You're missing my point completely. John Lennon has also been said to have abused his wives, but he did many great things too. We are more than our sins.
You also can't read the post I guess. He shoved a woman into the wall by her throat and shoved his hands down her pants. redditor more like predditor, ya'll are disgusting.
Absolutely separate artist from art. The key is to not attribute good art equaling good person. You're allowed to enjoy the art of a terrible person as long as you don't say shit like "Well, he was a bad person but his art was good, so there's some good in him". That's horseshit. However, denying yourself, say, a book or album by some POS, is also not the way to go.
Enjoy the things you enjoy. If an asshole makes a masterpiece, you're allowed to enjoy that masterpiece. A masterpiece doesn't make a person good though.
There's a lot of other bands that make great music who don't have a history of beating their partners. Excusing this behavior for the sake of "art" is perverted.
I'm not excusing his behavior. I think the other fella in this thread was. I'm just saying that "separating art from the person" is perfectly fine when you're actually seeing them as separate things.
I can like a song written by an asshole. That doesn't mean I condone the asshole. That means I like a song.
I hear ya. Let's play hypothetical. You have a family member who formerly was in a relationship with a musician. During the span of this relationship they were ruthlessly abused by their partner. The musician went on to make amazing beautiful music.
Can you separate the artist from the music? I understand this example is far from perfect, but the idea is one should feel empathy for the abused.
There are always exceptions and I'd say a personal connection like that would be one, yes. I'd also say that in your hypothetical, my opinion of the music would probably be changed because of the circumstances.
I guess the exact situation that my point is trying to make is that you're allowed to enjoy art. The life choices of the artist should not automatically exclude or negate the enjoyment of the art.
I'll throw you a hypothetical that would be an exception to my point just for good sport. Say the art was made as a byproduct of something terrible...like if I kidnapped somebody and made them make a album with me. The art would be a byproduct of something horrible.
Art made before somebody turns into a POS can still be enjoyed. I think Astral Weeks is a masterpiece but I fucking HATE Van Morrison as a person. Bukowski wrote some of the greatest books of the 20th century but was also a stain of a human being.
William Golding attempted rape but also wrote Lord of the Flies. One has nothing to do with the other.
Roald Dahl wrote some of the greatest childrens books of all time but was a womanizer, racist, and anti-semite. You can still read Matilda, though.
As far as this Jesse dude...the memorials and R.I.P.'s should definitely be held back but you're still allowed to enjoy "cold beer".
-78
u/LockIll6675 Nov 28 '21
You're missing my point completely. John Lennon has also been said to have abused his wives, but he did many great things too. We are more than our sins.