|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 29, 2020 3:01:52 GMT
A guy can be on death row for killing my family and I'd watch his movie like any other. lol I seriously doubt that
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Dec 30, 2020 20:05:09 GMT
There's been huge discussion about this dilemma in the film world (and not only). A film (or any piece of art) can be read and decrypted in various ways. One of the basic ways of reading a film (as in exploring it's thematic ideas, not only in a formalist way) is that of "Structuralism", where a film is seen as a "finished", self-contained object that is composed of various different elements (shots, montage, ect.) that relate and interact with one another and through studying those relations, the meaning of the film can be found. In this theory, outside factors (like the sociopolitical circumstances the film was made in, or the backstory of the director) are irrelevant when studying a film, the meaning can only be derived from elements found within the film itself. It's probably the most clear example of an approach were the artist is separated from the art. So, I want to give everyone a clear example of what I'm talking about and show some differences between the "structuralist" approach and other readings of a film that take into account several outside factors. So, I'm going to briefly analyze Widows (2018) by Steve McQueen. 1) The film can be read as a feminist film, as it shows several women gradually gaining power and control over their own lives and making their own life-altering decisions while facing the difficulties that society is placing in their path. This conclusion can be derived mainly by viewing the film in a structuralist way as there is nothing in Steve McQueen's previous work that gives us the assumption that he is interested in exploring feminist themes. 2) The film can be read as a Marxist film, as it quite clearly criticizes the structures of capitalism and the economic and general inequality it creates. It is clear by the film that these women are forced to crime by a series of state and societal injustices. This meaning can be derived not only by structuralist means but also by using elements of Steve McQueen's life to enhance it (he was born in a poor family and generally had economic struggles while growing up). 3) The film can also be seen as a portrayal of the struggle that people from different cultural backgrounds face while trying to fit in a society that sees them as "outcasts". Most of the main female characters in McQueen's film are from different cultural backgrounds and the struggles they are facing can be extracted from that fact. Although elements of the film that suggest this are not as clear as with the two above readings, if one takes McQueen's background into account (a Grenadian who grew up in London) this take makes as much sense as the previous ones. As one can see, a film can be read in various manners. If the viewer decides to include elements of the director's background into his analysis of the film, it just gives him more meat to chew from. So, what is everyone's opinion on this matter? Is separating the art from the artist an effective decision when analyzing a work of art, or does it limit the viewer's perspective on it? I've always said I had no problem with it, and when it comes to whether or not I can, say, watch a Polanski movie and enjoy it knowing what I know about his past, or take Tom Cruise seriously in a movie because he jumped up and down on a couch I absolutely can separate art from artist. When it comes to what you're talking about it is definitely tougher. I mean it's not exactly the same thing I don't think, but I definitely appreciate On the Waterfront a lot less than I did before I really knew much about Kazan. I still like and appreciate the movie, but it's... Delusionally self defensive on par with Griffith's Intolerance, another movie I simply cannot take seriously knowing the impetus behind the project. I mean I'm not sure in instances like this you're meant to separate art from artist as they're both clearly making thinly veiled personal statements, so it's definitely not exactly what you're talking about, but do I say watch J.C. Chandor's first couple of movies and think to myself "This guy fucking HATES capitalism"? Well... Umm... Yes.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Dec 30, 2020 20:34:34 GMT
I've always said I had no problem with it, and when it comes to whether or not I can, say, watch a Polanski movie and enjoy it knowing what I know about his past, or take Tom Cruise seriously in a movie because he jumped up and down on a couch I absolutely can separate art from artist. When it comes to what you're talking about it is definitely tougher. I mean it's not exactly the same thing I don't think, but I definitely appreciate On the Waterfront a lot less than I did before I really knew much about Kazan. I still like and appreciate the movie, but it's... Delusionally self defensive on par with Griffith's Intolerance, another movie I simply cannot take seriously knowing the impetus behind the project. I mean I'm not sure in instances like this you're meant to separate art from artist as they're both clearly making thinly veiled personal statements, so it's definitely not exactly what you're talking about, but do I say watch J.C. Chandor's first couple of movies and think to myself "This guy fucking HATES capitalism"? Well... Umm... Yes. Yeah, exactly. I mean a director (or any artist for that matter), obviously has something (ideas, views, concerns, etc.) he would like to communicate to an audience for him to make piece of art. In most cases, if he had nothing to say then, I believe, he wouldn't be bothered making anything. And the spark that motivated him to create that work isn't something that comes out of thin air, but is probably something personal (from a certain memory, incident in his life, ect.). I think that having some insight of the director's life will probably give the viewer a wider perspective of the film he is watching and make him absorb certain thematic elements from it that, otherwise, would have probably gone over his head.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2022 17:11:37 GMT
I`m guessing the majority of people on here who say they CAN separate the art from the artist are men. How about Joan Crawford? Can you see past Mommie Dearest? I'd say Faye Dunaway, with all of her alleged horrible behavior on- and off-set, is another woman who can be hard to separate her art from her persona.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 1,274
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Jul 23, 2022 17:22:59 GMT
with time, I've come to the realisation that they complement each other. For better, worse or in between.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 14, 2023 19:57:57 GMT
Cate Blanchett has shared some of her thoughts on cancel culture. The actress, who has been nominated for an Oscar for her performance as a female composer/conductor accused of sexual abuse in the film “Tár,” said in an interview with the Radio Times that its important to have a “healthy critique” of historical works of art, regardless of the artist. “If you don’t read older books that are slightly offensive because of what they say in a historical context, then you will never grapple with the minds of the time [and] we are destined to repeat that stuff,” she said. “Look at Picasso. You can only imagine what went on in, outside and around his studio,” Blanchett went on to say. “But do you look at Guernica and say that is one of the greatest works of art ever? Yes, it’s a fact. It’s important to have a healthy critique.” www.cnn.com/2023/02/14/entertainment/cate-blanchett-cancel-culture/index.html
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,391
|
Post by Film Socialism on Feb 14, 2023 20:55:41 GMT
Cate Blanchett has shared some of her thoughts on cancel culture. The actress, who has been nominated for an Oscar for her performance as a female composer/conductor accused of sexual abuse in the film “Tár,” said in an interview with the Radio Times that its important to have a “healthy critique” of historical works of art, regardless of the artist. “If you don’t read older books that are slightly offensive because of what they say in a historical context, then you will never grapple with the minds of the time [and] we are destined to repeat that stuff,” she said. “Look at Picasso. You can only imagine what went on in, outside and around his studio,” Blanchett went on to say. “But do you look at Guernica and say that is one of the greatest works of art ever? Yes, it’s a fact. It’s important to have a healthy critique.” www.cnn.com/2023/02/14/entertainment/cate-blanchett-cancel-culture/index.htmli don't know why this is always at the heart of this debate. yes, it is true that there is a non trivial amount of people who are pro-censorship that want prickly things to be removed from circulation - this is an easy target to shoot at, but it's okay to. but the response to this should not be "ignore the public and private life of every artist and separate them from their work." as an example: mark twain was not a racist for his time, and likely (if his vocabulary updated a little) wouldn't be considered a racist today by most people - something you can gather by not only consuming his art but also learning about who he was as a person. this is a large part of why his work is revered today; one can examine the artist and see that he was communicating positive ideals through his work. i just find the whole "bad people made great art" as a refutation to this analysis baffling. there are plenty of great movies with bad editing - should we separate the editing from the film as a general? well, obviously not. it's also a little difficult for me to take cate blanchett at her word here considering her relationship with woody allen, someone who is still alive and can actively profit from his work, but i suppose that's getting a little off topic.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Feb 14, 2023 21:41:29 GMT
I've never seen anyone advocate for separating the art from the artist except as a means of deflecting from said artist's bad behavior. I can understand appreciating art from a problematic artist, I think pretty much everyone does because most humans and by extension most artists are awful, but I don't understand someone just ignoring morally dubious or immoral behavior and not having it affect their experience or perspective. Just fingers in the ears pretending it doesn't exist and not examining or reckoning with it at all. Guernica doesn't cancel out Picasso's misogyny and Picasso's misogyny doesn't cancel out Guernica, but he's also not alive to profit from his work or see it boost his influence & success which also matters because money and influence is power. It's possible to have a well-rounded understanding and/or appreciation of his work within its historical and social context without actively choosing to not acknowledge his behavior which is at best a stultifying way to approach art because artist's draw from what they know, and at worst reactionary cynicism.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 14, 2023 21:44:23 GMT
Cate Blanchett has shared some of her thoughts on cancel culture. The actress, who has been nominated for an Oscar for her performance as a female composer/conductor accused of sexual abuse in the film “Tár,” said in an interview with the Radio Times that its important to have a “healthy critique” of historical works of art, regardless of the artist. “If you don’t read older books that are slightly offensive because of what they say in a historical context, then you will never grapple with the minds of the time [and] we are destined to repeat that stuff,” she said. “Look at Picasso. You can only imagine what went on in, outside and around his studio,” Blanchett went on to say. “But do you look at Guernica and say that is one of the greatest works of art ever? Yes, it’s a fact. It’s important to have a healthy critique.” www.cnn.com/2023/02/14/entertainment/cate-blanchett-cancel-culture/index.htmlmark twain was not a racist for his time, and likely (if his vocabulary updated a little) wouldn't be considered a racist today by most people - something you can gather by not only consuming his art but also learning about who he was as a person. this is a large part of why his work is revered today; one can examine the artist and see that he was communicating positive ideals through his work. Not sure why it's relevant to assess an artist we would all "mostly" agree on then (?) - relative to Blanchett's point: What about Eric Clapton say? We may not all consider him like Twain at all - but Layla is a masterpiece anyway. Somewhere in this thread we discussed this - there is a difference between "separating" and "excluding". You always separate it - or I do, I always do it - you never exclude it.......I never do that. That would be dishonest.
i just find the whole "bad people made great art" as a refutation to this analysis baffling. there are plenty of great movies with bad editing - should we separate the editing from the film as a general? well, obviously not.
Disagree - you're now introducing an element directly of the work into the discussion.
The "editing" is not the same as "an event (or several) in filmmmaker X's personal life" - there's the Art created and the Artist who created it......."editing" is the Art, created...........criticizing "editing" is like criticzing Picasso's "sloppy brush strokes"............that line of analysis is explicitly, critically rational.......that's the point of her quote after all, she's saying the Art is above reproach - in her opinion - in the case of Guernica ........not lacking in the Art as in your editing example.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,391
|
Post by Film Socialism on Feb 14, 2023 22:41:47 GMT
mark twain was not a racist for his time, and likely (if his vocabulary updated a little) wouldn't be considered a racist today by most people - something you can gather by not only consuming his art but also learning about who he was as a person. this is a large part of why his work is revered today; one can examine the artist and see that he was communicating positive ideals through his work. Not sure why it's relevant to assess an artist we would all "mostly" agree on then (?) - relative to Blanchett's point: What about Eric Clapton say? We may not all consider him like Twain at all - but Layla is a masterpiece anyway. Somewhere in this thread we discussed this - there is a difference between "separating" and "excluding". You always separate it - or I do, I always do it - you never exclude it.......I never do that. That would be dishonest.
i just find the whole "bad people made great art" as a refutation to this analysis baffling. there are plenty of great movies with bad editing - should we separate the editing from the film as a general? well, obviously not.
Disagree - you're now introducing an element directly of the work into the discussion.
The "editing" is not the same as "an event (or several) in filmmmaker X's personal life" - there's the Art created and the Artist who created it......."editing" is the Art, created...........criticizing "editing" is like criticzing Picasso's "sloppy brush strokes"............that line of analysis is explicitly, critically rational.......that's the point of her quote after all, she's saying the Art is above reproach - in her opinion - in the case of Guernica ........not lacking in the Art as in your editing example.
because with twain specifically, the counter to "we should ban mark twain from schools because his work is problematic" would be "why don't you examine who the artist was and see if his ideals were racist or if it was moreso his work existed within a racist culture." this pushes back against the """cancel culture""" line more than any "separate the art from the artist" deal because it attempts to actually engage with both the artist and the art, something people should generally be doing when evaluating either. for clapton, on a popular level, there are plenty of people who dislike him because they personally find him to be a bad person and thus either do not listen to his music, or find it distasteful due to its irony (romance songs from a racist guy). that's something that is a pretty normal human reaction to have, and i don't think it's necessarily dangerous or something that should change on a wide scale. of course, it's entirely possible for someone to think clapton is a bad person but that Layla is a great song(/album? idr) - that person does not need to separate the two when discussing either. as an immediate example: someone could find Layla to be a masterpiece, but be against clapton's presence in the rock and roll hall of fame, as it would be directly benefiting a living person they find repugnant, and there are no shortage of alternatives who belong there. the reason i call to mind "editing" or "sound design" or other things that are directly a part of the work is not to suggest that these things are intrinsically the same thing as the artist's personal life, it's to say that there can be something bad in a good movie but nobody would argue to separate them arbitrarily. this could also be something having, say, poor distribution, incomplete subtitles, damage to a film reel etc - things that are out of the control of the director who made the film, which would definitely impact the way that people see the film and that nobody in their right mind would separate from discussion.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 14, 2023 23:11:48 GMT
but be against clapton's presence in the rock and roll hall of fame, as it would be directly benefiting a living person they find repugnant, and there are no shortage of alternatives who belong there. ^ This is how differently we see this subject: * My favorite director - director of my favorite film - is a convicted (in absentia) rapist - and if his new film played in the US - I would gladly pay to see it multiple times in a theater. Same goes for Woody Allen....... * My favorite musical artist maybe - The Rolling Stones (allegedly) - explicitly put the accusations against them for sexism and toxic behavior towards women into their Art and I don't care - it's great Art - they created great, sexist Art - Under My Thumb, Back Street Girl, Stray Cat Blues, Brown Sugar, etc. - I have given them a small fortune in purchasing albums with those songs ........and many other things.......... * Louis CK's one of my favorite comics ........wouldn't hesitate to make him richer Could it happen for me (see above, bold)? Sure if I was a fan of R. Kelly, Michael Jackson (allegedly), Lostprophets are gross & maybe I would feel that way................. but I judged their Art first and I think I could review their music right now.......... as music and that's it ..... I totally get Blanchett's point .......agree with her POV .......when I'm looking at a Picasso........I'm admiring his Art ......
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,720
Likes: 2,134
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 14, 2023 23:33:01 GMT
Caravaggio killed a man.
Not an artist, but Einstein abandoned his disabled child, making his first wife (a well respected physician) leave her job to take care of him.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 17, 2023 4:31:31 GMT
JK Rowling and Bill Cosby. I would say OJ Simpson, but he would be a football player.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Feb 17, 2023 4:54:32 GMT
Tbf there would be nothing to watch/read/listen to if we weren't to separate the art from the artist. Almost every artist is an asshole/creep/rapist/terrible parent/cheater etc. etc. etc. Just pirate the movies/shows/books/music if you don't want to support them with your money lol.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Feb 17, 2023 6:01:42 GMT
Tbf there would be nothing to watch/read/listen to if we were to separate the art from the artist. Almost every artist is an asshole/creep/rapist/terrible parent/cheater etc. etc. etc. Just pirate the movies/shows/books/music if you don't want to support them with your money lol. By God, you're one cynical motherfucker.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Feb 17, 2023 6:11:24 GMT
Tbf there would be nothing to watch/read/listen to if we were to separate the art from the artist. Almost every artist is an asshole/creep/rapist/terrible parent/cheater etc. etc. etc. Just pirate the movies/shows/books/music if you don't want to support them with your money lol. Cheating sucks, but idk about lumping a cheater in next to a rapist or a terrible parent.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Feb 17, 2023 6:13:38 GMT
I feel like we’ve kind of mangled that phrase now. Tracing it back to its roots, the death of the author theory, it’s the idea of differentiating what was presented as part of the text, and severing it from the artist’s authorial intent, or at least what *we* deem as the authorial intent. In other words, our interpretation of the story, its morals and idealism, may be in complete opposition to what the author themselves intended. But they’ve put that story out, they don’t necessarily get to call the shots anymore as to what *they* intended, because now the observer gets to interpret what the text is trying to say, and even that may be biased due to their own personal experiences.
But, as for consuming art made or collaborated by horrible people… That’s the tricker tightrope. Admittedly, that’s a can of worms all on its own, as our daily lives are surrounded by corporate monopolies who’ve integrated into our lives, even though their actions and practices are awful.
And yeah, actors and storytellers are no less of a discussion all their own. Not a movie, but the whole discourse around Hogwarts Legacy has been a minefield, with various arguments and moral lines over the game’s prickly history and intentions, and funding J.K. Rowling despite her hideous stances.
That’s easy enough, just don’t buy the game, but even then Rowling certainly isn’t the only bad egg. Even now knowing some awful people who’ve had the curtain lifted on their deeds, a lot of those older movies I watched still have an impact on me. Kevin Spacey was a psychopath, and my stomach churns when I think of the things we was accused of, but I still pop Se7en and Baby Driver in every now and then. On the other hand, I’ve probably only seen two of Polanski’s movies, and I honestly won’t have any inclination to see his others for the rest of his life.
So… I don’t really know how to settle my thoughts on this topic. Because I get it. I get people wanting to look beyond the personal details, and just accept the art as it’s own entity. I don’t think any work of art is more important than a person’s life (I’ve always hated when people say they needed to ”suffer for their art”), but I get that some things are so engrained, and have such an effect on people, it’s hard to completely push them away. To paraphrase Lindsay Ellis, “I don’t really have an argument against it except, well, that’s adulthood.”
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Feb 18, 2023 12:17:48 GMT
I actually had a friend tell me that I should not watch any Miramax films due to Harvey Weinstein. I said, I'm sorry. I'm going to have to continue my annual viewing of Pulp Fiction... I would complain that it was suspect when I would see a lot of picking and choosing in regards to separating the art from the artist for this person but not for that one. Ultimately, every situation is left to the individual's discretion and that's that. Because if I do a better job than the next person at compartmentalizing, I can't judge them too harshly if they are unable to do that. When someone is distracted by what they know about a person while listening to their music or watching their film, that's a visceral reaction that they can't help, really. Think about it, people often have a hard time "separating the art from the artist" just by seeing an overexposed celebrity in a movie role. And their only crime could be not keeping their lives private and courting the blogs/paparazzi. So I've become less judgmental of the people who judge me.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Feb 18, 2023 17:15:16 GMT
I feel like we’ve kind of mangled that phrase now. Tracing it back to its roots, the death of the author theory, it’s the idea of differentiating what was presented as part of the text, and severing it from the artist’s authorial intent, or at least what *we* deem as the authorial intent. In other words, our interpretation of the story, its morals and idealism, may be in complete opposition to what the author themselves intended. But they’ve put that story out, they don’t necessarily get to call the shots anymore as to what *they* intended, because now the observer gets to interpret what the text is trying to say, and even that may be biased due to their own personal experiences. How is that "mangling" the phrase? If authorial intent is irrelevant, then why does the artist's behavior in life matter either? The art is just "out in the world" as a thing in and of itself. So much of the postmodern brigade just throws that to the wayside to engage in their favorite sport of morally condemning people and things. I wouldn't actually agree with that perspective in that I think authorial intent matters, although I still think you should look at the work rather than the person. Like, The Pianist has nothing to do with raping kids so I'm not going to condemn the movie just because Polanski directed it. Then there's actors where it's even less relevant. Are you going to boycott movies with a DP or costume designer who's a bad person? Actors shouldn't be a different standard just because they're more visible, they're ultimately crew members like anyone else, not the writer or director. J.K. Rowling is just way out of place here too when most of the examples are people like Weinstein, Polanski, MJ (allegedly) or on the next rung down people like Louis C.K. and classic rock stars having sex with underage girls.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Feb 18, 2023 18:13:06 GMT
J.K. Rowling is just way out of place here too when most of the examples are people like Weinstein, Polanski, MJ (allegedly) or on the next rung down people like Louis C.K. and classic rock stars having sex with underage girls. She's a TERF who's publicly elevated people who are violently transphobic at a time when transkids have an 82% suicide ideation rate and 40% suicide attempt rate and when red states are stepping on the necks of trans-youth and their parents which will worsen those rates. Her transphobia is more dangerous than ever. Not out of place to include her at all.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Feb 18, 2023 20:10:45 GMT
How is that "mangling" the phrase? If authorial intent is irrelevant, then why does the artist's behavior in life matter either? The art is just "out in the world" as a thing in and of itself. So much of the postmodern brigade just throws that to the wayside to engage in their favorite sport of morally condemning people and things. But that’s not really what the base phrase goes back to. It’s a phrase that was more to do with written text, how the authors no longer have a say in what people interpret out of their works, and it’s a phrase that kind of got merged to film as well. But as far as how the phrase was meant to be taken, ironically to its own base lesson, it kind of got interpreted to have a second meaning: “How can I enjoy something without thinking of the horrible things an artist did?” And I get it. Honestly, if I held myself to that same standard, how much of my own stuff would I have to stop watching? How many of my own favorite movies would I have to give up to feel guiltless? Hell, my favorite movie of all time has a sex offender in its cast. Even knowing the horrible things that people can do (whether it’s someone at the top or in the background), I understand putting it aside to judge the work as a work. I know Lasseter (allegedly) did very uncomfortable things to people, but I was still willing to give Luck a shot as its own film. For the most part, I am pretty relaxed on just judging the work as a work, and not letting the artist’s acts speak for the film itself. Even if I have my limits, as American Beauty is all the more uncomfortable knowing Spacey’s history. Also, I just didn’t gravitate to Polanski as a filmmaker growing up, so it’s more about me being apathetically inclined to watch his movies, and less because I feel like his history will cloud them for me. I don’t really have an argument against it. It’s just a tricky balance of staying mindful of it, while also giving the work a fair shake distanced from it. Even setting aside her odious anti-trans stances, and the fact that she keeps doubling down and taking success of the series as support for her views (when it’s really more because Potter is so ingrained in our culture, it’s bound to sell based on nostalgia), even if I am still fond of the series, looking back at some of the stuff that was in the text hasn’t really aged well. Even before the discourse, I always found it off that Cho Chang’s name was just two Asian surnames stitched together.
|
|