At what point do you conjoin the two? Does the line vary? If a brilliant painter turns out to be a convicted pedophile, for instance, would you still hang their art on your wall? Just curious to hear opinions. I was just wondering about this sort of thing the other day.
I think it depends on how influential you think the artist's life is on what he produces. I think that varies a lot from artist to artist.
If some painter has suffered from depression and does amazing paintings about it, the guy's bio should reflect that.
If Chuck Berry has has a tumultuous life, leading him both to those convictions as well as this new form of music, that should be part of his story. It might not be that way, I don't know enough about him to know, but his biographers will decide.
There's also the personal question of whether you want to support a criminal. Say Roman Polanski does a new movie. It might be a great movie not concerning underage sex, but I would still have a think about whether I wanted to pay a guy who is a fugitive from justice. I don't think I should compel anyone else to decide one way or the other; I think it's perfectly legal to watch his movies, so up to everyone to decide.
In theory you could enjoy the art just as art, but I tend to like art because I enjoy learning from how they saw the world. Finding out they were doing horrible things makes me less excited to absorb their life lessons, which makes the art less interesting to me.
I see the argument. How bout this scenario: We uncover that Hitler (hello Godwin's law) was a master sculptor, absolutely unparalleled. His art speaks volumes, especially to those unbeknownst of its origins. How do you see the art being viewed then? On one hand, he has the legacy of attempting genocide, but on the other hand his art is amazing. What are the morality guidelines behind this sort of predicament?
Does humanity keep it on display in a museum and continue his legacy in the vicinity of works such as Rembrandt's? Even though it would undoubtedly offend millions? Does the fact that it's great art outweigh the social negativity surrounding the whole predicament?
Sure - I did consider a hypothetical Hitler as artist argument.
So, the boring rejoinder is that, yes, his work ought to be recognized on its merits. Sculpture as a discipline shouldn't be punished for Hitler's sins.
Hung next to Rembrandt? Probably not, but then again how much do we know about Rembrandt? There are plenty of great artists whose personal life we know little about (see Shakespeare for instance. We don't know where he went to school or what he looked like!) If we found out tomorrow he peeped on women in the bathroom should we burn all our copies of Hamlet?
Anyway, regarding Hitler, a more interesting answer (to me) is that I'm not convinced great art and the will to extinguish an entire people really exist in the same soul. We know Hitler to be a failed artist. I wonder if good art requires a sensitivity to the world that sociopaths simply do not possess.
>Anyway, regarding Hitler, a more interesting answer (to me) is that I'm not convinced great art and the will to extinguish an entire people really exist in the same soul. We know Hitler to be a failed artist. I wonder if good art requires a sensitivity to the world that sociopaths simply do not possess.
This is somewhat different from what you were discussing, but it genuinely is interesting looking at his paintings. There is a penchant to read into them as coming from the mind of one of humanities worst, but I am intrigued by the fact that they are almost all paintings of architecture with some landscapes mixed in. Any human that is depicted is just happenstance. There is also the fact that Hitler's signature seems to be different in every painting that I have ever seen of his. Do these facts suggest the painter is a man that never identified with other people and constantly was in search of his own consistent identity? Who knows. But it is at least a worthy discussion.
I doubt Hitler was a sociopath. A psychopath, probably, but definitely not a manipulative empathy lacking sociopath. He was sensitive to the world, just in a perverse way...his hatred was real, not just an act of manipulation.
Also, the father of one child ended up commiting suicide IIRC. Most of us think it was guilt of using his kid as blackmail.
Also I've read MJ caved in settling because the constant lawsuit exposure was a career death sentence. No matter how just or unjust it would be, settling was the only liveable option for him.
The oddest part of MJ's defense on the subject were the few interviews were he would appear quite confused. But there's his personality under pressure, after a time it's quite possible he was just stuck into a corner and couldn't express himself.
For such a celebrity under so much scrutiny I'd side with him, nobody managed to find sufficient proof.
Not quite the same boat as Chuck Berry.
In any case, I'm a "separate the art from artist" kind of guy. There are no saints.