Slimeballs making art

[lauradi7dw]

There have been a number of cogent essays about whether or not to partake in movies by men whom we have learned are somewhere on the sexual harrasser to rapist spectrum. I am not claiming this entry will make much sense. We stopped seeing Woody Allen movies ages ago, but did make an exception in 2011 for "Midnight in Paris," because it had time travel. We re-watched "Shakespeare in Love" yesterday (it has been almost 20 years since it came out. Good grief) and managed to mostly ignore the Weinstein connection. We went to see "Coco" today (recommended, possibly especially because near the end of the credits it suggests going to a library to learn more about cultures you're not familiar with). When John Lasseter's name went by in the credits I hissed, but none of the families with children seemed to be paying much attention. In other contexts, I stopped reading books by Orson Scott Card once I knew what a homophobic jerk he is, but I'm glad I read "Ender's Game" before I knew. Am I glad that Al Franken has been in the Senate? yes. Would I vote for him if I were one of his constituents? Not next time. And yet, I voted for Ted Kennedy to stay in the Senate over and over, despite believing that he was guilty of negligent homicide, at a minimum. Maybe this post isn't coherent because my position isn't.

Comments

[sovay]

Maybe this post isn't coherent because my position isn't.

I think it is different case by case and I don't think that's a failure of nerve: it's because the personal importance of the art and the involvement of the person who has done the damage and the kind and degree of damage they have done are always different. There is the intersecting fact that books and paintings and photographs are single-source, but movies have so many people involved in their making; when the writer is doing something socially groundbreaking and the leading man is doing something skeevy, or vice versa, it gets complicated. Part of what makes this difficult is that there's no blanket rule.

[bitterlawngnome]

I think there is a case to be made for accepting the art while rejecting the artist's other actions, because often the meaning of a piece of art is created between / among the audience, independent of the artist, especially when a lot of time has elapsed since it's creation. I think for instance of Caravaggio, who was even by the standards of his day pretty awful.

[lauradi7dw]

Wow, Caravaggio is a really interesting example. The paintings are wonderful. My entire knowledge of his personal life is based on Derek Jarman's film, but I'll try to read up on him.