Can you separate the artist from their work?
The problem with winter when the sun doesn't show itself (rare but it's been dull and rainy for quite a few days) is that my study gets very cold and my heater struggles to make an impact. We don't have central heating, this is New Zealand, land of the 'she'll be right and central heating is for wimps' but we do have a wonderful log burner which makes the living area lovely and snug. So, I decamp with Kindle and tablet to the armchair and get distracted by the rubbish hubby watches, with occasional trips into Broadchurch - excellent, all seasons of the original UK Being Human - mainly great fun and the second series of Endeavour - superb, plus a really dud Jonathan Creek despite the excellent actors including the late Rik Mayall. The result is I don't really check my LJ properly and when I do get in front of the pc I'm catching up with my ethics course, which finishes next week.
So... I'm asking you this ethics issue I presented to the course because I'm very interested in your responses.
Can you separate the artist from their work?
Rolf Harris' recent conviction for assault of young girls has begun affecting the prices of his art work (Rolf Harris art: Should owners feel guilty?) with some owners talking about burning his paintings. Rolf Harris has been reviled as a sexual predator, but does that mean that his artwork should be considered tainted and should be destroyed or removed from public view?
One commenter on a similar story about Woody Allen, who has been accused of sexual abuse by his daughter, said "I have no idea why making great art would be in any way incompatible with also being a sexual predator. The two things have nothing to do with one another."
When an artist creates a potent work of art does that art takes on a life of its own? If we enjoy the art and it gives us pleasure, joy or satisfaction for a specific moment in time or each time we read, watch, view or hear it should we 'punish' the art for its creator's wrongs?
It is proposed that art should be judged purely on its merits not on the behaviour or views of its artist
So... I'm asking you this ethics issue I presented to the course because I'm very interested in your responses.
Can you separate the artist from their work?
Rolf Harris' recent conviction for assault of young girls has begun affecting the prices of his art work (Rolf Harris art: Should owners feel guilty?) with some owners talking about burning his paintings. Rolf Harris has been reviled as a sexual predator, but does that mean that his artwork should be considered tainted and should be destroyed or removed from public view?
One commenter on a similar story about Woody Allen, who has been accused of sexual abuse by his daughter, said "I have no idea why making great art would be in any way incompatible with also being a sexual predator. The two things have nothing to do with one another."
When an artist creates a potent work of art does that art takes on a life of its own? If we enjoy the art and it gives us pleasure, joy or satisfaction for a specific moment in time or each time we read, watch, view or hear it should we 'punish' the art for its creator's wrongs?
It is proposed that art should be judged purely on its merits not on the behaviour or views of its artist