gunsmoke on 20/6/2011 at 23:14
Sorry, deth, but some of the greatest works of art, be they written, painted, filmed, sang, whatever, has been created by seriously disturbed people. Won't stop the art from touching people or keep me from appreciating it.
june gloom on 20/6/2011 at 23:30
Hahaha, I say I won't support a guy who is a CONVICTED CHILD RAPIST and I'm an asshole who hates art. Welcome to TTLG.
Trance on 21/6/2011 at 01:30
Dethtoll, nobody's making the argument that because horrible people made great things it canceled out their horribleness (which was what your main argument concerned from what I gather). They're making sure it's understood that the art and the people who make it should be judged separately (so that in the same sense that an asshole who makes great art isn't any less of an asshole, great art made by an asshole isn't any less great). It's perfectly fine for Earthworm Jim to be shit on its own, but what isn't so fine is if Earthworm Jim were actually good, and deemed shit on the basis that its creator is a christard fuckwit. It's similar to an argumentum ad hominem -- declaring one's argument invalid due to the character of the author.
So quit getting all victim complex about the situation just because people are exploring both sides of the argument. They're not attacking you unless your stance actually is that art should be judged according to those who make it.
doctorfrog on 21/6/2011 at 02:44
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Hahaha, I say I won't support a guy who is a CONVICTED CHILD RAPIST and I'm an asshole who hates art. Welcome to TTLG.
no, you're just the first part of that. And no one labeled you as that, you're just an asshole if you say no one else should enjoy something you're uncomfortable with.
It's ok for you to refuse to partake in the creation of someone who did something abhorrent to you, but it's gonna have to be alright if someone wants to do something different. I get real uncomfortable when I encounter Stalin in Civ 4, but for some reason he's ok, though Hitler is not. I don't have to make a stink about it, though, if other people disagree with it.
Also, we're all in positions where we enjoy things that were created on the behalf of others' suffering. We could all be indicted by someone else just for living our lives, just wait until our grandkids grow up and learn a little history about war and oil and shit like that.
Yakoob on 21/6/2011 at 03:05
Quote Posted by dethtoll
...we should just ignore the fact that an artist's actions and beliefs color their own work?
Yeah I really hated how every 10 minutes in the Panist we'd just get all those random inserts of child rape. Or how in Rosemary's Baby, the first thing the girl does after giving birth to her child is rape it :nono:
Seriously dethtoll, wtf are you on.
Quote:
The problem with the concept of 'separating the art from the artist' is that it often ignores and perpetuates a problem.
What problem? Yeah, the guy who makes a beautiful statue is a sick fuck. But it's still a beautiful statue. Lock him in a jail for murdering half of the Los Angeles population. His statue is still beautiful.
Separating art from the artist is not some moral high horse or ethical dillema. It's a fucking
choice. Go to your local blockbuster, pick a random movie you NEVER heard of and skip the credits. Congratulations you just separated art from the artist
in your experience of it! Art is subjective, right? Or is even art completely objective ruled by hard and immutable ethical and moral standards in dethoworld?
Quote:
Why should I support these awful people?
Appreciating art =/= supporting artist. Once an artist is done making the art, it's separate, you can acknowledge one without the other. Don't want to support Polanski? THEN DONT PAY TO SEE HIS MOVIES. Torrent them instead. You'll be surprised how good they can be.
Also on a side note, way to completely 1-dimensionalize people. I know you'll call me a bigot, but people are complex beings with many different sides to them. Some are great musicians who can also ride a bicycle really well. Others are brilliant painters with a tons of psychological issues and an inclination towards cutting their own ear off (hi Van Gogh). And in this case, being a child molester and a good filmmaker are not mutually exclusive. If you want to be stubborn and refuse to even watch Polanski stuff, fine its your choice; but at least admit the fact the movies may actually be good in and of themselves.
If you dig deep enough Im sure youll find most artist had a much more socially unacceptable side to them. There's someone out there who thrown upon what you do to. Or TL;DR - deth you are a pedantic faggot and yet we still read your posts.
Aerothorn on 21/6/2011 at 03:18
Honestly, I think dethtoll's just trolling on this one. I think he's usually sincere in his hyperbole as far as things go, but given that he erected a one-sentence straw man instead of actually replying to my post, it seems clear that he's more interested in fueling the fire than actually exploring the issue.
june gloom on 21/6/2011 at 04:08
My replies have been short because I've been busy at work, but at this point, now that I am home, I don't feel like going further anyway, because clearly you lot are happy to defend bigots and child rapists in the name of art, and who am I to stop you?
Fucking hipsters.
Renzatic on 21/6/2011 at 04:28
Deth. It's a rare thing, but you've managed to earn one of your own airplanes.
Since I'm in too lazy a mood to look one up, I'm instead going to do things the ASCII way.
...brptbrptbrptbrpt...chuk...chuk....verrrooooooooo...
/ \
/ \
/ \
==O==
0
/ | \
/\
olol, it's a biplane. Which I chose because Doug TenNaple would probably have issues with it.
...and well fuck. So much for my scathing rebuttal. I can't even get my ASCII dude to align properly. Oh well. Enough's there for you to get the jist of it.
Aerothorn on 21/6/2011 at 05:13
I'm so very confused as to where hipsters enter the equation.
Renzatic on 21/6/2011 at 05:15
And now you know why I didn't come to your birthday party.
...and a ninja editor, to boot. You have no shame.
