If the art doesn't explicitly (or implicitly) condone the artist's wrongdoing, I view it as a separate entity, the same way I try to view ideas and arguments as separate from those who advance them (ad hominem). Everybody's flawed and I believe that even the more severely flawed of us can do admirable things. That's why I don't agree with the whole witch-burning going on today with people such as John A. MacDonald—sure, he might have done some unsavoury things when held up to current moral standards, but you can still admire his legacy without condoning every aspect of his life. There's no inconsistency in celebrating the good aspects of a person while condemning the bad ones, in my opinion.

this could be naive to think, but i wonder if a person's past experiences and how they relate to what a person does affects their ability to ignore it. for example, as someone who has never been the victim of a racist attack, I can ignore Varg Vikernes bizarre political ideologies and laugh them off. or - i can look at what Louis CK did and reason that while it's gross it "isn't that bad" because i've never been the victim of something like that.

i don't think there's anything wrong with separating, or conflating the art and the artist. i've just personally never had a problem overcoming awful people who've done awful things to enjoy great art.

i can definitely say that during my high school years there were times where my actions probably overstepped the boundaries of what is and isn't okay in terms of making advances. as it was typically with girls i either already knew or was aware that they were interested in me, i don't believe i ever made them uncomfortable or pressured. however, there was one time where i was undoubtedly out of line with my actions with one person, and it still makes me feel sick to this day. it wasn't anything close to what any of the recently accused individuals have done, and i'm still very good friends with her, but it bothers me a lot that it happened, no matter how many times she has told me it was fine.

Yes, brother. The man won't allow us to make statements of substance. Deep.

Damn, I didn't edit it quickly enough. Oh well. I don't really understand your reply to it though.

Having Substance in the content of what you say is now Illegal because the Man doesn't want us to have any Freedom.

I mean, to use the Lostprophets as an example of trying to separate the art from the artist, no matter how I think about it rationally, there's a voice that shouts "That guy raped a baby!" every time I think their name.

the new Roman Polanski accusations are really hard for me to stomach. i had wrote off his past as a 1 time very upsetting and disgusting mistake. but because of this i just feel kinda betrayed for letting myself think that he was better than anyone else who has done things like that.

ross_and_chandler_waiting_for_joey_to_undertsand_t he_situation.gif