Media from "artists" whos ethics are seemingly very different from yours... - Page 2

While it's good that he eventually apologized, my comment was directed at what Clooney said after the joke, based on the Wikipedia description of the incident:


As far as I'm concerned, neither Heston nor Clooney has done anything to deserve the kind of condemnation that Polanski or, say, OJ Simpson should be subject to.

Quote:
I agree. It's not a perfect comparison. I observe that our decisions are emotionally influenced. It's not that we *should* avoid watch a movie because we don't like e.g. a pedophile actor; but that we *do* avoid them. To say otherwise is to deny human nature.

We can like or dislike people for any reason we wish.  What's distasteful to many people is the idea being put forth by some Hollywood people that "just because" some members of their community engage in certain actions, that's no reason to think ill of them, even though such a reaction is is exactly what people outside of Hollywood WOULD have.

That's different from what I'm talking about though. I can understand being bothered if you're watching a movie or TV show and they decided to have a joke about a politician or party in there. Personally, I find the bulk of jokes like that to be lame because it's usually a safe joke (they know that most of their peers agree with them so there's no real chance of lasting repurcussions) pretending to be cutting edge satire.

What I'm mostly referring to is someone that uses their celebrity to constantly let the world know their 'important' thoughts on everything. I'll be the first to say that I find Sean Penn going on about x, y or z to be boring and self-important (even if I agree with him) but I'm not going skip Mystic River or Fast Times At Ridgemont High because of that.

If I knew about it, then no I wouldn't buy the car, and my rationale would be why reward a car company that employs serial killers?  If enought people thoight in the same manner, the company would either maintain the status quo (and suffer financially) or change their hiring practices.  In a capatalist market, people talk with their wallets.  The 90's and 2000's Nike and Walmart overseas labor scandals are examples on a large scale of poor corporate choices that have damaged reputations and caused short-term financial harm for those businesses.  Once they made changes to their business practices, all was forgiven.

Numerous people base their purchasing decisions every day on information like that because it works, and it is not at all the odd thing that you seem to be making it out to be.

I guess there's a balance between what music/movies they've made vs. what they've said or done. If it was so Hannis or horrible than I might not be able to enjoy their music/movie as much as I did then I might not buy or listen/watch as much as I had in the past, or maybe not at all. And that balance could change from day-to-day depending my own attitude at the time.

But for the most part I can put aside that other stuff for a couple of hours for my own selfish enjoyment. I don't know if that means I can separate fact from fiction (art) or if I'm just morally corrupt. But life's short and I've spent a fortune on all this junk so I'll lean towards morally corrupt.

And remember, What about the things people have said or done that we don't know about yet? If you spend too much time worrying about all of this then you won't enjoy any of it.

BTW, my opinions are subject to change without notice, and frequently do. And Boz Skaggs better keep his nose clean or I'm gonna have a moral dilemma to contend with! Or, maybe not.

Yes, if you start basing your decisions on what you DON'T know about, you'll go crazy!  

 Well, look at it this way.  What if your employer found out about your support of a political position that they did not want to support.  They do not want "their money", ie your salary, to go to the cause you are supporting.  The chose to cut off the source of those funds, your salary, by firing you.

How would you feel?

I personally do not associate an entertainers personal beliefs to their craft.  For me, Martin Sheen's support of Mumia goes against my personal beliefs.  But I enjoyed him in "The Wast Wing".  So much so that I bought the DVD's...

That argument is a fallacy because an employer/employee relationship has specific obligations under the law to pay employees for the work that they do, and to not infringe on their freedom of expression.  There are no such obligations for individuals deciding on what goods or services to purchase.

For example, if you were hiring a lawn service to mow your yard, and you found out that one company was pro-Dallas Cowboys, while another was Pro-Washington Redskins, you would be free to hire which ever lawn company you wish, based on whatever criteria you want.  But within that company itself (the pro-Cowboys one for instance), if one of the employees came out as pro-Redskins, the company owner could not fire that employee for holding that view.

The Polanski situation is analogous to the employer being offended by the employee being pro-Redskins, but caring very little that he had sex with an underage girl, justifying such an attitude (and contradicting himself) by saying it "has no relevance to his work".

Very true, and the employer would need to be prepared to deal with any resulting loss of business should their clients discover the lax employer attitude toward something the client may feel strongly about. 

I think sports stars like Ray Lewis and Micheal Vick are a better comparison. And they're both still playing.

I don't really care if an artist says or does something with which I disagree. If there's a line for me it's whether I feel like they're pushing an agenda I find obnoxious through their work. I think Roman Polanski is a scumbag, but I have no issue watching a movie of his provided I feel it's not promoting something like raping underage girls, for instance.

Speak for yourself.  I can assume what I like.  I also assume OJ is guilty of murder.  It's a free country, right?

Yeah it's an interesting discussion but it's kind of all over the place. I think the word 'Artist' was used in the first place and that is a very definitive thing. For me, there is a very big difference between an Artist and a Celebrity.

If you want to have the Artist/Ethics debate then the first thing you should consider is that many artists are, by their very nature, kind of peculiar people - not to say that all artists are perverts or degenerates, but that they are more inclined to go their own way when it comes to personal tastes or prejudices. Many many people who are considered famous artists today had very unwholesome proclivities that would probably be considered shocking or even repelent by today's standards. They didn't necessarily broadcast these traits - in fact many tried to hide them and some were persecuted for them even in their own time, but even with all of this, somehow their ART has withstood the test of time.

If you wanted to dispense with anyone who was accused of being a Pedophile, for instance, you would be discarding some pretty heavy hitters. Would you consider Lolita any less of a masterpiece of fiction if you knew that Nabokov very likely was a pedophile? It's definitely a personal choice to say 'I will not support this'., but if you actually read the book and see how Nabokov himself is struggling with the topic at hand, daring to make Humbert Humbert both sympathetic and repugnant at the same time, well that is what great art is - looking at the world in new and different ways - challenging your preconceptions. Plus, despite his proclivities, the man was just a genius writer.

On the other hand, if you're talking about celebrities - whether anyone should hold these people to a higher standard, it all seems very ridiculous - they are given money hand over fist for doing very little and encouraged to live as decadently as possible, but then, at the first whiff of scandal, we're supposed to reject them utterly until they find the Lord or commit to some higher standard. It's very difficult for me to take any of it seriously because these are not, for the most part, serious people. They're entertainers and, as such, are fairly disposable and interchangeable.

I feel the same way, which is why my personal philosophy is one of "support the art, not the artist." I can separate the two and get personal edification from a masterpiece, while not supporting the deviant that created it.  Once they are dead and gone, my personal financial boycott vanishes and I buy what holds appeal for me.

Michael Jackson is a perfect example.  Loved the music, but was leery of the child-love allegations that kept resurfacing.  Refrained from lining his pockets by purchasing any MJ product and made do with casual listening via radio station broadcasts etc.  Now that he's gone, I will buy some MJ albums, and continue to enjoy the music.

I have always thought that typically - what makes an artist, an artist, is the fact that they look at things differently than most people do. Sometimes the more different that they see, the more popular they become. Picasso, Eager Allen Poe, Alice Cooper, etc.. And these differences are not always good. I think that it is the nature of who becomes successful actors/musicians to be more open minded, liberal in their beliefs, and willing to do things that the average person would not do. For instance, I would never be in a movie with a love scene (even just kissing) with anyone other than my wife, but popular actors do all the time. Just because they are "acting" doesn't change what they are in reality doing and who they are doing it with.

So I go along with the ignorance is bliss theory. I do not follow the actors personal life stories. To me that is supporting the actors, not the movies. With that being said, usually once I find out something about an actor or musician not to my ethics, it does make it hard to enjoy anything that includes that person. To what degree depends on what they have done. If it is offensive enough, no I do not support them at all. 

Just to play devil's advocate, when you buy a product from a corporation, are you researching to see if you agree with everything they've ever done in the past, before giving them your money?  I know I don't.

No, I don't actively do research.  What I said was:


I don't go seeking the info, but if it falls into my lap, then sure.  If they are so bold enough to appear in political ads, or the information about them is so pervasive such as something broadcast during a regular news broadcast (not Inside Edition), then that's what I use. 

So if it became widely reported - so much so that I heard about it through my daily life that Microsoft (or McDonalds, or Lowes, etc) heavily supports X, while I myself like Y, then yes, I'll stop purchasing product from them.

I am joining a bit late, but I'll add my 2cents worth here;  Were I to limit my consumption to only those things made by people who share the same values as me - I would not have very much stuff.  

For me, I really don't care whether my values are shared or not - it's the exposure and saturation of those values (so much so that I can not longer go about my life without being hit over the head by them) that causes my action or inaction.

Quote:
No, she was 21 when their affair was discovered.  And they've been together for nearly 20 years now -- the idea that this makes Woody Allen anything like Roman Polanski (who drugged and raped a 13-year-old and then took off) is completely absurd.

People are entitled to their opinions about a 30-year age span, but there's a big difference between 17 and 21.

Let's turn the tables a bit. If you were an artist would you care about the beliefs or actions of the person buying your works? Now, if it were a musician or film maker who sells hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pieces it would be hard to to get all bent out of shape if some idiot buys your disc but what about a painter? Would he/she want one of those types of people buying their latest masterpiece? Or how about a guy who spent $1000's and $1000's of dollars restoring a classic car only to have it bought at auction by a drug dealer or former Enron executive. You can't chose who made the art nor can you chose who buys it.

    Quote:
There have been examples.  Linda Ronstadt has said she doesn't like the thought of certain people she disagrees with being in her audience.  I think most creators say, "If you don't like it, don't buy it."  Few take it to the point where they would say they don't like certain members of their audience even being there.