Should we separate the author from the work?

[Passdagas the Brown]

yov,

I think the definition of desire is the problem here. IMO, your men's fashion exerience is about passion, curiosity, creativity and interest. Desire, as I understand a Buddhist might see it, refers to a more selfish and short-term impulse, such as a need to "have more than one's neighbors," and may be a more chemical impulse than an intellectual one.

From that slightly different definition, I find desire, in and of itself, to be at the root of much unhappiness.

Unless, of course, you don't have even the most basic of necessities. Which means the root of your unhappiness is likely more about the precarious nature of your existence, and the uncertainty of survival.

[yovargas]

Desire, as I understand a Buddhist might see it, refers to a more selfish and short-term impulse, such as a need to "have more than one's neighbors," and may be a more chemical impulse than an intellectual one.

That would more accurately be called envy, not desire.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Agreed, but as I have heard most Buddhists describe it, "envy" is one particularly unfortunate form of desire. The desire for other people's stuff.

But of course, desire is not limited to wanting what others have. But at least in the Buddhist mind, it seems to be primarily about wanting things that will satiate a rather shallow and short-term impulse.

[axordil]

*looks back at thread*
So that's what I'm like when I'm sleep-deprived. Sorry.

What are you sorry about, ax? Your comments generated one of the most enjoyable and thought-provoking exchanges I've experienced in Lasto for a long time.

Non-partisan, as well, which is a relief. Everyone understands beauty, in their own way.

Yeah, but I got into my arguing for the sake of arguing mode, which I try to avoid, especially on topics based in unfalsifiables.

edit: ditched an adverb

[Primula Baggins]

Never a bad move.

[anthriel]

*looks back at thread*
So that's what I'm like when I'm sleep-deprived. Sorry.

What are you sorry about, ax? Your comments generated one of the most enjoyable and thought-provoking exchanges I've experienced in Lasto for a long time.

Non-partisan, as well, which is a relief. Everyone understands beauty, in their own way.

Yeah, but I got into my arguing for the sake of arguing mode,

Ah, I see. I'm not particularly partial to that tendency, in fact would rather not argue at all, which makes me a terrible fit for Lasto, of course. You are a fairly good fit, random adverbiage and all.

I appreciated the thought-provoking topic, ax, accidental or not. I have wandered around for several days thinking about this concept of beauty, its definitions and effects. It's been an interesting few days.

Sometimes this board has the effect of creaking open the dusty unused parts of my brain. I am quite appreciative.


Sorry for the osgiliation.

[Holbytla]

Lou Reed was purportedly a rather large horse's behind to everyone at all times.
Mick Jagger has been accused of being a misogynist.
Phil Spector was found guilty of murder.

Heck the list of modern day artists and their unseemly acts is long long long and full of gory details.

I have no idea, what or even if anything written about someone is true.
Heck I'm not even sure if Phil Spector was tried fairly.

I'm pretty sure that I'll still listen to A Christmas Gift for You come Christmas though.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Apparently Carl Sagan is a real A-hole as well, but he'll always be a hero of mine.

[Túrin Turambar]

I am bumping this thread because the question that it asks was all over the British and Australian media this morning.

For those who don’t read the papers from either of those countries, 84-year-old Australian-born artist, singer and entertainer Rolf Harris was convicted in a British court of multiple sex offences between 1968 and 1987.

It is hard to overstate the breadth of Harris’ talent, the height of his public profile and the influence that he has had on popular culture, particularly in Australia. He is a very gifted painter whose works hang in galleries around the world, and he was selected to paint a portrait of the Queen to mark her 80th birthday, and played a prominent role in 2012 Diamond Jubilee celebrations. The songs that he has written are all over the place. I remember singing Six White Boomers at the Carols by Candlelight in primary school (here it is as well-known as Silent Night), seeing animatronic animals performing Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport at a theme park, and seeing Jake the Peg in a film. He was well-known as a children’s entertainer, even though many adults followed him, and generations grew up watching his variety programs (“do you know what it is yet?” he would ask, drawing a picture for his young audience).

What is worse is that there are aggravating factors here. Harris tried to run a defence insisting that the sexual contact he engaged in with his victims was consensual, and that he was ‘flattered’ that so many young girls were throwing themselves at him, no doubt because of his fame and high profile, even when some were only 12 or 13 at the time. Fresh allegations are now being investigated, and the complete picture is one of a systematic predator who used his position of power and influence over children and their parents to commit decades of sexual offences with impunity.

He has been stripped of his BAFTA and ARIA honours, and now there are calls to have his paintings taken down. It is hard to see how Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport will get performed anywhere ever again.

From my perspective, it is interesting to see how much more challenging the separation of the artist and the work becomes when the artist’s guilt has unfolded right before you. I read an article on the ABC which puts the dilemma in similar terms:

Rolf Harris: guilty man, guilty art?

After the guilty verdict for Rolf Harris galleries and collectors will eyeball his art and question whether holding onto the pieces makes them bad people. It doesn't, writes Lauren Rosewarne.

I'll leave speculation about sentencing and the appeals process to the legal scholars. I'm more interested in what becomes of Rolf Harris's art.

A guilty verdict and galleries the world over will start questioning whether to keep hanging him. About whether the continued display of Harris's art makes a moral statement.

Collectors equally will need to eyeball their own collection and question whether holding onto the pieces makes them bad people. About whether the pleasure reaped from looking at his works has somehow soured.

I often find myself thinking and writing about the art v artist conundrum. Seeing my favourite band, The National, perform last year for example, and watching the lead singer do the petulant Rock God thing and I'll admit I absolutely dropped them off my rotation for a while. (All's forgiven, however, after viewing the documentary Mistaken for strangers, but that's a topic for another day).

So, while they may have suffered a short-lived hiatus, The National's catalogue didn't become less good because of that performance; no lyrics were altered, no chords changed. And here lies the basis of my argument that we need to separate artwork from production. It's the work - and the work alone - that needs to be judged on its own merits and not whether or not we think the producer was cool/nice/politically sane/ethical.

So what impact does this have on their art? What impact should it have?

Good in the context of art is, of course, highly subjective. I don't particularly like Rolf Harris's art, but equally I appreciate that there is - or at least was - an audience for it. The grounds for that appeal prior to his arrest, therefore remains unchanged: the paintings are exactly the same; they boast precisely the same elements of supposed delight.

These are of course, the very grounds that have me defend Roman Polanski. I thought Chinatown was a great film and it doesn't become less great because Polanski isn't a great guy. Equally, Woody Allen's September and Whatever Works are up there with my favourite films: they don't become less favourited because Allen might not be a dreamboat.

The very brilliant British-Jewish writer Howard Jacobson equally addressed the whole Wagner-being-a-Nazi thing in his anthology Whatever it is, I don't like it, managing to both appreciate the music and find the anti-Semitism problematic.

There is, however, a sticking point. Artists are flesh and blood people and so too are their fans. And while in practice fans may completely understand that the work itself is unchanged, fans look at art and listen to music with the baggage of our humanity. It's insufficient therefore, that the work hasn't changed, we have changed by virtue of our new insights into the producer.

A more-histrionic-than-usual episode involves me throwing a very lovely vase down my building's garbage chute. It kept reminding me of an ex at inconvenient junctures and that reminder become more gripping than the aesthetic pleasure. The vase wasn't any less lovely; looking at it, however, became dramatically less so.

No, I don't think galleries should rip the paintings from the walls, but equally I'd thoroughly understand a drop in prices and a market suddenly flooded with Harris pieces that no longer deliver the joys they once did.

Sure, we can keep telling ourselves the art is the same - and intellectually we might even believe it - but no amount of rhetoric will quell that cringe-factor.