You're viewing a single thread.
Sorry, but fuck Bill Maher. He's a fucking groomer.
(That article doesn't include the part where one of the little girls tells Maher that Sofia Vergara's character's husband is much older than her and he says to them, "nothing wrong with that.")
Do you believe in separating the art from the artist?
When did this become about art? I'm not seeing any art here.
It's not. I just asked if you believed in the concept. Let's say you really liked a painting, then found out the painter was a murderer.
Do you still like the painting?
If it were me, the answer is yes. Similarly, I think Bill Maher is an idiot, but I like the analogy.
Do I still like the painting? Maybe. Do I ever want to see it or another painting from that painter again? Maybe not. In the case of murder, the circumstances would be relevant. In the case of grooming children, the circumstances are not relevant. There are no extenuating circumstances which makes grooming children acceptable.
If John Wayne Gacy painted the most beautiful clown paintings ever, I still wouldn't be interested in looking at them, just like I'm not interested in watching Woody Allen or Roman Polanski films.
Fair enough, just curious. I would love to see a beautiful clown painting though because I sure as hell can't imagine it.
He was the most horrific painter I could think of outside of Hitler, which I felt was too on-the-nose. But ignore him and focus on Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, both legitimately excellent filmmakers, neither of whom I will ever watch a film from again. Even if I've seen it before. Chinatown and Annie Hall are both amazing films which I will never be watching again.
My only problem with this stance is, if you can't separate the "art from the artist" I feel that life becomes less enjoyable. Dig deep enough and most people aren't great. So does it become our responsibility to know if anyone we like has done something bad? Or is it only when we're made aware, because feigning ignorance is an easy way to avoid that.
IMO a person and what they create are different. I don't think Michael Jackson's music was bad just because he was a bad person. I don't think you should give them money and support those bad people of course! But if I had a CD and said "I'm never listening to this again" I feel like I'm robbing myself, I'm not really changing anything for the better.
Anyways, just my take, very open and respecting of not wanting to engage with it at all though.
I can sometimes separate the art from the artist. Roald Dahl was a massive antisemite, but I still think he was a terrific writer. He also didn't actually hurt anyone with his antisemitism, he was just a bigoted asshole.
In the case of Woody Allen, Roman Polanski and even Bill Maher now that I know he grooms kids, I can't do that. And honestly, I can't listen to Michael Jackson anymore either.
Maybe it's because I'm a parent, but I cannot think about any of those people without thinking about children coming to harm. That makes life less enjoyable when I pay attention to them. Meanwhile, there are countless other artists to enjoy who are also terrific. Far more than I ever have time to give my attention to. So why give my attention to them?
A clock that's only right twice a day is a shitty clock.