Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Culture Forum

Culture Forum

  1. 21 May '13 21:44
    If an artist lived a life that his readers / listeners / spectators consider immoral, should this affect their response to his or her art?
  2. 22 May '13 03:13
    Only to the extent of the type/kind of immorality. Hitler was an aspiring artist and in effect his paintings and other art works seem to sell for some ungodly reason. There are myriad artists who most people don't know were hugely immoral such as Vivaldi, a child molester, Cellini, a rapist, womanizer and murderer, many R&R molesters, druggies, frauds. It is impossible to keep up with all of these miscreants. I don't know how these artists' behaviors affected their art or if it should affect our enjoyment of their art. Flip side is should an artist's morality on the virtuous side make us enjoy that art any better? In the end it boils down to quality. Beethoven was morose, a misanthrope, defrauded many by selling his works to several buyers at once making them think they were buying exclusive rights, yet none of us would give up our Ludwig fix because of it, so high is his sublime art. Quite easy to shun mediocrities. Lots harder to give up a Wagner than a Salieri(no false Amadeus movie accusations notwithstanding). As we all know Wagner is considered by many a proto-Nazi and de facto father of Nazism with scant evidence to support such views. In the end I would never want to own, look at or touch anything Hitler touched. Few artists are as virtuous as Michelangelo Buonarroti as few are as evil as Cellini or Hitler.
  3. 22 May '13 12:19
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    If an artist lived a life that his readers / listeners / spectators consider immoral, should this affect their response to his or her art?
    ooooh, bloody good question. i would say it depends on the the type of art, the message it gives and the level of immorality from the artist.

    ayn rand was politically immoral (imho) but i dont think people should not read her book as we need to read extreme views to broaden our own horizons. if we shut ourselves away from art and artists that challenge us then things can become stagnant.

    if the artist is immoral but they do not reflect this in their art then i think its okay to admire the work for its technical skill but if the artist is extremely immoral then i wouldnt buy their work as i wouldnt want to give my money to support them.

    the medium matters as well. its easy with a painting to remove the artist from your mind and just look at the work. but with something like music, it feels more personal, i would struggle to listen to musicians that i thought were immoral.
  4. 22 May '13 15:29
    No.
  5. 22 May '13 20:11
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    If an artist lived a life that his readers / listeners / spectators consider immoral, should this affect their response to his or her art?
    yes - if they are fascists i could not give a monkeys what they produce

    i think some artists - singers i notice have questionable if not bad morals but i think artists can be just a bit mad (bjork) thats fine but being nasty trashes the art for me - makes it inconsiquential - i don't want to get inside there mind.
  6. 23 May '13 09:24
    Originally posted by e4chris
    yes - if they are fascists i could not give a monkeys what they produce

    i think some artists - singers i notice have questionable if not bad morals but i think artists can be just a bit mad (bjork) thats fine but being nasty trashes the art for me - makes it inconsiquential - i don't want to get inside there mind.
    woody allen, roman polanski? do you watch their movies? they both have very questionable morals.
  7. 23 May '13 11:35
    I refuse to watch Woody Allen or Polanski under any circumstances, but it also boils down to their art along with their dubious morals. I have never considered either one a terribly good filmmaker.
  8. 23 May '13 12:06
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    I refuse to watch Woody Allen or Polanski under any circumstances, but it also boils down to their art along with their dubious morals. I have never considered either one a terribly good filmmaker.
    i would agree about their films. although 'carnage' by polanski was very good.

    mel gibson, his morality has effected his popularity in a big way. yet somebody like mike tyson still remains popular despite being convicted for rape. its strange how society punishes some, but not others.
  9. 23 May '13 13:20
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    No.
    Another no here.
  10. 23 May '13 16:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by e4chris
    yes - if they are fascists i could not give a monkeys what they produce. Being nasty trashes the art for me - makes it inconsequential - i don't want to get inside their mind.
    But what if their fascism was not apparent in their art? What if the morality / politics of their art was, in fact, more admirable than the morality / politics they displayed in person?
  11. 24 May '13 00:21
    It never is the moral undertones of whatever the artwork may be. It could be a virtuous piece by a virtuous artist and also be mediocre and not anywhere being a masterwork. Conversely, a less virtuous artist like Wagner created Parsifal, a wondrous work of art, a testament to the ideal of redemption and renewal of humanity through simplicity and abnegation, abandoning material pursuit, equality through forgiveness. A religious work without being preachy or off-putting. Who could listen to Parsifal and not be transfixed and forget about who created it?
  12. Standard member Grampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    24 May '13 05:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo

    Only to the extent of the type/kind of immorality. Hitler was an aspiring artist and in effect his paintings and other art works seem to sell for some ungodly reason. There are myriad artists who most people don't know were hugely immoral such as Vivaldi, a child molester, Cellini, a rapist, womanizer and murderer, many R&R molesters, druggies, frauds. I Few artists are as virtuous as Michelangelo Buonarroti as few are as evil as Cellini or Hitler.
    Quite an unexpected revelation of familiar names (even Hitler's interest in art). Thank you.
  13. 24 May '13 11:32
    There are those who speculate perhaps Hitler would never have become the awful genocidal dictator had he been accepted at the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts where he failed the entrance exam. Reality is Hitler was mediocre in everything he did except prevaricate and mislead. What mystifies me is that anyone would want a Hitler painting/watercolor. I would not want anything touched by those murderous hands near me. I would hear the moans of the 11 million killed by this maniac in the concentration camps and the untold millions in combat and collateral damage.
  14. 25 May '13 08:51
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    There are those who speculate perhaps Hitler would never have become the awful genocidal dictator had he been accepted at the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts where he failed the entrance exam. Reality is Hitler was mediocre in everything he did except prevaricate and mislead. What mystifies me is that anyone would want a Hitler painting/watercolor. I would ...[text shortened]... this maniac in the concentration camps and the untold millions in combat and collateral damage.
    John J. Reilly once speculated that Hitler would have been best suited to being a stage set designer; this, unlikely painting, was something to which he'd have been eminently suited.

    I don't understand why anyone would want a Hitler watercolour either.

    However, the relevance of this example is diminished by the fact that Hitler was not, in fact, a distinguished artist. Are there any great artists who not only had reprehensible opinions but also real blood on their hands?
  15. 25 May '13 12:59 / 1 edit
    Benvenuto Cellini was a serial killer, rapist, womanizer. His art is sublime, can never be overlooked and is still prized/valued at enormous $ relative to its intrinsic value. I doubt any of us would not want to own a Cellini. Cellini raped women, young boys, indiscriminately and in many countries. At least four murders are ascribed to Cellini. He killed rival goldsmiths, women, enemies or avenged himself in evil manners. His proclivities were well known and Cellini took great umbrage at being called out publicly for his evil such as the following public statement before Duke Cosimo in Florence: Towards the end of his life during a public altercation before Duke Cosimo, Bandinelli had called out to him Sta cheto, soddomitaccio! (Shut up, you filthy sodomite!) Cellini described this as an "atrocious insult" I wonder if Bandinelli survived this very public insult exposing him for only the least of his many evils.

    Another one is Caravaggio. I would never say no to a Caravaggio to hang on my wall. Caravaggio was known for his fiery temper, murderous intent on many occasions and womanizing. He died an early death after someone tired of his antics, dying as violently as he lived.
    http://blog.europeana.eu/2012/09/caravaggio-a-murderous-artist/