Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
----------------------------------------
On the separation of artists from their art
February 18th, 2019
----------------------------------------
A stray boost on Mastodon got me thinking about the value of works
by horrible people. Do we damn the works, the art, the music, the
films once we discover something damning about the creator which?
Do you separate the art from the artist and think of each as
distinct?
I generally try for separation and I'll explain why. For me it
comes down to four things:
- Ownership of ideas
- Compassion
- Outrage
- Pragmatism
The most complex idea floating around in my head has to do with
the idea of ownership of artistic works. Does an artist own their
creation? While one might quickly argue in the affirmative, that
is owing to a legal point of view. Ownership has a cognitive
influence on our relationship to ideas which goes beyond the
courts and governments and fits more squarely into cultural mores
and moral frameworks. How you react to someone else's pen might
vary wildly depending on your cultural upbringing, for instance.
Where are lines drawn? How firm are they? Is there a gray area?
Lets take a specific example of a disgraced artist and his body of
work: Bill Cosby and the Cosby Show. Given the vague nature of
ownership, it's easy to attribute something of that sort here.
Bill Cosby was the star of the Cosby Show, certainly, and while he
might now own the rights to it, he was fundamental in its
creation. Great!
But there's more to it. Hundreds and thousands of other people
contributed to the show as well. Just considering actors alone,
can we really dismiss the contributions of the other co-stars?
Some of the children literally spent their own childhoods
dedicated to that art. They have equal legal ownership of the
product, and clearly as much personal investment upon creation.
There's also the ancient idea that art is created for the people.
Even our copyright law and patent protections in the US are
designed to recoup the losses of research and development of the
idea, not to form some perpetual ownership of intellectual
property. That would be ridiculous! Ideas belong to the people!
So where is the line here? Is it gray? Do we grant the ultimate
position to Cosby because his name is on it? Certainly, if we
can't attribute it to him then we can't in good conscience dismiss
the art with the artist. If it's not his, then he has no impact on
it. If we find out that Bill Cosby went to a certain high school,
should we shun it? Should we shut it down? It's irrelevant, right?
It would also be a disservice to those others who were involved.
Do we punish them? It was their art as well.
But now we're approaching my second point: compassion. Let's
assume compassion for possible other artists (who may have
suffered from the disgraced artist!) is a given. Besides that
point is the subject of the artist. This part may not be popular
with everyone, but I think it's important to keep out hope for the
forgiveness of the asshole. This is a Christian ideal and one
I can't always live up to, but I think it's important to aim for.
If an artist is disgraced along with all their works then the
message to them and to everyone is that a horrible thing can
completely define you. Any other good you might have done is wiped
away as a result. What hope is there for redemption in that? What
lesson to bother trying? I try to have compassion for the artist
here by not throwing out their good works with the bad. Let their
reputation be damned. Let them suffer prison time if appropriate,
but don't throw away the good with the bad!
And that brings me to my third idea: outrage! Why the actual fuck
would I give up something I enjoy because the creator was a dick?
Why am I punishing myself for something that asshat did? Fuck
that! The Cosby Show is fucking brilliant and funny as hell. It's
still relevant and touching and a genuine joy. That selfish fucker
can go fuck-off to prison now and suffer for what he did, but he's
not taking Rudy from me.
Oh, and then there's pragmatism. I've been talking about the Cosby
Show up until now, but how about the douche-nozzle that invented
the transistor? Don't know about his brand of awful? [0] I'm not
about to give up using electronics because of some guy whose name
I don't really care to know. His ideas belong to the people. I'm
going to use stuff, watch stuff, listen to stuff, and while I may
on occasion also throw up a finger toward the heavens while doing
so, IMMA be me.
[0] William Shockley
You are viewing proxied material from gopher.black. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.