Love the Art, Hate the Artist
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ย. 2024
- Can you separate the art from the artist? This one's In honor of all the art you used to love, and it's creators who ruined it by behaving badly. We talk Picasso, Nanette, cats out of bags, and much more. To support our channel, visit: / artassignment .
Thanks to our Grandmasters of the Arts Vincent Apa and Indianapolis Homes Realty, and all of our patrons, especially Bronze Bond, Patrick Hanna, M12 Studio, and Constance Urist.
Subscribe for new episodes of The Art Assignment every other Thursday!
--
Follow us elsewhere for the full Art Assignment experience:
Tumblr: theartassignmen...
Response Tumblr: all.theartassig...
Twitter: / artassignment
Instagram: / theartassignment
Facebook: / theartassignment
and don't forget Reddit!: / theartassignment
You can enjoy problematic art (or media) and problematic artists.
The challenge is be honest with yourself and others and do not defend the problems or dismiss them.
Hmm. But by consuming said problematic art or art-by-problematic-creator, you're actively supporting either them directly, or the creation of more materials of this sort or more behaviors like this.
["This artist did X and got away with it. So doing X is either acceptable, or at least won't really backfire even if it's not."]
Abigail D Perhaps substitute ‘experience’ for ‘enjoy’ and then I’m with you. After all, other people’s mistakes and our own mistakes, are ways of learning, are they not?
That's why art should be free.
If someone is horrible, bootleg the art, mass torrent it, make sure they get absolutely no support to their behavior, there are many many great amazing artists who are not absolute shits
I see what you mean. Chuck Berry was a known sexual predator, but his contributions to Rock and Roll are invaluable.
"You will think less of the art, when you know the artist." ~ George Bernard Shaw
Mhmm
This is one of those dilemmas that will never be satisfactorily resolved, but is really important to grapple with! Great discussion!
Thanks! Yeah, I wrote a first draft of a script and realized I didn't really resolve anything, even for myself... Alas! 'Tis the nature of the dilemma.
I disagree -- I think it's quite easily resolved unless you're the type to over-impose contemporary morality on past figures. We _must_ be able to separate a person's character from their work, at least when talking about historical figures. This applies to all things, not just art. Pretty much every person pre-20th century would be seen as monstrously racist, misogynistic, and violent in one way or another by today's standards. This is good; It means our sense of morality has evolved. But this doesn't mean great things didn't come from the past. Take Newton, for example. By virtue of being a 17th century man, he was almost certainty racist, sexist, homophobic -- you name it -- but that doesn't discredit his monumental work. He was still a genius nonetheless. This same precedent must apply to artists, too.
You can't apply today's moral code to people of the past. All people are product of their times--us included. The majority of humanity's greatest ideas--in mathematics, science, art, and so on--were constructed during a time very different from ours. The men and women who came up with those ideas would by in large be deemed racist/sexist/etc. by modern standards. But that in no way discredits their work.
EYYYYY ARIEL I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS! 👏👏
You are amazing! Loved it.
@@MW-dg7gl name one intellectual today that has created as much as say DaVinci, Tesla, or Edison. Who has come up with more than Euclid, Euler, or Einstein? There are many great minds today that work with a vast wealth of knowledge from the past. However, every so often, someone rises up with a new set of ideas that change everything. There will always be more, as long as we as a species survive, but that does nothing to diminish those who came before. Without Zel'dovitch, Hawking would have never realized he was wrong about black holes and we might still not know about Hawking Radiation, or as it's called in some circles Hawking - Zel'dovitch Radiation.
Bringing the discussion back to art Roger Penrose and his father, discovered a geometric shape that when viewed from one angle appeared to be an impossible triangle. He shared it with an artist, Escher, who later told Penrose (paraphrasing here) "that triangle has given me no rest."
This applies to everything, not just art. This applies to fim directors, chefs, newscasters, architects, high school teachers.... Would you eat at a restaurant owned by a man who beats his wife? Would you buy music from a rapper who said "slavery was not that bad"? Would you watch films from a director who sexually molested his daughter?
What if the rapper is black and they want to be a slave?
Mile Dávid that hypothetical person,I can assure you,does not exist
Everything you said except, high school teachers, is art.
That's rapper one definitely reminds me of Kanye, but then again he's usually looking for attention...
Would you buy clothes from brands like H&M, Primark or Hugo Boss knowing you support a system that is probably as bad as slavery?
Good old rule a zoology teacher once told my class “Stop seeing the world as black or white. Everyone and everything lives in shades of grey. Accepting that will allow you to see the shadows of beauty and horrible that can exist side by side. An angel’s trumpet is a beautiful plant to see but ingesting one single flower will send you straight to the hospital. Such is the nature of life.” One is not necessarily bad if we appreciate good art by bad people as long as we acknowledge and abhor the bad things they did.
Susana Paço this statement also oversimplifies the matters. Do we want to support alleged sexual predators by keep consuming their products, or even insisting them to work?
lenny mcready I think.. if allegations are our new barometers to judge someone.. we're f@ked. She nailed it. Look @ our own military as an ex., as many inhumane atrocities as we've inflicted upon others, it also launches satellites that serves us all. Context is everything.
RasJam Kebraraw okay, what about Spacey? Should we accept Spacey to still work, when he himself admitted that the allegation is true? Should we accept sexual predator to work just because they are "bad" people?
Also, come one, sexual assault is bigger than just being bad. Pretty sure OP's zoology teacher meant "bad" as bad characteristics such as laziness, arrogance, greed, etc. Being sexual predator is a lot worse than just having "bad" characteristics.
lenny mcready I am not ignoring the bad deeds of a person or entity if I say that objectively the art produced by that person or entity is good. I do not support bad people and do my best to not allow bad things to continue but saying that a work of art is good doesn’t mean I support the artist. Let’s see a very general and rather horrible case: the Catholic Church. I abhor what the Catholic Church has done to women over centuries and the hideous cases of sexual abuse that run rampant in its midst. Yet I do love to appreciate the very art that the Catholic Church has supported over centuries. The St. Peter’s basilica is beautiful, the Pieta is magnificent, the frescos in the Vatican are some of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen. Do I say that that art is beautiful? Yes. Do I abhor a lot of the behaviours of the church that promotes that art? Also yes. That’s the very meaning that everyone and everything lives in shades of grey.
lenny mcready Kevin spacey has done things that should warrant him time in jail. He committed horrible crimes and should pay for what he’s done. But is abhorrent and hideous behaviour outside the screen doesn’t automatically take away quality from the work inside the screen. You can say that a role he has played was good WHILE saying that he is a horrible man and should pay is dues do the society and the victims of his horrible behaviour.
Have you ever found that you might dislike a piece of art but then discover that you really respect the artist when you find out more about their views and life?.
Me with Frida Kahlo
me with Gerard Way. I'm not a fan of that type of music, but Gerard seems like such a great person.
@@paulolibrelon4419same ! That was my experience with Freida khalo's work too!
Also van Gogh when I first saw starry night I was underwhelmed by his lack of technical skill and preferred more photorealistic works
But then I saw van Gogh in dr who and felt inclined to do further research and my interest in his work grew
I think i'm most comfortable with the asterisk approach, because some artists who did horrible things were still influential and have to be part of the art story we tell. But I also tend not to idolize or revere artists, partially because that's not really my nature and partially because they are also whole complete people and not "good art" or "bad things" alone. I think work by people who do bad things should be accessible and the wholest truth about them should be available. But also, fuck Gauguin.
FUCK GAUGUIN!
Stop being bitches it's a good chance gauguin didn't even know what STDs were and at the time 14 was pretty common place for marriage. It's pointless to look at the past and start criticizing it to this degree, yeah the past was different probably little bit worse get over it
@alexandra galici Really? Wasn't he less involved in season 3 though? I only see one episode with his name on it. Also how was Rick a Mary Sue? If you mean he's OP, he's always been OP...
If it's pointless to criticise the past you better get going, because there's millions of historians and other assorted academics who will have to be convinced that their entire field of study is "pointless". Shoo.
It is pointless to criticize the past. You can't change people to retroactively fit a mold. Your issues with someone's opinions or work will never be addressed. Nor should they.
Such a nice example of why ethics and aesthetics merge into each other. Thank you for all the wonderful work!
It goes beyond that. For example
Greek ideology, our systems are built by Greek ideology. Our systems are strong due to Greek ideology. Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras. All of them changed the world and we used their ideas. They also had slaves and would often argue for 2nd class citizenship for women.
We can move to another system builder like Hegel and Washington, terrible personal views and yet we set our lives on their ideas.
What are contributions, is art a contribution? To life and society? If it is, then also philosophy and Systems. They both are together and they work to shape the mind of the subject. Therefore, separating the "Contribution" from the "Contributor", needs to be drawn. To question his ethics and make a change towards distinguishing the bad and the good is a better way of adapting to the conflict within the human ethic.
I love Socrates and I enjoy reading Ernest Hemingway, I did find myself questioning their personal lives, but I understood as well that their contributions, were undoubtedly world changing and so I am not blind. I respect the work and I'm honest about the person.
HP Lovecraft super racist and antisemetic, but I really like that he was one of the fathers if not the father of cosmic horror/ cthulhu and friends. (Though I'm 90% sure his racism, antisemetism, and xenophobia played a huge role in inspiring his works)
Yep. He would often use his racism to create the monsters in his stories. I recently went to Providence, RI (where he's from) they have a few land marks and street names in his honor. I found it ironic that the demographics he hated so much are now very prominent as residents in the city. Plus it is a very art driven city. Beautiful place.
Can I suggest H.Bomberguy? He did a wonderful video specifically about Lovecraft and his problems and being a fan after learning about those problems.
there's something about the phrase "cthulhu and friends" that cracked me up, thank you for that.
I believe he also later in life apologized and said he was wrong for the things he did and said. Doesnt excuse him of course, but it's good to know he died a bit less hateful than he lived.
Kaz sixteen Sauce? I mean source.
I thought of J.K. Rowling and it made me sad
I was looking for this comment.....
I personally worshipped her for YEARS.....and now it's kinda complicated....
@@sangeetamukherjee why
Jimmy cheese she’s transphobic
Yeah, and it's even more relevant now
@@jrurbbehdidiwdnndjduw85eos73 she's a lot of bad things
Ghandi was a racist. Martin Luther King Jr. had multiple affairs. If we demand that every "problematic" person go away, the list of people we're allowed to admire is going to be very short indeed, especially if we judge historical figures by the morals of today.
Did you watch this video?
You can condemn a person's actions, while still supporting their beliefs, though. Even if MLK had affairs (evidence is not clear), his ideas about racial equality can still stand. That's different from art, where the art cannot be created and fundamentally tied to the artist. You don't need to put an asterisk around MLK's ideas because of any potential person actions, since they are self-supporting.
avoisin, fundamentally, I think art is self-supporting in the same way that ideas are (or at least, it should aspire to be).
+Mr. White All things that are against MLK, but not the idea of racial equality. That's a human right, and his personal issues don't enter into it. I would say that even the speech issues aren't that important, and are pretty minor offenses. I have no issue with Communism ... after all, our current president is a big fan of Russia, and half the country supports him, so there's that.
+deadeaded No, I don't think so. Art (as in a painting) fundamentally cannot exist without the original artist. Human rights can. I would like to think we really shouldn't admire that many people, but the good actions that were performed by them. Most people, fundamentally, really aren't that great, but the individual actions they did are worth remembering.
This is the fourth video from this channel that I'm showing to my Intro to Art class. I tried as best as I could to provide a variety of sources, but these are providing EXACTLY what I need to talk about. They provide a great starting point of discussion. Thank you!
"You can make quality art and do bad things. But you should know, there will be consequences when those bad things are revealed and that you'll lose the privilege of a less clouded reading of your work when that happens." This whole video is absolute gold.
YASSS! You pulled out the perfect quote. I agree - absolute gold.
Yuck. Judgmental people on the left are just as distasteful as judgmental people on the right. Get over yourselves. We all know that you have thought, said, and done things that are wrong. Being a misogynist is not the only sin, and far from the worst. This whole video is an absolute steaming pile of poo.
Even if you do bad things you can always make art.
Uncanny Zee how?
Uncanny Zee
This… what? OP didn’t even mention their political stance. If you do bad things in front of people, they’ll think you’re bad. That’s it. That’s the whole comment. It seems like you read and projected into this wayyy more than you needed to.
For me it's Bono. He's so very problematic on one level and I cannot accept how he is part of the problem in many ways, but I will never stop loving U2 and his power as a performer/singer/lyricist. Damn you, Bono. I won't be buying anything from him, but I can't just ignore the emotional landscapes he has painted for me.
how is Bono problematic? i never kept up with his personal/political life
I want to work in museums after graduation, and every time I have one of these "difficult art conversations" with family or friends, I refer them to this channel. Thank you guys for both dispelling the myths and engaging with the complexities of the capital-A Art World. I live for this channel!
It's one thing to call out evil and it's another to understand it and realize it's potential is also in you.
Something I think about is how, say, smashing a DVD of Annie Hall doesn't really do anything, but boycotting a new Woody Allen movie might. That is to say, there's a big difference between personal consumption and institutional support when it comes to artists who do bad things. But, then again, the personal and the institutional are not always black and white.
Ironically, for years I was somewhat hesitant about Woody Allen films due to his relationship with S. Yet, when the allegations from Dylan appeared I discovered that I'd been misinformed, and ultimately it became clear that he was almost certainly innocent. So it's been a curious process, whereby I now feel like I'd like to support him.
On the other hand, I also discovered that Mia Farrow was on record defending (the horrific and confirmed serial rapist) Polanski, and herself had been happy to keep working with Woody Allen while she was accusing him of abuse. So now my hesitation has shifted.
A while ago I found a second-hand copy of Rosemary's Baby, and made conversation with the seller about Polanski being problematic and how I was pleased to be able to see the film without signalling the corporate publishers etc.
Woody was willing to take a lie detector test. Farrow refused. That should tell you all you need to know. When you hear of the abuse this woman rained on her children, it becomes pretty obvious that she is highly deranged, and when Woody began to ditch her for one of the kids, it is not surprising that someone as unstable as she already was went ballistic. But NONE of this matters. The Purple Rose of Cairo is brilliant, both for its writing and directing (Woody) and the magnificent performance by Mia Farrow. Who they are as people and who was right and who was wrong has NOTHING to do with being able to enjoy their art; Or at least it shouldn't.
Fellow Citizen oh wow you’re a disaster if you think he’s innocent after Dylan’s testimony and bend over backwards to blame the victim and her mother instead.
He is rich and famous, he has had unsuccessful films before. your boycott will be of nearly zero consequence except to make yourself feel like you've acted in justice.
F**k woody allen.
Hiyo Miazaki, the creator of studio ghibli, was not a very good father. He walked out of the premiere of his sons first directed film “Tales from Earthsea” and was just generally not supportive of his sons work. Despite this, millions of people, including myself, love and cherish his films as a part of their childhood. Learning this has not caused me to look at his films in a bad light.
Given that even Ursula Kroeber LeGuin disliked the " re-imagining of the moral sense of the books", walking out of the premiere might be a sign of something else than proof of being a bad father.
You mean Hayao Miyazaki? mmm that is not complete true, Although I feel that he has not fulfilled his job as a father in the sense that due to his work he has lost many family moments, and he himself recognizes it, that is why he did not want Goro to follow the same fate as him, even so He attended the premiere of his son, but criticized his film because Hayao believes that his son is very young and does not understand much of life to make a film.
@@deadstockparadise5898 I mean, the aesthetic appeal of Nazi's isn't new (and I am speaking merely of their aesthetics: uniforms, vehicles, etc). It's a VERY SHAKY thing to engage in, but the thought "Hey, the Nazi's actually looked fly" isn't a new thought. It's often discussed and dissected.
@@nope5657 I don't quite understand it. It's admiration of the craftmenship not the Nazi's themselves right
@@sakuranovaryan9261 of course. You could say that in and of itself is kinda yikes. But the aesthetic appeal (aesthetic, not ideologically) of the Nazi's is a well documented thing.
I like Heidegger's philosophy, but he was a Nazi. I love Picasso's paintings, but he was a sexist. I really like Mayhem's music, but they were criminals. I think that when problematic artists make art we should firstly focus on the product, not the producer. We should also be aware of their misconduct, but isn't their misconduct a huge part of their influences that are being laid on tape/canvas/pages/film for us to enjoy? Plus, if you like their works, you just like their works, you're not their friends and you shouldn't be judged upon your aesthetic values, which are not the same with your moral values.
Nafureanu Dan well put out
I completely agree. I don't personally like Picasso's work, and I do like Mayhem's music as well, even though I know they were church burning criminals.
I also love surrealism, in art and literature, but I hate how the most prominent and most famous representatives of that movement were misogynistic, racist, sexist, and highly egocentric and narcissistic people. But I still recognize their works as some of the most important and interesting art works of the 20th century.
For the record Heidegger almost immediately rejected Nazism when he met Adolph Hitler. He was under the romantic delusion that he could make Hitler into a platonic philosopher king, when he met him he discovered a maniac.
I like your profile photo
Well said. The argument is similar to the medical one where people debate whether we should use procedures which are successful; but where the research and development were conducted, under less than ideal circumstances. Stay safe.
☘️🌝🌲
If you start digging through anyone’s past, you’re going to find things you don’t like or agree with or are not acceptable today. You’re going to end up not being able to like anything made by anyone.
Completely agree
that was absolutely stunning in how you engage thought, always staying neutrally cheerful yet still adding that underlying tiny pinprick of irony. I fall more and more in love with this channel every day.
Ikr
talk all you want there is no way around it but when you appreciate the work it melts away
If we only tell history of those who never did anything that caused outrage, human history can be summed up as follows, "___."
If I ever become a famous artist put an asterisk beside my name with the footnote, "He was flawed, not as bad as some, worse than others, he corrected what he should, and reveled in the rest."
Pretty much the most we can hope for.
While not everyone in history was a rapist, a murderer, owned slaves, or was an all around asshole (by our standards), if we cut out the people who history remembers that were? Tchaikovsky and Lewis Carol were likely pedophiles for instance, does that color how we interpret their work? Of course, but should their contributions be hidden away from society because they're a problematic fave? No, and those who seek to ban art, ANY art for any reason is borderline Fascism. Is Lolita any less a profound and impactful part of our history because it deals with problematic subjects in an un-pc way? No. Now what else do you think Nabokov did or said or thought? People are complicated, and always of their time. Otherwise how long before Johnny Number 5 is banned as the robot equivalent of a minstrel character and is "clear anti-robot defamation"?
+Erik S The weird thing is that Lolita isn't a very pro-pedophilia book. It's pretty clear that Humbert is a damaged scumbag and you never really empathize with him all the way.
equesdeventusoccasus I need that on my tombstone!
As much as I appreciate that sentiment, and would make it my epithet, not all outrage is equal. Some artists cause outrage for the right reasons. Others, not so much.
When did artists become role models? Throughout most of history they were just the servants of the rich and powerful. I suspect it's an idea that emerged in the 19th century along with that of the romantic genius. Since many artists actively opposed fascism in the 20th century (including Picasso) we seem to have come to expect a lot from them. Is it fair to hold them to a higher standard than everyone else?
It's not about them being role models it's about them being respected and adored
Miss B right! And not just adored, it’s also about the money they or their estates get. If you knew this person was a child molester or something, would you want them to benefit from supporting their work? Or recommending it to someone?
Thank you ! What a great video that reflects so much feeling in all aspects of all content that’s being made now and in the past , art, books, movies, TV shows, TH-cam ect . It takes a thoughtful person to view content from all aspects - for what the thing is on its own and the direct effect of the creator / actor that can alter someone’s feelings ( similar to how relationships evolve)
Well-written, well-spoken. Glad you guys tackled this issue, it's pertinent in this day and age.
To me art is a personal experience. Looking at it, creating it, purchasing it, etc. I don’t have to follow the collective morality of what is “right” and what is “wrong”. I decide what resonates with me and I confront everything that comes with that. If an artist has done something hurtful in their lives I’ll acknowledge it, but it won’t necessarily change how much I appreciate their work. It’s like would you hate the meal of a master chef even if they were a complete asshole? No of course not, if the food’s good it’s good. I may feel upset that they chose foolish decisions in their life and it sucks to dim the light on someone that you want to admire in full. But part of that feeling I realize is narcissism. You just want to be able to prove to people that you only like the “best stuff”.. because it represents who you are to the world. But It’s not the case and it’s never the case. You’re more than your tastes.. you are more nuanced than that. Your actions speak louder than anything you like. I know many people interested in the lives of serial killers. Does that make them bad people? Absolutely not. it’s just a subject matter they have chose to take interest in. Until they actually do something bad will I judge them for it at all. And if we constantly dismiss artists who have done problematic things in the world we also close ourselves off from learning from them. We can’t keep pretending the world is some picture perfect place. All of us contain the capacity for good and evil.. it doesn’t matter who you are. It’s better that we acknowledge the ugly truth about some artists while recognizing the good they have done as well. That’s just my 2 cents. I have a lot more I could say, but I’ll leave it at that.
Aptly put.
But what if the meal that was prepared by the chef featured the harm that he caused to other people. When the people suffering from the artist are in the product itself I don’t think it’s right to completely separate art from artist.
I don't think it's useful to hide the negative aspects of these creators. In my opinion I think it's more enlightening to understand the artist behind the art and that doesn't diminish depending on whether the person had positive or negative views. People are jaded, the world isn't black and white and it's artwork or creative endeavors in general which often reveal this. The fact that we can understand the negative aspects of an artist's personality is evidence to me that people are not going to be swayed or influenced into those same negative behaviors just by appreciating the artist's work. They may not be the best person in the world, but you can still see meaning or value in a piece of their work and that is because they are human.
People will have their own views and beliefs before seeing an art piece which will determine how they see it. Artworks and the artists behind them can reveal a lot about history or just life from another perspective. Shunning that away would be immature and naive. They still exist either way. I think it's understanding these negatives and embracing that they simply exist is how we learn from it and avoid repeating these behaviors in the future.
I think you hot the nail there. The artist and their actions are just another layer of the work, adding more or less nuances depending on the themes. The art itself remains the same, doesn't it? We just learnt more about it.
I was distracted by your Picassoesque stripey shirt! Yes, I know he was a misogynist, still I am attracted to the raw energy in some of his work.
I recently had a show of my cancer paintings. Perhaps they would be rejected because of the subject matter. Instead the paintings opened a dialogue. People shared intimate stories. The paintings became more than pretty and acceptable.
P.S. Most people might find things about my life questionable.
The TH-cam channel Mother's Basement also did a video on this that I think expands on this dilemma in different scopes and spheres of media. It's called Good Art by Bad People.
Thank you for this - you've been able to articulate some of the feelings I've struggled with a lot recently.
I love that you included the footnote that we are actively supporting things in ways we don't even consider. As always, well thought out discussions with amazing research. Thank you.
I like a lot of the points you make and I personally agree that art should be viewed separately but I also think educating is important. We also shouldn't separate what the artist has done and not highlight it when we're talking about it. I also won't hold it against someone if they don't want to support an artist for something they've done.
Amazing video^^ I also feel that issue gets more complicated when the artist is alive. Because even if you decide to appreciate only the art and not the artist, you can't control how the artist might perceive that appreciation. If people flock to Woody Allen's movies, it is very plausible for him to think he has been forgiven.
What's funny is this video completely dances around the real issue and just reinforces the problem. The question isn't "Should we separate the art from the artist" it's "How should we feel about people who did/said bad things?"
Human beings are very sophisticated living creatures, that grow and evolve. No 2 people grow alike, and due to how many factors contribute to who a person becomes you can never predict what a person will be like.
Because of this, it is very important to look at people subjectively. It's important to understand that while an individual may be problematic or imperfect, that doesn't mean they can't possitively contribute to society or general individuals in possitive ways. If we began cutting the possible influence away from people just because they do bad things, we would inevitably end up deplatforming everyone. Because a system in which you deplatform people like that will always lend itself to abuse.
So what is the answer? The answer is to look at EVERYTHING a person does. Praise the good as well as condemning the bad. How is ANYONE to know what's acceptable if they are scolded for all they say and do?
That, and don't be so full of yourself. Learn how to not lock yourself in a sociopolitical box. Learn to keep an open mind. Learn that your own feelings don't dictate the greater picture.
Absolutely agreed
Content aside, I really love and appreciate the attention to repetitive horizontal lines in this video.
This is excellent.
As part of my MA I wrote a presentation about the Eric Gill exhibition at Ditchling Museum in England. I think it's really important that you can enjoy a piece of art even if the creator was awful, but I also think it's important that the awfulness of the artist isn't hidden.
I've seen quite a few video on this subject and this was by far the most informative and insightful. Nice work!
Which other videos have you seen?
Arglglg, yeah, this is a tough one to grapple with. Especially since it's pretty much impossible to not find something unpleasant about everyone (including ourselves; we do all make mistakes, alas). I do like how you put it -- art has always been a participatory and interpretive medium, we are always part of the equation, and just as we find/create meaning (or not) in as well as pass judgement on the art we experience so too then must we with the artist. Artist intent, the artist's actions, and what the art is invoking, and what you see/feel in it are all important in the continual dance we have with the art itself. "The art should be viewed alone!" or "It should forever be rejected!" are extremes that serve neither the art nor ourselves well. We humans can be messy in many ways, so I guess it should be no surprise that our art, and relations to it and the messy humans who made it, can be delightfully messy as well. Which, in a way, makes art all that much more special, doesn't it? If art is about evoking that which is the human spirit within us, then this just adds to it. As you note, the key is to engage with purpose. Very well put together and thought provoking episode! Also some lovely cats. :D
i saw the thumbnail and thought "ah they've seen nanette then"
Yup. Been contemplating this video for a long time, but Nanette pushed the topic from "possible" to "definitely."
@@theartassignment and you did so well!
haha :D
"Judge not, lest ye be judged"
"Let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone"
Wise words. Be guided accordingly. By the way, if any of you "good folks" have a Picasso that you'd like to throw out, please give it to this poor sinner.
Errol Michael Phillips Said it all. I’ll be second in line.
I don't like the way how people abuse the good story or background of an artist to strengthen their art and completely ignore it when the artist has done something bad or in questionable circumstances. Of course it's up to you how you judge art and you probably doing exactly this subconsciously, but I see it in a lot of arguments about artworks and it bothers me. I know I am more on the "just the artwork" side, but the inconsistent way how artworks are highlighted is one of the reasons why people have so much trouble with discussing art.
Great video,
I love the careful look on our perception.
Media and Social Media are playing a big role in this. I don't like this, it contributes to the continuous suffocation of any prominent art collective there is, like any artist is a saint...you can't expect that. We'll have to get used to problematic artists as they have been part and are still part of our society and are shaping it.
Yeah this is an incredible channel and I’m really grateful for all the work and thought that goes into it. For me, Hannah Gadsby shone light on several paths of thoughts that can be difficult to face, but ultimately I think it would be a disservice to turn a blind eye to them. You’ve helped me walk a little down one of those uncomfortable paths today, and offered a very considered take on it. Thanks!
Show me a person who isnt problematic at all...
well of course, if you think only men can be "artists" then yeah they're all awful. There are also female artists. most of them don't abuse, threaten, coerce, rape people around them. baffling how that fact escapes most people
@@Sciencespipo That's the most hypocritical comment I've read today congratz
@@Sciencespipo There are definitely "problematic" females too
Maybe none of us should worry quite so much about which gender of our socially constructed social binary commits more "sins." We're all products of a pretty shitty world. Choose better, because you know better.
I, for one, pretty much just avoid men. To some men that constitutes withholding sex, and those same men think that's cruel. This is why I'm a feminist. Guys, if you don't like women, please, feel absolutely free to leave us a!one.
Jesus Christ.
Hum? I hear you! Most of the art I buy I am very concerned about the story of the artist - but because I am not rich it is easy for me - most of my art is from local and young artists - but come to think of it, we found out some troubling things about a local artist and used the artists painting to catch the dripping motor oils from under our our car in the garage! It was too painful to look at the art! Love these funky videos! Steve aka The Talking Fly...
is this some kind of art veganism?
@@lara6944 😂
@@lara6944 I believe it is... When I buy a piece of art it's because it moved me... I don't give a single Fuck about who or what made it... Because onse out... It belong to everyone... And not to the Artist... loool
Wrongdoings of the artist are just another context in which a piece should be considered. I don't think it has to ruin the art, but should be acknowledged as apart of it. This extra context might even make the piece more interesting and impactful. It's okay to appreciate that. It doesn't make you a bad person, as long as you aren't supporting the bad deeds themselves.
I think this is especially true for dead people, since you aren't financially supporting them. It's like in history class, where you might study someone who you think had a super interesting life but was still an awful person. I think people just feel worse about this connection with art because it feels more intimate.
The Art Assignment, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ALL MY LIFE?! How am I just now finding this channel?!
Excellent video on a really interesting topic. Nicely done.
Thank you for this. I have a feeling that this will never stop being a dilemma, in art and in the wider world, and I really appreciate your thoughtfulness on the matter.
This is a hard topic, but one that deserves attention. As you said at the end, not only artists but scientists; do we have to forgive them for their black side just because they had a bright side? I mean, everyone has both sides, all of us have taken good and bad decistions, and we have affected possitively and negatively other people.
I think we can forgive, but never forget some attitudes, sure, their art may be incredible, but that can't justify their actions. They can be judged and they should, because you've got that information.
Finding out that a photographer sleeps with their models changes how I view the photo.
I think this is a part of a broader question of human forgiveness and generosity even to those who don’t deserve it. It’s difficult, but I believe that we should strive to “hate the sin, not the sinner.” We’re all just people.
I appreciate the nuance that goes into this, frankly, endless discourse. One thing that still challenges me is that I’m staunchly against the view that the meaning of the art goes only as far as the author’s truth. However, I can’t help but question my own belief on that when I know how impactful it is on my reading to know that these things happen
Earth without Art is just Eh
Interesting, I totally understand the dilemma. Recently i attended the Dali museum in Florida. I knew some about Dali but not a ton, he just seemed like a fun, quirky, artsy guy who created surrealistic paintings like melting clocks.
However, after going to the museum and learning more, my view of him changed in a negative way. So initially I wanted a fun little melting clock souvenir. However, as I learned more I now don’t want to display anything from Dali in my home.
I think the Wagner thing is a bit overwrought. I mean he’s actually blamed because Hitler enjoyed his music long after his death. (Very little he could do about that.)
Also: Hitler liked vegetables, Snow White, dogs, hiking, painting, and probably sunsets. Shall we put those on trial also for the crime of being liked by a psycho?
It’s not just that Hitler liked his music and used it heavily. Wagner was a huge anti Semite and literally wrote a whole book that was against jews
Vegetables, Snow White, dogs, hiking, painting, and sunsets, on the other hand, didn’t write books about how much they hated Jews
THANKS for THIS! This is obviously a very difficult topic but your insights here are very well stated... We definitely should NOT damn all art into oblivion just because the artist was not a very good person... but its really important to try to take as much of the truth of the sordid past into account while also trying to enjoy the work on its own merits... Awesome Work!
Kanye West for me. Love his art and design work but I sometimes hate the things he says 🤦🏾♂️
You do know there's an Art Assignment Case For Kanye video :-)
th-cam.com/video/h8cCSRIk9c8/w-d-xo.html
Blog of The W3ST I understand what he meant but his delivery was ignorant. Seeing my people discredit his genius is hard to see. I understand his message and understand why people are upset.
Blog of The W3ST and why, exactly, is it bad for blacks to do it and not other races?
Blog of The W3ST golf clap for edgelord lord of the edge over here. Even if you didn’t mean to, saying “It’s bad for ‘them’ to do” *implies* that you, just like Kanye, singled out black people.
Could’ve been more specific.
Something I've definitely had second thoughts about every time he opens his mouth! ;)
I don't think Pablo actually wanted to burn woman alive. He just wanted to forget the past and grow from it. It's similar to the mythology of the Phoenix.
I've been watching art assignment for last 5 days, i think I'm learning at least something about ART.
I don't know, I guess the way I see it is, that art has it's own life and soul, separate from the artist. The artist being merely a conduit for art to express itself into existence.
I've had to learn how to separate the artist from the art, and its difficult because we tend to instinctively associate the two. But i'm glad I learned because it's given me the ability to 1) prevent myself from getting too attached, and 2) allowed me to focus on what the art says to me and how to look at it. Having a complex and bittersweet relationship with the art takes a lot of the "magic" out of it, but I prefer it most of the time because it keeps me from getting too distracted.
Do u own a pair of nikes or iPad because we all know there made in the best of conditions
I feel this problem when listening to the beatles, John lennon was an abusive husband who misstreeted his first wife, cheated on her and abandoned his enfant child, he also cheated on his second wife yoko, and was a very unstable guy, paul mccartney cheated on his girlfriend, George harrison cheated on his wife with ringo's wife, and all of them had some prety big problems with ideas of the 60's regarding gender role and drug use, so what i do is to think about all of this while listening to their music, think of them as flawed humans, they did some good and some bad, but they are fine artists, never ignore how messed up they were, but never deny the fact that their music is so great
I personally actually like the art more if I know the person behind it was/is kinda twisted. The the crazy and troubled story behind it brings so many more layers to the art. And if you think about it, the most genius artists have always been insane
Yeah but marrying 3 teenagers or mistreating women isn't crazy it's just gross
For my fellow people in 2020:
Makes me think about people who liked Shane Dawson documentaries and Jeffree Star makeup but feel like they can't "cancel" these artists because they want to enjoy those things. There are ways around not contributing to their wealth.
Adblocking TH-cam videos and buying secondhand makeup (unopened if possible). Another option is alternative content/items.
There are many smaller creators that make conspiracy theory videos. Look up the subjects you're interested in for alternative options, I can guarantee that they are there.
As for makeup, it's even easier, there are many brands out there with just as pigmented and creamy formulas. Personally I enjoy NYX cosmetics, they are cheaper and have a great variety of colours. J* tried to cease and desist a "dupe" of his palette but in my opinion, dupes exist because you can't copyright colours.
I’m a bipolar artist and an artist friend of mine kept encouraging me to be open about my illness. I’ve always taken art in without external context. I usually don’t title my pieces so as to allow the viewer to come to their own conclusion. But, he gives his works brilliant titles that make me appreciate his work more. Since coming out as an artist with bipolar I’ve had countless people tell me they have it as well, artist and non artist alike. That’s been an interesting journey. I too struggle with knowing disturbing things about any artist, musician, actor, etc. it’s like a gum ball machine, one ball is good and another bad and yes, I often wish I could put the cat back in the bag, and I love cats!!!
Yes, I can ignore the crap an artist does in order to enjoy his/her art. I think the only time it doesn't work is when the shitheadedness takes an actual part in the art itself. Then it gets really hard, and sometimes I can't.
I enjoy Rivals of Aether even though it was ported to a console of an abominable company (Nintendo) who drinks poison hoping their fans die aka unforgiveness
Matthew 6:15
The gatekeepers in the art world, as well as other fields need to be held accountable too.
Being subjected to the criticism of peers within the field
who only respect optics and stature rather than moral integrity, talent and skill set.
Needing to not only "go along to get along" but actively support your "betters" who behave badly in order to have your own work even looked at is soul crushing.
basically almost every Abstract Expressionist really
sup
Not to excuse anyone, but it is good to remember that artists, writers and poets are no less immune from the conventions and philosophies of their own times. I have often found their "character" and "inspirations" were brought on by what was going on around them, meaning, they were quite often "damaged" people who had experienced things that most of us will never have to endure. If I went the route of boycotting their works, then I would have to give up such experiences as those afforded by Celine, Hemingway, Bukowski, Orwell, Schiele, Munch, Pollock, etc., etc. ad nauseum. No, I don't have to like everything they did, but I can admire that part of their psyche that found such beauty and joy as I could not discover on my own. Lastly, e.g., you mention Picasso, well, you have to remember the rising fascism of his time, the philosophy of machismo, the way everyone treated women in his era and the stress of his experimentation along with many other factors. Was he a misogynist? At times a coward? A rake and at time a cad? Yes, he was those things at different times. However, the softness of his Rose and Blue periods proves to me there was some what of a loving romantic mixed in as well. I think we should save the harsh boycotting stuff for painters like John Wayne Gacy..................................
As with so many other things, Shakespeare figured all this out over four centuries ago when Hamlet welcomed the actors to Elsinore Castle:
HAMLET
(to POLONIUS) Good my lord, will you see the players well bestowed? Do you hear, let them be well used, for they are the abstract and brief chronicles of the time. After your death you were better have a bad epitaph than their ill report while you live.
POLONIUS
My lord, I will use them according to their desert.
HAMLET
God’s bodykins, man, much better. Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping? Use them after your own honor and dignity. The less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty. Take them in.
Does anyone think future generations will judge us better than many of us now judge Picasso and his generation? They may be in for an unpleasant surprise!!
I doubt if there is a single person here who would give up their cellphone if they found out it was designed and manufactured by Jack the Ripper.
I love art, I hate talkative critics
Damn woman, this was well said 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I tend to separate many artists from their work. Picasso was a pretty nasty guy, but his art is still unique. Hank Williams was a problematic drunk, but his music was a staple of life. That's how it should be, refusing to acknowledge art because of dislike for an individual is a really wrong thing to do.
This came into my recommended after watching surviving R Kelly.
I'm not going to let people tell me that I should hate him.
I hate the guy for all the fucked up shit he has done. But damn, the trapped in the closet saga makes me laugh to this day.
Another thing to consider is the impact of artist on other artist. I'm sure many newer comedians were highly influenced by Bill Cosby for example, comedians that hopefully don't have such terrible history and behaviors and are themselves generally good people. The impact of an artist on future artist can't be overlooked. How many "good" people did someone like Picasso inspire to pick up a brush? How many of those people who were influenced and inspired, in turn caused others to do the same? Who knows? The people influenced are just as much a legacy of an artist works as any work created. Can you separate the art from the artist? It's like a Zen Koan...Mu.
Let's all say it together, "there is no such thing as ethical consumption in late-stage capitalism." Given the limits of our current social and economic structure, I think that keeping that awareness at the forefront of our thoughts when engaging in media or materal consumption, while trying our best to mitigate the harms that have been or may be done in the process, is the best we can do.
As an artist, im finding it difficult to separate the artist with their art, any art, music photography. Anytime I find out something horrible or whatever, about my favourite artists, i literally get cross and a bit overwhelmed. My art therapist is helping me through this. I never realized how difficult it is. That old saying "never meet your idols" i remember meeting a comic book artist i really liked and when talking with him he was really disgruntled and nasty. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Year later, maybe two years later, I went to talk with the same artist and he still was a nasty, pretentious f@!#!😅 Seriously. I stopped buying his books and never look at his art anymore. Same with music. I used to love led Zeppelin, then after finding out about jimmy page stealing music and being a pedo.. dating a groupie 13-14 years old..i was the hell with him and his band/music....like bloody hell man.. you can date any woman, why a teen.
I should personally consider a work of art to be a separate entity from the author once it reaches a certain degree of maturity. It’s literally “brain child” that learns to walk and live independently of its creator. That way, we enjoy art without endorsing the values of the artist, yet by the same measure we can honour the artist by honouring his art
I have knowledge of the bible and Nintendo is more scummy due to the fact they drink poison hoping their fans die aka unforgiveness when Matthew 6:15
I also have struggles with bitterness towards my dad because he produced me through interfaith (unequally yoked) infidelity where my dad was the christian and my mum wasnt. I thought of the idea of a novel that talks about the bastard curse, vengeance not being the way and a metaphor to being born again and break the curse.
This feels even more relevant now in 2020, with so much new information out about many artists, companies and CEOs abusing their power and having done (or said) many questionable things. I agree that we should be mindful about contributing money to problematic people and systems, and do our best to support the creators that support good causes/treat others with respect.
Cancel culture as a concept is something I often in two minds about, in that part of me disagrees with it due to how it can treat people who said ignorant things as a teen/kid years back (who have shown proper evidence of change) the same way they may treat an influential person who abused their fans/partners, were racist or mistreated/paid their employees under minimum wage. But part of me also knows a *lot* of horrific people in power deserve it, and sometimes it may be the only way to knock them down from their ability to abuse others. It's something I hope all of us can find a way to navigate better over time.
History is complicated, and I think what's most important is making sure we acknowledge and discuss the good and bad each influential person had on the world; and most importantly: learn from it. To understand why someone influential managed to do harm and to teach others never to do the same. That way we can see the whole picture, and perhaps understand how communities in different time periods (even if it's just a decade ago) functioned, and what we can do to improve it.
My mom used to refuse to listen to music or watch films with Frank Sinatra or Elizabeth Taylor (and others) because they married too often. I thought it was silly of her. Seems pretty mild compared to what we are hearing about today. If I refused to listen to music performed by drug addicts, or books written by alcoholics, much of the music I grew up with and many books I love, would be off limits. In general, I think artists who are passionate about their work are often passionate in their personal lives, and if they become famous, often go to extremes, because they think they can get away with it.
I hadn’t heard those allegations about Chuck Close and admit I will think about those from now on when I see his work, but can’t deny I still admire his art.
I have to remind myself that no one is perfect and decide whether or not to reject someone’s art, depending on what I believe to be the most offensive of behaviors.
If every artist had a purity test that must be passed for us to enjoy and get something from their work, we’d have no art to enjoy. Part of art is the ambiguous spaces that exist between the work, its creator, and the world that produced and is (in part) created by one another-that is where the discourse about those things happens that is the true value of creativity.
Personally, I think about this in relation to a Marxist complaint about the exploitation of workers: They make things, but the things they make aren't "their" creations. As a result, I try to consider how much of themselves the artist put into their works. How much of the work is essentially "from" them and are they things that are necessarily things that these specific artists need to be the makers of in order to be truly "effective"?
I found the point about how we excuse scientists who used unethical research practices, but not artists who did similar things, super fascinating. There are HEAPS of medical researchers, psychiatrists etc. who completely abused their test subjects’ basic rights, but of course, we still praise those researchers because their work led to significant and valid discoveries about the human condition.
This is interesting! As an artist that has recently taken up TH-cam, I'm trying to have a transparent and honest relationship with my audience, however, through the process of filming and editing, I am forging a, still developing, character of myself. It's a learning curve to see how how to be honest, yet still create interesting stories that people can learn from. Thoughts??
9:36 Is that a stuffed otter?
I love it!
The artist does not own his or her art, he or she is but the projector of an idea that inhabits object reality. It is also a conversation on the subjective picture of an objective reality. And if we got rid of every artist whose don’t something or said something offensive we would have no art.
Don’t have impossible expectations and you can’t be disappointed
Wagner is a VERY controversial figure in the classical music world. I'm so glad you mentioned him
To me, the solution is easy: when an artist whose work I love is a jerk and/or spreads questionable and hateful messages...
1: I admire and praise their work as objectively as possible, but not them as an artist. LOVE THE ART
2: I always explain to people and keep in mind why I think they're a terrible person. HATE THE ARTIST
3: I NEVER pay for any of their works, so I can send a message that says "don't be a jerk and your work will be more appreciated financially. Don't work with jerks and they'll be more profitable to your business."
To attempt to "divorce" an artist from their art is a pretentious, elitist, self-centered and egotistical endeavor. The artist forms a valuable relationship with their art, the product of which are their exhibits. but there are always those who wish to create a flowery, romanticized, and socially acceptable depiction of things they care about. Those misguided people are part of the reason I bury myself in my artwork. The fact is that some of us are "monsters". we do our work in spite of what society believes is polite or appropriate. We trust our eye. We trust our hand. We Trust our instinct, and we express ourselves through our mediums. nobody should hate anybody. rather humans should be trying to understand where each other is coming from especially now. the world is changing too rapidly to write off any particular person, group, culture or Walk of Life even if it differs entirely from your own. we all have something to teach each other.
@@metachirality Nobody is perfect. Some of us possess characteristic that many in society would deem unacceptable. But no man has the right to separate the art from the artist. Credit must be given where it is due. If I had the suspicion that the work I create would be "divorced" from me as an individual, I would burn it all and give society the finger.
Evidence? Well, evidently I am an artist. That's all you need to know to put my words in context. Art is not about social acceptance! Even If I find out my favorite art is produced by a racist, sexist, wife-beating neo-nazi skinhead, then I need to come to terms with that, and instead of "hating" this person, hope for the day that their personality can be as beautiful as the work they produce. But CREDIT MUST BE GIVEN WHERE IT IS DUE. Can you imagine if you went to work for a whole two weeks, and your boss didn't pay you because he "didn't like" how you treat your family? Not only would you quit, but you'd also have a lawsuit to slap him with. well ART IS WORK. And respect must be shown to the worker. instead of divorcing the art from the artist, it is better to divorce ONESELF from fandom. as an artist, my desire is for ADVANCING PERSONAL SKILL. I hate social acceptance politics, feelings and opinions often get in the way of truth and RESPONSIBILITY. To attempt to "divorce" an artist from their art is a irresponsible, dishonest, elitist, self-centered and egotistical endeavor. It is an attempt to escape or avoid the truth and that will NEVER be acceptable or even respectable. is that clear enough for you? or do I have to cut it up EVEN MORE so that your baby toddler teeth can chew it a little better?!
Lyrell McGee but don’t you agree that people shouldn’t say your art sucks because you’re not a good person?
I think the artist is still human, not a superhero. And as you said in one of your videos, beauty has a different meaning for everyone. Well, in life it's the same, value, education and life are different for everyone, and to that you have to add the time you lived. Let's analyze Gauguin, he married a very young girl, something that was normal for Tahitian at that time; syphilis was a disease that caused the death of many artists at that time; his family didn't want to deal with him because they considered him a loser; so he found refuge on the Thaiti, and good for him, thanks to that he gave us spectacular masterpieces. And so we can continue to analyze other artists, but based on the time they lived, we can NOT place them in our time. It is unfair, as it is to put ourselves in the place of judges to see if they were good or bad human beings.
What I learned from this video is that the only "good human" is a cat. Preferably the one in the paper bag. Awww. I stopped listening after that. Does that make me a bad human?
yeah, this is a nice insight. i believe that fully associating yourself with the notion of "love the art, hate the artist" is an apathetic move. you can't totally separate the art from the artist because the art IS the artist. whatever they produce, whether good or bad, is a product of their minds - the same ones that have prompted them to do the bad things they did. and excusing them for that is blatantly ignoring the experiences and the struggle of their victims. so yea, we can still lile the art for its technicality or just the way it looks but tou can never try to use it to justify the creator whenever their wrongdoings are ever mentioned. it is in human nature to appreciate beauty but it doesn't always have ro end up with loving the art. for every piece of their art, a part of the artist lives in it and whether we like it or not, we will never be able to separate them from their creations.
Wait a second... are you trying to make us look at things.... complexly? 😎
Very honest narration best part is subject is explored as is from all sides and no rigid universal truth or judgement is passed. Good job
Considering that morality is subjective and changes so much it's pretty much impossible to be a "good person" outside of the context of a certain place in time.
In fact I'd consider the idea of artists needing to conform you or your society's values incredibly delusional.
Thank you for demonstrating the blissfulness of ignorance. I see each work a part of the artist leaving parts of his or her love behind.