*xenu saves*

[rjwhite]

Have any of you read the New Yorker piece about Paul Haggis and his dropping out of Scientology after 30+years?

It's very interesting reading and I was constantly struck by how bizarre it was to me that people could get into this and not find it strange at all.

Then, I started thinking about their cultivation (or, should I say- cult-ivation? HAR) of

Comments

[pookieman]

Short answer: I think the art should speak for itself.
Less short: You don't want to find yourself getting too wrapped up in the notion that perhaps that facet of the artist you can't get behind was instrumental in the creation of the art you admire. That line of thinking can potentially lead to you missing something truly outstanding because of the stigma you've placed on the producer of that something.
I've kind of wrestled with the same issue- when some celebrity is misbehaving in the news but they have a film or album or whatever coming out soon... do I support their behavior by supplementing their income, or do I take some kind of high road by denying myself a potentially rewarding experience. I'm pretty damn selfish, so I'll reward myself more often than not.
I suppose, like a light bit of ridiculous entertainment you're called upon to suspend your disbelief in order to really enjoy an otherwise silly bit of fluff you might need to suspend you belief that the person (genius?) who came up with this music/picture/film/etc. that you really enjoy can actually believe in something you find ridiculous. Despite (or maybe even because of) their "out-there" beliefs, the art exists...
Done rambling I think.