented/changed the course of Rock and Roll

[Basalt Beach]

Originally Posted by heni30

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

I'm not saying giving them special treatment for who they are but rather having their transgressions invalidate their artistic work.

Upon reading the responses, it appears for some it is slippery slope. It is dependent on what the artist has done and the beliefs, experiences and values of the individual making an evaluation.

Originally Posted by buddyhu

No, there is no "cancellation".

What you create is not the same as who you are/how you live. Who you are effects how I feel about having a relationship with you; it may effect my decision to buy your art (which is a consumer choice, separate from the artistic product and it's artistic value). But I think that should be distinguished from "artistic achievement", and some abstract notion of cancelling out.

I concur, only if I could always separate the behavior from the art. It is difficult to do so when the behavior overshadows art and that impact is likely different for each individual.

Originally Posted by HHP

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.

Seems reasonable, however my Dad was staunch William F Buckley conservative, and he gave Jane Fonda a pass. He did so, not because he liked her work, more so, because he believed she was young, naive, idealistic, foolish and unwittingly used, as well as failing at the time to comprehend the gravity of her actions. Perhaps raising three daughters provided him some prospective which allowed him to reach this belief. Thus your original premise is correct, it is just ever individual reaches their own conclusion using the information they have gleaned and their own beliefs and values.

[Silly Moustache]

er, ..................... does sheep worrying count?

[StevenL]

If everybody pledges today that he or she will only consume products and services created and/or distributed by 'good' people, the earth will be devoid of human life by the end of 2017. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just a personal observation.

But to define 'good': Good is Me and what I am doing: Not Good is Somebody Else, probably from Somewhere beside where I am and doing what I am not doing.

[aknow]

I knew Michael Jackson for many years. I doubt the allegations against him are true, yet who in this forum has never committed an unsavory act?
I am no one to judge, but in America, there is so much unsavory behavior in our professions, it's hard not to become cynical.
After he got away (allegedly) with murder, OJ tried to join our twosome at a local golf course, where we would see him regularly on the putting greens. I spoke up, "Go join another group" and we walked down the fairway without him. I think that is a lot more effective than gossip, without facts.

[Xray]

I think that in theory it shouldn't but human nature being what it is, it does.

Berry from what I have heard has gone far beyond "misadventures" and engaged in some truly sickening behavior.
Polanski is a convicted pedophile and a fugitive from justice.


So sure, that is bound to color peoples opinions and some may prefer not to have anything to do with their artistic creations.

[heni30]

I think it also has to do with the artist's purtorted image.

Nothing Axel Rose could do would be shocking.

But would your appreciation of Taylor Swift's music diminish if it was discovered she was a raging heroin addict?

The Dixie Chicks' and Pee Wee Herman's careers were destroyed by personal incidents.

[RustyAxe]

Therein lies the problem with "idol worship" ... pop culture idols are golden statues with feet of clay. I can recognize their artistry while condemning their behaviors. But sometimes, as in the case of rap "music", I condemn both.

[TNO]

Behavior that doesn't affect others doesn't bother me, no matter how bizzare. Hurt other people and I don't want to know about their work.

[Mr. Paul]

I had Avalanche season tickets when Peter Forsberg was in his prime.

I happened to sit next to him at a Springsteen show. When he told me he wasn't enjoying Bruce and that his favorite band was ABBA, I was a bit taken aback but no, it did not diminish any of his accomplishments on the ice.

[F512]

Some of the world's best art comes from the most troubled of souls. I wouldn't shun an artists work because of their public image.

[Looburst]

Having worked with many artists over the last 25 years, most are very screwed up people. There are a few exceptions, thank God! However most have varying degrees of disfunction, like we all do frankly. Should it be a factor in their artistry? No, there is usually an army of people responsible for their success. From publishers to managers, record labels and the like.