FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Hate the person. Admire the art.
Hate the person. Admire the art.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *oxes OP Man
over a year ago
Southend, Essex |
In recent years (since 2020 to be more precise and possibly the Syrian war). We have seen many individuals trying to rewrite, make aware of, cancel or put into perspective history and context of certain charectors and their impact.
Everything from philanthropists, to R&B singers to philosophers. The question is can you appreciate the art or their impact while being aware of the bad or does one cancel the other?
On a recent YouTube documentary about Leni Riefenstahl, who many see as the grandmother of cinematiography .Her work on the Olympics documentary and Triumph of the wills used revalotionary techniques that many YouTubers and video creators use every day without realising. But it cannot be denied that when you watch these films you are watching NAZI properganda. So does that instantly void her work.
We have many recent artists like R Kelly who had worked censored because of their actions. Much of this sensorship appears to have a 3 fold intention. First to eradicate entirely from history so they have no voice or platform to potentially harm others and or inspire those who would. Two) serve as education to others that is you do bad things you will be deleted. Thirdly regain control or wrestle the narrative (according to Uselemsn, 2022 and noted by journo Aram Sinnrich)
In philosophy the biggest Irony about these mainly old white dudes that looking at them in a modern lens they are deeply flawed. Kantian ethics is a set of universal moral principles that apply to all human beings, regardless of context or situation. Yet Immanuel kante who was more know as antrapologist in his time was literally a racist & colonialist, therefor failing his own ethics. Heidingers pholophy is used to help explain us and technology and his ideas inspired mainly black Techno music enthusiasts in Detroit and Detroit techno along with Chicago House has effected all forms of modern dance and pop music. Yet Heidinger ironically was a member of the NAZI party.
So is actively disentangling one self from historic influences the way forward? Barack Obama does not think so. In a answer to a question at a summit he stated that armchair social advocacy is not advocacy at all. And that one should lose that mindset quickly because life is muddy and grey and you will find yourself lonly very quickly, in a reality that does not exist.
But the country to that argument is that if someone has done something so bad then surly that invalidates any good they have possibly done? Of course unless universal ethics had been broken then for the most parts morals change as history continues, what is widely accepted now will be reviled in the future.
I am not making any political or social point really I'm just pondering in my head really out loud and openly reflecting.
But does the art the become invalidated and deserves sensorship if the artist them selves is a bad person or done something bad? Or do we just the sat is good or had an impact while acknowledging that the person was a vile twat.
I.e.Kanye West made some great songs but in his Scizophtenic state said some vile racist stuff.
Or
Kenye West's said really vile things now he has decided to not take treatment for his mental health issues and thusly this means I can no longer listen to his music.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *tooveMan
over a year ago
belfast |
"R Kelly's music is still on Youtube so someone is still making money from the convicted sex offender"
Michael Jackson is another vile beast who's music is still available.
Red hot chilli peppers too. And bowie. Lots of scum are still listened to and treated as heroes. John peel too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In recent years (since 2020 to be more precise and possibly the Syrian war). We have seen many individuals trying to rewrite, make aware of, cancel or put into perspective history and context of certain charectors and their impact.
Everything from philanthropists, to R&B singers to philosophers. The question is can you appreciate the art or their impact while being aware of the bad or does one cancel the other?
On a recent YouTube documentary about Leni Riefenstahl, who many see as the grandmother of cinematiography .Her work on the Olympics documentary and Triumph of the wills used revalotionary techniques that many YouTubers and video creators use every day without realising. But it cannot be denied that when you watch these films you are watching NAZI properganda. So does that instantly void her work.
We have many recent artists like R Kelly who had worked censored because of their actions. Much of this sensorship appears to have a 3 fold intention. First to eradicate entirely from history so they have no voice or platform to potentially harm others and or inspire those who would. Two) serve as education to others that is you do bad things you will be deleted. Thirdly regain control or wrestle the narrative (according to Uselemsn, 2022 and noted by journo Aram Sinnrich)
In philosophy the biggest Irony about these mainly old white dudes that looking at them in a modern lens they are deeply flawed. Kantian ethics is a set of universal moral principles that apply to all human beings, regardless of context or situation. Yet Immanuel kante who was more know as antrapologist in his time was literally a racist & colonialist, therefor failing his own ethics. Heidingers pholophy is used to help explain us and technology and his ideas inspired mainly black Techno music enthusiasts in Detroit and Detroit techno along with Chicago House has effected all forms of modern dance and pop music. Yet Heidinger ironically was a member of the NAZI party.
So is actively disentangling one self from historic influences the way forward? Barack Obama does not think so. In a answer to a question at a summit he stated that armchair social advocacy is not advocacy at all. And that one should lose that mindset quickly because life is muddy and grey and you will find yourself lonly very quickly, in a reality that does not exist.
But the country to that argument is that if someone has done something so bad then surly that invalidates any good they have possibly done? Of course unless universal ethics had been broken then for the most parts morals change as history continues, what is widely accepted now will be reviled in the future.
I am not making any political or social point really I'm just pondering in my head really out loud and openly reflecting.
But does the art the become invalidated and deserves sensorship if the artist them selves is a bad person or done something bad? Or do we just the sat is good or had an impact while acknowledging that the person was a vile twat.
I.e.Kanye West made some great songs but in his Scizophtenic state said some vile racist stuff.
Or
Kenye West's said really vile things now he has decided to not take treatment for his mental health issues and thusly this means I can no longer listen to his music.
"
It's a good question. What if it was scientific breakthroughs? Would that be acceptable because it helps the world, whereas it can be argued that art can be lost/ cancelled without any major impact.
I guess it depends on how much a person liked that artist as to what / how much they are willing to excuse/ ignore. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"R Kelly's music is still on Youtube so someone is still making money from the convicted sex offender
Michael Jackson is another vile beast who's music is still available.
Red hot chilli peppers too. And bowie. Lots of scum are still listened to and treated as heroes. John peel too. "
Yet Russell Brand has just been removed, I suppose its about what you've been saying and not what you've done or have been accused off |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"R Kelly's music is still on Youtube so someone is still making money from the convicted sex offender
Michael Jackson is another vile beast who's music is still available.
Red hot chilli peppers too. And bowie. Lots of scum are still listened to and treated as heroes. John peel too. "
What did RHCP / Bowie do? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
if someone has done something so bad then surly that invalidates any good they have possibly done?
I think this is an illogical statement.
If I save you from certain death or perfected the fusion reactor, but I am a racist. Those things would still be good things. It is a composition fallacy.
The standard challenge to Kant universal ethics. would you be if there was axe-murderer at your door. There's a good philosophy lecture online Harvard I think it's a long time for me that one bad memory. I could be muddled.
I don't think there are all that many categorical imperatives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It’s hard. I think realistically we should avoid lining the pockets of music artists that are horrid people- R Kelly being a sex offender and Kanye a massive antisemite. Can you cancel philosophers though? So many famous, often cited canonised philosophers were white suprematists and whose views were abhorrent but it seemingly doesn’t matter. I think we need to at least teach philosophy and acknowledge these problematic views. It’s important. But it’s something I don’t think we do enough if at all.
I suppose the other often debated one on here is Churchill. And I think you can acknowledge that Churchill did good in his job for many, whilst simultaneously doing bad in his job for many and being an open white supremacist. Both things can be true but what isn’t helpful is pretending that doing good invalidates the bad. Same of artists and philosophers for me. They may have done good or produced good art but that doesn’t invalidate the bad things. And then I think each individual needs to make a personal decision about how they feel about it all and the person. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"…..
Kenye West's said really vile things now he has decided to not take treatment for his mental health issues and thusly this means I can no longer listen to his music.
"
Haha. I skipped to the end to find this. Ffs
Anyone over the age of 9 will tell you Kanye wests music is fucking turd. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"R Kelly's music is still on Youtube so someone is still making money from the convicted sex offender
Michael Jackson is another vile beast who's music is still available.
Red hot chilli peppers too. And bowie. Lots of scum are still listened to and treated as heroes. John peel too.
What did RHCP / Bowie do? "
They did their underage groupies |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"…..
Kenye West's said really vile things now he has decided to not take treatment for his mental health issues and thusly this means I can no longer listen to his music.
Haha. I skipped to the end to find this. Ffs
Anyone over the age of 9 will tell you Kanye wests music is fucking turd. "
Have to disagree with you and Fluffy here. From late registration to MBDTF is arguably the best music that came out in that period. Kanye was a genius. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
To add- with people like R Kelly and Kanye West, maybe MJ too, they’re so influential and good at what they did musically that you essentially have to stop listening to not just them but loads of other artists you probably like that these guys have written or produced for |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Richard Wagner: A true musical genius.
Unfortunately, he was also highly vocal as regards his highly deplorable anti-Semitic views.
But to ‘cancel’ his incredible body of work?
Absolutely not!
In his case at least, I very much choose to seperate the artist from his art.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"R Kelly's music is still on Youtube so someone is still making money from the convicted sex offender
Michael Jackson is another vile beast who's music is still available.
Red hot chilli peppers too. And bowie. Lots of scum are still listened to and treated as heroes. John peel too.
What did RHCP / Bowie do?
They did their underage groupies "
The Lori Maddox claims have been debunked with relation to Bowie, not so much with Jimmy Page |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In recent years (since 2020 to be more precise and possibly the Syrian war). We have seen many individuals trying to rewrite, make aware of, cancel or put into perspective history and context of certain charectors and their impact.
Everything from philanthropists, to R&B singers to philosophers. The question is can you appreciate the art or their impact while being aware of the bad or does one cancel the other?
On a recent YouTube documentary about Leni Riefenstahl, who many see as the grandmother of cinematiography .Her work on the Olympics documentary and Triumph of the wills used revalotionary techniques that many YouTubers and video creators use every day without realising. But it cannot be denied that when you watch these films you are watching NAZI properganda. So does that instantly void her work.
We have many recent artists like R Kelly who had worked censored because of their actions. Much of this sensorship appears to have a 3 fold intention. First to eradicate entirely from history so they have no voice or platform to potentially harm others and or inspire those who would. Two) serve as education to others that is you do bad things you will be deleted. Thirdly regain control or wrestle the narrative (according to Uselemsn, 2022 and noted by journo Aram Sinnrich)
In philosophy the biggest Irony about these mainly old white dudes that looking at them in a modern lens they are deeply flawed. Kantian ethics is a set of universal moral principles that apply to all human beings, regardless of context or situation. Yet Immanuel kante who was more know as antrapologist in his time was literally a racist & colonialist, therefor failing his own ethics. Heidingers pholophy is used to help explain us and technology and his ideas inspired mainly black Techno music enthusiasts in Detroit and Detroit techno along with Chicago House has effected all forms of modern dance and pop music. Yet Heidinger ironically was a member of the NAZI party.
So is actively disentangling one self from historic influences the way forward? Barack Obama does not think so. In a answer to a question at a summit he stated that armchair social advocacy is not advocacy at all. And that one should lose that mindset quickly because life is muddy and grey and you will find yourself lonly very quickly, in a reality that does not exist.
But the country to that argument is that if someone has done something so bad then surly that invalidates any good they have possibly done? Of course unless universal ethics had been broken then for the most parts morals change as history continues, what is widely accepted now will be reviled in the future.
I am not making any political or social point really I'm just pondering in my head really out loud and openly reflecting.
But does the art the become invalidated and deserves sensorship if the artist them selves is a bad person or done something bad? Or do we just the sat is good or had an impact while acknowledging that the person was a vile twat.
I.e.Kanye West made some great songs but in his Scizophtenic state said some vile racist stuff.
Or
Kenye West's said really vile things now he has decided to not take treatment for his mental health issues and thusly this means I can no longer listen to his music.
"
Heavy.
I kinda stopped reading after the second paragraph  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"R Kelly's music is still on Youtube so someone is still making money from the convicted sex offender
Michael Jackson is another vile beast who's music is still available.
Red hot chilli peppers too. And bowie. Lots of scum are still listened to and treated as heroes. John peel too. "
What have i missed about the Chili Peppers? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In recent years (since 2020 to be more precise and possibly the Syrian war). We have seen many individuals trying to rewrite, make aware of, cancel or put into perspective history and context of certain charectors and their impact.
"
.
2020 or the the war in Syrian seem to me very arbitrary dates to place as the start of people essentially discussing history, even people in popular culture. People have always had controversial and often contentious opinions.
When it's recent history especially, who gets to create the true or official narrative? It's all open for discussion.
To AYQ though, I love the American philosopher and political commentator Noam Chomsky (a very old man now), but I feel he puts his deep distrust of America before and over his natural cynicism of an undemocratic and often too dictatorial European Union. Basically he wanted the UK to stay in the EU to help 'counterbalance' an over-strong US, where a lot of his intellectual peers found the EU just too immoral and inherently-unchangeable to justify that stance.
pt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In recent years (since 2020 to be more precise and possibly the Syrian war). We have seen many individuals trying to rewrite, make aware of, cancel or put into perspective history and context of certain charectors and their impact.
.
2020 or the the war in Syrian seem to me very arbitrary dates to place as the start of people essentially discussing history, even people in popular culture. People have always had controversial and often contentious opinions.
When it's recent history especially, who gets to create the true or official narrative? It's all open for discussion.
To AYQ though, I love the American philosopher and political commentator Noam Chomsky (a very old man now), but I feel he puts his deep distrust of America before and over his natural cynicism of an undemocratic and often too dictatorial European Union. Basically he wanted the UK to stay in the EU to help 'counterbalance' an over-strong US, where a lot of his intellectual peers found the EU just too immoral and inherently-unchangeable to justify that stance.
pt"
I do like Chomsky, he is one of the greatest minds alive. Although I tend to look at his work as something that will hopefully be analysed in 100 years and people will wonder why nobody paid any attention. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't separate the art from the artist. As soon as I find out an artist is an abuser or some other kind of vile bastard I stop consuming their art and supporting them in any way. There are plenty artists more worthy of our time |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So is actively disentangling one self from historic influences the way forward? Barack Obama does not think so. In a answer to a question at a summit he stated that armchair social advocacy is not advocacy at all. And that one should lose that mindset quickly because life is muddy and grey and you will find yourself lonly very quickly, in a reality that does not exist.
"
I am with Obama - he has made the point multiple times, particularly to audiences of young single issue activists that the world is nuanced and if you want to change the world you have to engage with it, irrespective of whether that is distasteful or not.
Everyone is complex and no one has ever lived a blameless life - even saintly forumites. Ignoring the positives that someone has done simply because you don’t like the negatives achieves nothing because history has already played out and you can’t change that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone like to precis that monstrosity for me?"
To be fair he did that with the title.
Be interested to know the OP's thoughts on criminals who go on to become artists. Should they be prevented from doing so? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I’ve been down this same rabbit hole many times (ADHD… it’s amazing! Lol) there are so many people in history that made a positive impact on some lives, but a negative one in others… for example Hitler was a strict vegetarian and animal lover to the point that he threatened to un alive his own research scientists if they tested on animals, even mother Theresa is not above reproach. She did amazing work and helped a lot of people but she was a racist and would deny certain ethnicities (can’t remember which ones) food and money when they were in crisis, it’s also reported that she siphoned off funds so she could live in comfort, that’s to say she wasn’t living on caviar and champagne and sleeping in luxurious accommodation, but she saw to her own comforts first before anyone else. You do raise some interesting points though and it’s definitely good for thought…. I’m now off to revisit the rabbit hole! Lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Have you seen the film Tar? It's a brilliant movie on the same theme. Can you separate the art from the artist? I personally believe that art cannot become magically bad one day just because the artist is bad. Whether one wants to pay money to an artist after knowing that the person is terrible is an entirely different question.
There are so many nuances to it. A lyricist in India was caught in a MeToo scandal. He has written lyrics for thousands of songs. If I want to avoid his songs, I am punishing everyone else he has worked with for every song.
I think differently people have different scales. One scale on how much they like the art. The other scale is how much they hate what the artist has done. Some would avoid the artist just because they voted for a party they did not like. For some, it has to be a crime proven in court.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oxes OP Man
over a year ago
Southend, Essex |
"Anyone like to precis that monstrosity for me?
To be fair he did that with the title.
Be interested to know the OP's thoughts on criminals who go on to become artists. Should they be prevented from doing so?"
That's an interesting question and one that would be difficult to answer as an absaloute. Surly it depends on a host of factors. Like when was the art has been created before or after the very have committed a crime. Are they reformed and were people hurt when that was created.
Three examples
1) Jimmy Savil sexually assaulted women live on air and around the time he was filming. As a result when the BBC show remakes of 'Top of the Pops (2)' he has been edited out of it. There is also the occasional blurring of crowd my members faces. Thete is also a message as to why the BBC have done this. The Moto is although the artists (the musical acts) have not caused harm Jimmy has and as a result he cannot take part or be associated with it for the benefit of the public and the victims.
2) Arturs Berzinš. Is a Latvian post modern artist focusing on dystopianism. One of his pieces was on Autophagia, where his dancers cut there skin off, fried it and ate it  . Ironically this did not break Latvias profanity laws as the dancers agreed to do it to themselves. Even though it was not illegal at the time it certainly was not moral. (Ironically when you look at the Wikipedia page for the artist it states the page is incomplete, Completly missing this section out). Especially as the artist is in a position of power, and therefore can potentially coerse then to doing it.
3) Pyatak Prison, is a maximum security prison in Russia where done of the few most dangerous criminals, who may have a perpensity to escape are held. It is desighned to be uncomfortable as possible benches that double up as beds that automatically retract in the early hours of the morning and insane levels of solitary confinement up to 22hours. In a report by Straus in 2015 one prisoner simply called 'Vladamir' who murdered 4 people (2 men 2 women) in prison he took up oil painting self taught "I may be a bad person but at least people will say he was mighty fine painter'.
3 seoeraye situations. All illegal (well one is now) and all required separate responses. Based on context, culture and other factors. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oxes OP Man
over a year ago
Southend, Essex |
"Have you seen the film Tar? It's a brilliant movie on the same theme. Can you separate the art from the artist? I personally believe that art cannot become magically bad one day just because the artist is bad. Whether one wants to pay money to an artist after knowing that the person is terrible is an entirely different question.
There are so many nuances to it. A lyricist in India was caught in a MeToo scandal. He has written lyrics for thousands of songs. If I want to avoid his songs, I am punishing everyone else he has worked with for every song.
I think differently people have different scales. One scale on how much they like the art. The other scale is how much they hate what the artist has done. Some would avoid the artist just because they voted for a party they did not like. For some, it has to be a crime proven in court.
"
I will have to give this movie a watch.
To one of the comments above its arbetiry because that's when I started to think about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
