Talent, genius, and flawed individuals - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

StanT · 10-01-2009, 09:22 AM

Roman Polanski is in the news this week. John Phillips was last week. How do you mentally segregate talent from dubious acts?

Are California Dreamin' and Monday Monday less appealing than they were a month ago?

Are Polanski's movies affected by his flee from sentencing?

Taking it back a few generations.

Is a Van Gogh any less of a masterpiece knowing that the artist is insane?

Are Jefferson's writings tainted by the fact that he was sleeping with his slave?

Where do we draw the line?

SecretMethod70 · 10-01-2009, 09:41 AM

I wouldn't lump Jefferson in that crowd: the slavery issue is one of cultural differences to a certain extent, and it's worth noting that he had a very good relationship with his slave, he was not some abusive rapist like many other slave owners.

Anyway, I really have no problem separating the personal issues from the creative output. In fact, I kind of view them as given. Maybe it's because I'm a creative-type, and I know a lot of creative-types, but everyone has their issues, and the bigger the genius, the bigger the issues that are likely present.

FuglyStick · 10-01-2009, 09:42 AM

Yeah, I'm not a real believer that the amount of "freakdom" a person practices is in direct proportion to their level of "talent." Too often, especially among the young and naive, "freak" behavior is supposed to be the sign of a brilliant, tortured soul; yer just a fuck up in my book. That's not to say a wacko can't also be a genius, but it ain't validation either.

GreyWolf · 10-01-2009, 09:43 AM

I have no trouble at all with the concept of separating the works of an individual from their actions. A work of art stands on its own, although being imperfect, I'll admit that my feelings about a person as a human being may colour my attitude.

One of my favourite lines, originally I believe from the television series Northern Exposure, but paraphrased by a friend who is a judge, speaking of his job: "I'm not judging the person... I'm judging their actions." Polanski did, and maybe Phillips did (if we believe the undocumented claims in her book) commit horrendous acts. Polanski should pay for those actions, regardless of the skill and talent he showed in other areas. Phillips is beyond our reach.

One reason I'm not a judge like my friend is that my imperfection doesn't let me separate SOME actions from the person. Polanski is a disgusting animal, and should pay dearly for his crime, in my judgment.

SecretMethod70 · 10-01-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FuglyStick

Yeah, I'm not a real believer that the amount of "freakdom" a person practices is in direct proportion to their level of "talent." Too often, especially among the young and naive, "freak" behavior is supposed to be the sign of a brilliant, tortured soul; yer just a fuck up in my book. That's not to say a wacko can't also be a genius, but it ain't validation either.

Oh I'm not saying "freakdom" = talent, just talent often = "freakdom." If the talent isn't there, then the talent just isn't there: some people are just freaks. But often, the thinking outside the box that comes with talent, and especially genius, is rooted in some personal issues. Or, in some cases, it helps cause and exacerbate personal issues (see: Michael Jackson). I see no reason to deny good creative work simply because the creator is seriously flawed. A good painting is still a good painting, a good book is still a good book, and a good performance is still a good performance.

StanT · 10-01-2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

I wouldn't lump Jefferson in that crowd: the slavery issue is one of cultural differences to a certain extent, and it's worth noting that he had a very good relationship with his slave, he was not some abusive rapist like many other slave owners.

I disagree, writing "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" while you not only own a slave; but you are sleeping with her goes way beyond hypocrisy. Since a slave can't inherently refuse, it isn't much different than rape.

In any case, I have no problem separating Jefferson's work from his faults. I'm not a big fan of Polanski; but it has nothing to do with skipping the country to avoid sentencing. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Bill Clinton; but blow jobs in the Oval Office always seemed to be his and Hillary's concern, not mine. I have a hard time understanding the attacks on Polanski and Phillip's work in the aftermath of the charges. It makes little sense to me.

The_Dunedan · 10-01-2009, 04:38 PM

The Marquis de Sade was a gifted writer, a talented wordsmith, and a master of public relations.

It doesn't change the fact that he was a vicious, sadistic, rapacious, exploitative person who probably went to his grave with dozens or hundreds of murders on his soul and God-knows how many rapes and mutilations.

inBOIL · 10-01-2009, 04:49 PM

The reason some people have talent or genius is their ability and willingness to break the boundaries of normalcy. Sometimes they break boundaries to the acclaim of others, sometimes they break boundaries to the contempt of others.

FuglyStick · 10-01-2009, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inBOIL

The reason some people have talent or genius is their ability and willingness to break the boundaries of normalcy. Sometimes they break boundaries to the acclaim of others, sometimes they break boundaries to the contempt of others.

Sorry, this sounds like an excuse for being a poor human being. I'm not buyin it.

SecretMethod70 · 10-01-2009, 06:57 PM

It's not an excuse at all. Saying that talent/genius often go hand-in-hand with abnormal behaviour is not saying that abnormal behaviour is acceptable, particularly when illegal.

Reese · 10-02-2009, 02:12 AM

Depression, suffering, drug use and mental illness are all common traits amongst creative and "great" people. It would be silly to say there's not some connection between them.

How can I judge someone for being a non-conformist when the reason I like their work is because it's non-conformist. I suck at putting what I'm actually trying to say into words. You have to take the good with the bad. It's almost a necessary evil because our definition of mentally ill is a little narrow, you can't really institutionalize every eccentric creative person because they are at higher risk of doing something out of the norm.

mixedmedia · 10-02-2009, 03:32 AM

Judging someone's creative work based on their personal actions is akin to judging a child for the behavior of their parent. Truly profound personal expression is not exactly of the individual on a base level - thus you have a man like Thomas Jefferson. Thus you have a man like Chogyam Trungpa - a brilliant Tibetan Buddhist scholar - who was also an alcoholic and a womanizer.

I have no problem with making the distinction between a person's compulsive, immoral, or offensive behavior and what really amounts to a gift to all of us in the form of art or philosophy.

GreyWolf · 10-02-2009, 03:34 AM

Genius and great talent is often a difficult burden. A study of Mensa members in New York city found a highly disproportionate number of cab drivers among their members. The explanation given was that many highly gifted people find it difficult to interact with "lesser" intelligences on a socially significant basis. They cannot cope with the effort of "thinking down" to the level of we normal mortals. They become socially withdrawn and somewhat "odd" in many cases. As a cab driver, they are able to have gainful employment, and interact with many different people each day, albeit on a merely superficial level. The variety of topics they can discuss is more stimulating to them than the focus of a daily grind, but requires no real depth of interaction.

So genius and talent is a burden. So what? So is poverty. So are physical limitations. So is political oppression. And so on and so on. Allowing the likes of Polanski, or any other great talent or mind, to excuse their failings/crimes because of that is an incredible insult and disservice to the vast majority of people suffering similar burdens who deal with it and become decent, honest, law-abiding citizens.

The efforts of the talented stand alone. Their works are what they are. Their actions also stand separate, and must be judged as their actions alone, not in reference to anything else they may have created.

FuglyStick · 10-02-2009, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreyWolf

So genius and talent is a burden. So what? So is poverty. So are physical limitations. So is political oppression. And so on and so on. Allowing the likes of Polanski, or any other great talent or mind, to excuse their failings/crimes because of that is an incredible insult and disservice to the vast majority of people suffering similar burdens who deal with it and become decent, honest, law-abiding citizens.

+1

Saying "oh, but so and so is brilliant" changes nothing. Also, there are plenty of brilliant people who manage just fine without being scumbags.

filtherton · 10-02-2009, 07:38 AM

I don't know about a link between genius and talent, I guess it's plausible. I doubt there's a link between genius and violent sexual behavior. I've never heard "He's just so smart" offered as a explanation for someone's propensity for sexual abuse. Those tendencies seem to be more rooted in emotional difficulties, and while emotional difficulties could conceivably be exacerbated by intelligence, it is just as likely that they'd be exacerbated by a lack of intelligence. Besides, intelligence is such a complex thing which could be defined in terms of any arbitrary activity.

I wouldn't begrudge someone for letting the deviant behavior of a person affect their ability to appreciate that person's work, especially in the world of pop, where so much of an artist's success can be predicated on public image. On the other hand, abhorrent behavior can't take away from the technical aspects of piece of work (unless the technical aspects rely on the perception of normal behavior). For instance, a sizable portion of the initial research into the relationships between chemical exposure and cancer was performed by the nazis; we also owe a great deal of our understanding of hypothermia to the nazis. While Michael Jackson probably was a pedophile, that doesn't take away from the fact that he could dance. Polanski might be a spoiled child rapist, it doesn't take away from the fact that he makes what many consider to be good movies.

Anormalguy · 10-02-2009, 08:44 AM

I can admire the creations of talented people, but that doesn't mean that I'm going overlook or excuse their illegal and/or immoral behavior.

Case in point: What Woody Allen did with his former step-daughter wasn't illegal, but it was certainly morally questionable. I still like his films, but not as much as I used to

.

---------------------------------------
Plus one for what FuglyStick wrote.

SecretMethod70 · 10-02-2009, 08:56 AM

I suspect there are two different discussions going on here. I don't get the impression that anyone is saying deviant behaviour should go unnoticed just because someone is talented. The OP asked where you draw the line in terms of still appreciating that person's work. I view the work as mostly separate from the individual, and while I do believe that particularly talented people are often more likely to be a little eccentric, that's no excuse for illegal behaviour. I haven't seen anyone her making excuses for Roman Polanski or anyone else, just people saying they won't let his flaws stop them from enjoying his movies.

biznatch · 10-02-2009, 09:01 AM

If the work is amazing, it doesn't matter what the creator did. I'll like the work, and respect their talent.
What they do in their personal life is none of my concern. They could be an asshole, a rapist.. it's their life, all I care about is what they make.
Obviously, what they do is like any kind of work. It doesn't excuse behavior that's illegal or unethical.
So if the question is, "should they get special treatment?" Fuck no.

No, I don't think Thriller is any less amazing even if MJ did rape a boy. The only reason I'll stop enjoying an artist's work is if stops being as good.

roachboy · 10-02-2009, 09:26 AM

genius? what is that? i think it's a romantic myth, something that speaks to an how folk like to imagine what art is or who artists are that has nothing to do with how pieces are actually made or what making things actually entails. maybe there are some folk whose ways of working correspond to that myth--i dunno. mostly i see and know about people who work over an extended period with a medium in a craftsman like way generating lots more work than anyone sees, throwing stuff out, selecting, arranging...some work that folk do is really amazing. but it doesn't drop from the sky, there is no divine inspiration. so there is no madness of making stuff, some space of immediacy in which all bets are off. and artists aren't Special People--they work in areas that the love, in ways they find engaging, and manage through various means to get their work out into the world. or someone does.

this correlation between "genius" and social deviance sits atop this romantic myth of the artist. it's a correlate, a restatement of the myth.

and people who make things need not be particularly intelligent in general. some are, some aren't, you know?

i think that if you make stuff you spend at least some of your time bending around social conventions. maybe there's a correlation between that and a tendency to imagine that social rules in general don't really apply to you. it's hard to say, but at least the idea makes sense to me.

SecretMethod70 · 10-02-2009, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i think that if you make stuff you spend at least some of your time bending around social conventions. maybe there's a correlation between that and a tendency to imagine that social rules in general don't really apply to you. it's hard to say, but at least the idea makes sense to me.

I believe that tendency is what most would refer to as social deviance

You're basically saying the same thing, just using different words.

percy · 10-02-2009, 04:45 PM

I distinguish between a persons work and their actions. I don't condone Polanski at all, but I am not going to judge his movies by his actions. Apples and oranges. And I am not going to play wannabe psychologist and subjectively try and see or think if his actions influence his work. I really don't care nor have the time.

Letterman banged some of his staff. If I am awake and he is on the tube, I will watch. That instance is personal I think, and has no bearing on me whatsoever.

But I see how some go down that road. Some years ago Jewish groups in my city tried to have Wagners Tristan and Isolde banned from the years orchestra concert schedule because of claims Wagner was an anti-semite. The way I see it, if you are offended by that, that's your business, don't go. If I go, it is about the opera, not what Wagner was or that I support his believes.

Not rocket science to me

sanity_advocate · 10-03-2009, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT

Is a Van Gogh any less of a masterpiece knowing that the artist is insane?

I'm not really sure how insanity- something a person has no choice over and may live a normal life in spite of- and a dubious act perpetrated by an adult who is fully knowledgeable of what he's doing, are in any way comparable.

I think Van Gogh's work is MORE of a masterpiece, considering the talent he was able to cultivate and harness despite the hurdles he undoubtedly had to overcome.

Strange Famous · 10-03-2009, 10:14 AM

If you use the example of someone like Eric Cantona, I think his talent and his turbulent temper were tied together... I can believe that he played the game in a different way to anyone else. His mind was slightly differently wired. He might laugh off one insult, and launch a king fu kick at another - on the pitch he could be an artist or a hooligan.

But there comes a point where - to the example of Polanski - a paedophile is simply a paedophile. There are car mechanics who are sexally degenerate and I suppose there are film directors too.

little_tippler · 10-04-2009, 05:30 AM

Though I can appreciate a great work, I have some trouble separating the person and the work. Though I can see that a work is great, if I know things about the person that I find distasteful or repugnant, I can't reconcile the fact that this person, who committed those actions, could produce such an amazing piece of work. It dampens my excitement a bit, and makes me question the work a lot more than if I don't know anything about the author. Most people in this thread seem able to separate these things, to me it depends on what exactly we're talking about. Because the fact is that when that person creates that work, the work and the actions are not entirely segregated, there are connections and they become more apparent and disturbing when one is aware of both instances.

Strange Famous · 10-04-2009, 06:37 AM

You also have to look at thins in context

Van Gogh was unuestionably a manic depressive - but he is not guilty of any outrage like that committed by Polanski

Jefferson owned slaves at a time when such things were reviled in most of the civilised world, yet it was legally permitted in his colony

THe stories coming out about the band mentioned in the first post are confused and unproven - but if true and if the father is guilty at rape, I hope they throw the book at him

Polanski has made some okay movies, and was is a paedophile.

The person who I DID feel some ambivalence about was Michael Jackson

He was clearly outrageously talented
He clearly was abused most of his young life and had hardly any chance to grow up normally
We might never know, but on balance I dont believe he was a rapist, but I do believe he was guilty of behavior with children that was morally and legally inappropriate.

I wont mourn him especially, but I also cannot condemn him totally, the brilliance of his talent is not totally denied by his crimes to me.

10-01-2009, 09:22 AM	#1 (permalink)
StanT © Location: Colorado	Talent, genius, and flawed individuals Roman Polanski is in the news this week. John Phillips was last week. How do you mentally segregate talent from dubious acts? Are California Dreamin' and Monday Monday less appealing than they were a month ago? Are Polanski's movies affected by his flee from sentencing? Taking it back a few generations. Is a Van Gogh any less of a masterpiece knowing that the artist is insane? Are Jefferson's writings tainted by the fact that he was sleeping with his slave? Where do we draw the line?

10-01-2009, 09:41 AM	#2 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	I wouldn't lump Jefferson in that crowd: the slavery issue is one of cultural differences to a certain extent, and it's worth noting that he had a very good relationship with his slave, he was not some abusive rapist like many other slave owners. Anyway, I really have no problem separating the personal issues from the creative output. In fact, I kind of view them as given. Maybe it's because I'm a creative-type, and I know a lot of creative-types, but everyone has their issues, and the bigger the genius, the bigger the issues that are likely present. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

10-01-2009, 09:42 AM	#3 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	Yeah, I'm not a real believer that the amount of "freakdom" a person practices is in direct proportion to their level of "talent." Too often, especially among the young and naive, "freak" behavior is supposed to be the sign of a brilliant, tortured soul; yer just a fuck up in my book. That's not to say a wacko can't also be a genius, but it ain't validation either. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

10-01-2009, 09:43 AM	#4 (permalink)
GreyWolf Sober Location: Eastern Canada	I have no trouble at all with the concept of separating the works of an individual from their actions. A work of art stands on its own, although being imperfect, I'll admit that my feelings about a person as a human being may colour my attitude. One of my favourite lines, originally I believe from the television series Northern Exposure, but paraphrased by a friend who is a judge, speaking of his job: "I'm not judging the person... I'm judging their actions." Polanski did, and maybe Phillips did (if we believe the undocumented claims in her book) commit horrendous acts. Polanski should pay for those actions, regardless of the skill and talent he showed in other areas. Phillips is beyond our reach. One reason I'm not a judge like my friend is that my imperfection doesn't let me separate SOME actions from the person. Polanski is a disgusting animal, and should pay dearly for his crime, in my judgment. __________________ *The secret to great marksmanship is deciding what the target was AFTER you've shot.*

10-01-2009, 04:49 PM	#8 (permalink)
inBOIL I have eaten the slaw	The reason some people have talent or genius is their ability and willingness to break the boundaries of normalcy. Sometimes they break boundaries to the acclaim of others, sometimes they break boundaries to the contempt of others. __________________ And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

10-01-2009, 04:38 PM	#7 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	The Marquis de Sade was a gifted writer, a talented wordsmith, and a master of public relations. It doesn't change the fact that he was a vicious, sadistic, rapacious, exploitative person who probably went to his grave with dozens or hundreds of murders on his soul and God-knows how many rapes and mutilations.

10-01-2009, 06:57 PM	#10 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	It's not an excuse at all. Saying that talent/genius often go hand-in-hand with abnormal behaviour is not saying that abnormal behaviour is acceptable, particularly when illegal. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

10-02-2009, 02:12 AM	#11 (permalink)
Reese Delicious	Depression, suffering, drug use and mental illness are all common traits amongst creative and "great" people. It would be silly to say there's not some connection between them. How can I judge someone for being a non-conformist when the reason I like their work is because it's non-conformist. I suck at putting what I'm actually trying to say into words. You have to take the good with the bad. It's almost a necessary evil because our definition of mentally ill is a little narrow, you can't really institutionalize every eccentric creative person because they are at higher risk of doing something out of the norm. __________________ “It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry

10-02-2009, 03:32 AM	#12 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Judging someone's creative work based on their personal actions is akin to judging a child for the behavior of their parent. Truly profound personal expression is not exactly of the individual on a base level - thus you have a man like Thomas Jefferson. Thus you have a man like Chogyam Trungpa - a brilliant Tibetan Buddhist scholar - who was also an alcoholic and a womanizer. I have no problem with making the distinction between a person's compulsive, immoral, or offensive behavior and what really amounts to a gift to all of us in the form of art or philosophy. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

10-02-2009, 03:34 AM	#13 (permalink)
GreyWolf Sober Location: Eastern Canada	Genius and great talent is often a difficult burden. A study of Mensa members in New York city found a highly disproportionate number of cab drivers among their members. The explanation given was that many highly gifted people find it difficult to interact with "lesser" intelligences on a socially significant basis. They cannot cope with the effort of "thinking down" to the level of we normal mortals. They become socially withdrawn and somewhat "odd" in many cases. As a cab driver, they are able to have gainful employment, and interact with many different people each day, albeit on a merely superficial level. The variety of topics they can discuss is more stimulating to them than the focus of a daily grind, but requires no real depth of interaction. So genius and talent is a burden. So what? So is poverty. So are physical limitations. So is political oppression. And so on and so on. Allowing the likes of Polanski, or any other great talent or mind, to excuse their failings/crimes because of that is an incredible insult and disservice to the vast majority of people suffering similar burdens who deal with it and become decent, honest, law-abiding citizens. The efforts of the talented stand alone. Their works are what they are. Their actions also stand separate, and must be judged as their actions alone, not in reference to anything else they may have created. __________________ *The secret to great marksmanship is deciding what the target was AFTER you've shot.* Last edited by GreyWolf; 10-02-2009 at 03:37 AM..

10-02-2009, 07:38 AM	#15 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I don't know about a link between genius and talent, I guess it's plausible. I doubt there's a link between genius and violent sexual behavior. I've never heard "He's just so smart" offered as a explanation for someone's propensity for sexual abuse. Those tendencies seem to be more rooted in emotional difficulties, and while emotional difficulties could conceivably be exacerbated by intelligence, it is just as likely that they'd be exacerbated by a lack of intelligence. Besides, intelligence is such a complex thing which could be defined in terms of any arbitrary activity. I wouldn't begrudge someone for letting the deviant behavior of a person affect their ability to appreciate that person's work, especially in the world of pop, where so much of an artist's success can be predicated on public image. On the other hand, abhorrent behavior can't take away from the technical aspects of piece of work (unless the technical aspects rely on the perception of normal behavior). For instance, a sizable portion of the initial research into the relationships between chemical exposure and cancer was performed by the nazis; we also owe a great deal of our understanding of hypothermia to the nazis. While Michael Jackson probably was a pedophile, that doesn't take away from the fact that he could dance. Polanski might be a spoiled child rapist, it doesn't take away from the fact that he makes what many consider to be good movies.

10-02-2009, 08:44 AM	#16 (permalink)
Anormalguy After School Special Moralist Location: Large City, Texas.	I can admire the creations of talented people, but that doesn't mean that I'm going overlook or excuse their illegal and/or immoral behavior. Case in point: What Woody Allen did with his former step-daughter wasn't illegal, but it was certainly morally questionable. I still like his films, but not as much as I used to . --------------------------------------- Plus one for what FuglyStick wrote. __________________ In a society where the individual is not free to pursue the truth...there is neither progress, stability nor security.--Edward R. Murrow

10-02-2009, 08:56 AM	#17 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	I suspect there are two different discussions going on here. I don't get the impression that anyone is saying deviant behaviour should go unnoticed just because someone is talented. The OP asked where you draw the line in terms of still appreciating that person's work. I view the work as mostly separate from the individual, and while I do believe that particularly talented people are often more likely to be a little eccentric, that's no excuse for illegal behaviour. I haven't seen anyone her making excuses for Roman Polanski or anyone else, just people saying they won't let his flaws stop them from enjoying his movies. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

10-02-2009, 09:01 AM	#18 (permalink)
biznatch Junkie Location: France	If the work is amazing, it doesn't matter what the creator did. I'll like the work, and respect their talent. What they do in their personal life is none of my concern. They could be an asshole, a rapist.. it's their life, all I care about is what they make. Obviously, what they do is like any kind of work. It doesn't excuse behavior that's illegal or unethical. So if the question is, "should they get special treatment?" Fuck no. No, I don't think Thriller is any less amazing even if MJ did rape a boy. The only reason I'll stop enjoying an artist's work is if stops being as good. __________________ Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

10-02-2009, 09:26 AM	#19 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	genius? what is that? i think it's a romantic myth, something that speaks to an how folk like to imagine what art is or who artists are that has nothing to do with how pieces are actually made or what making things actually entails. maybe there are some folk whose ways of working correspond to that myth--i dunno. mostly i see and know about people who work over an extended period with a medium in a craftsman like way generating lots more work than anyone sees, throwing stuff out, selecting, arranging...some work that folk do is really amazing. but it doesn't drop from the sky, there is no divine inspiration. so there is no madness of making stuff, some space of immediacy in which all bets are off. and artists aren't Special People--they work in areas that the love, in ways they find engaging, and manage through various means to get their work out into the world. or someone does. this correlation between "genius" and social deviance sits atop this romantic myth of the artist. it's a correlate, a restatement of the myth. and people who make things need not be particularly intelligent in general. some are, some aren't, you know? i think that if you make stuff you spend at least some of your time bending around social conventions. maybe there's a correlation between that and a tendency to imagine that social rules in general don't really apply to you. it's hard to say, but at least the idea makes sense to me. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-02-2009, 04:45 PM	#21 (permalink)
percy Addict	I distinguish between a persons work and their actions. I don't condone Polanski at all, but I am not going to judge his movies by his actions. Apples and oranges. And I am not going to play wannabe psychologist and subjectively try and see or think if his actions influence his work. I really don't care nor have the time. Letterman banged some of his staff. If I am awake and he is on the tube, I will watch. That instance is personal I think, and has no bearing on me whatsoever. But I see how some go down that road. Some years ago Jewish groups in my city tried to have Wagners Tristan and Isolde banned from the years orchestra concert schedule because of claims Wagner was an anti-semite. The way I see it, if you are offended by that, that's your business, don't go. If I go, it is about the opera, not what Wagner was or that I support his believes. Not rocket science to me

10-03-2009, 10:14 AM	#23 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	If you use the example of someone like Eric Cantona, I think his talent and his turbulent temper were tied together... I can believe that he played the game in a different way to anyone else. His mind was slightly differently wired. He might laugh off one insult, and launch a king fu kick at another - on the pitch he could be an artist or a hooligan. But there comes a point where - to the example of Polanski - a paedophile is simply a paedophile. There are car mechanics who are sexally degenerate and I suppose there are film directors too. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

10-04-2009, 05:30 AM	#24 (permalink)
little_tippler Leaning against the -Sun- Super Moderator Location: on the other side	Though I can appreciate a great work, I have some trouble separating the person and the work. Though I can see that a work is great, if I know things about the person that I find distasteful or repugnant, I can't reconcile the fact that this person, who committed those actions, could produce such an amazing piece of work. It dampens my excitement a bit, and makes me question the work a lot more than if I don't know anything about the author. Most people in this thread seem able to separate these things, to me it depends on what exactly we're talking about. Because the fact is that when that person creates that work, the work and the actions are not entirely segregated, there are connections and they become more apparent and disturbing when one is aware of both instances. __________________ Whether we write or speak or do but look We are ever unapparent. What we are Cannot be transfused into word or book. Our soul from us is infinitely far. However much we give our thoughts the will To be our soul and gesture it abroad, Our hearts are incommunicable still. In what we show ourselves we are ignored. The abyss from soul to soul cannot be bridged By any skill of thought or trick of seeming. Unto our very selves we are abridged When we would utter to our thought our being. We are our dreams of ourselves, souls by gleams, And each to each other dreams of others' dreams. Fernando Pessoa, 1918

10-04-2009, 06:37 AM	#25 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	You also have to look at thins in context Van Gogh was unuestionably a manic depressive - but he is not guilty of any outrage like that committed by Polanski Jefferson owned slaves at a time when such things were reviled in most of the civilised world, yet it was legally permitted in his colony THe stories coming out about the band mentioned in the first post are confused and unproven - but if true and if the father is guilty at rape, I hope they throw the book at him Polanski has made some okay movies, and was is a paedophile. The person who I DID feel some ambivalence about was Michael Jackson He was clearly outrageously talented He clearly was abused most of his young life and had hardly any chance to grow up normally We might never know, but on balance I dont believe he was a rapist, but I do believe he was guilty of behavior with children that was morally and legally inappropriate. I wont mourn him especially, but I also cannot condemn him totally, the brilliance of his talent is not totally denied by his crimes to me. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas