What's new

Media from "artists" whos ethics are seemingly very different from yours... (1 Viewer)

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
Originally Posted by Nathan*W

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".
 

Nathan*W

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
1,085
Real Name
Nathan
Originally Posted by RobertR




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.
 

gene c

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
Messages
5,854
Location
Bay area, Ca
Real Name
Gene
I think sports stars like Ray Lewis and Micheal Vick are a better comparison. And they're both still playing.
 

Andy Sheets

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2000
Messages
2,377
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.
 

WillG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
7,563
The relationship was revealed when she was 17, which just happened to be the age of consent. Of course a 50 something old man who suddenly reveals a relationship with a 17 year old girl who lived in his household couldn't possibly have touched her before the age of consent, right?
You could be right. But that’s a pretty accusatory statement to make without any proof or at least some very tangible reasons to be suspicious. Look, obviously Woody didn’t make the most moral choices out there concerning Soon Yi, but as far as we know nothing illegal went on. We can't just assume he was physically engaged with her while she was underage just based on the fact that they shared the same household.
Quote:

A 50 something man has no business with a 17 year old girl. Period.
However ridiculous those relationships may seem, if both parties are of legal consenting age...it's a free country. I've got nothing to say about it.
 

Jeff Gatie

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
6,531
We can't just assume he was physically engaged with her while she was underage just based on the fact that they shared the same household.

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

Holer

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
233
Real Name
Joel
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.
 

Nathan*W

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
1,085
Real Name
Nathan
Originally Posted by Holer

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.

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.
 

drobbins

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
1,873
Real Name
Dave
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.
 

Bob McLaughlin

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 14, 2000
Messages
1,129
Real Name
Bob
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.
 

Nathan*W

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
1,085
Real Name
Nathan
No, I don't actively do research. What I said was:

Originally Posted by Nathan*W

My personal formula for support/non-support comes from how vocal the artist they themselves are. If an actor/director goes out of their way to inform me of their beliefs/opinions, I think it's my obligation to direct my liesure funds based on my level of agreement to their position. I can separate the art from the artist, but that doesn't mean I need to line their pockets. If I can enjoy the art without financially supporting the artist, I do so (for example borrowing a Polanski film from the library versus buying). It's a personal policy that works for me.
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.
 

Eric_L

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
2,011
Real Name
Eric
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.
 

Nathan*W

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
1,085
Real Name
Nathan
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.
 

Aaron Silverman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 22, 1999
Messages
11,411
Location
Florida
Real Name
Aaron Silverman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

Remember, I did say "(or seemingly criminal) acts," which may as well be called my "Woody Allen" clause. A 50 something man has no business with a 17 year old girl. Period.

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.
 

gene c

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
Messages
5,854
Location
Bay area, Ca
Real Name
Gene
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.
 

CRyan

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 9, 1999
Messages
1,239
Well for me its more of where MY money goes and to whom it goes. So this really wouldnt apply to me. Obviously, money I make will go to a purpose I approve of. So taking money from a drug dealer in your example would be great for me.

Originally Posted by gene c

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.
 

Greg_S_H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 9, 2001
Messages
15,846
Location
North Texas
Real Name
Greg
Quote:
Originally Posted by gene c

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.
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.
 

CRyan

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 9, 1999
Messages
1,239
I will add a little something to this (I get to since I started the thread - ha). For me, it ties in a little to the fact that so few celebrities are, to me, actually artists. But they are called artists so easily today. Give me a musician that writes their own music and lyrics and then actually performs those songs, and I will be inclined to call them an artist.

But everything today is so broken up into little tiny pieces. Someone writes the lyrics, someone produces the beats, someone else writes the instrumental piece and then a whole other person performs it (and possibly sings it without tech help).

Same goes for many actors or directors. Not a lot of them I would call artists personally. Although, I would say many of the editors are artists for making those actors look like artists with 100 clips per scene to make them look like they can act.

That for me goes right in the middle of this discussion. It all ties into one word for me "celebrity" moreso than artist. So its more of throwing money at a celebrity that is going to do things with that money you dissagree with.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Originally Posted by CRyan

But everything today is so broken up into little tiny pieces.

Certain art forms are collaborative in nature. So what? Is the violinist any less of an artist just because he or she didn't write the symphony?

Your initial question was explicitly about "artists". If you want to change it to one about people who are just famous, feel free -- but then there's not much left of the original question.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top