Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Buckeyeblue

(6,439 posts)
8. I think you have to within reason
Sun Mar 10, 2019, 09:56 AM
Mar 2019

Meaning, if they have been convicted of a crime, especially something that harms another person, then I figure that into how I judge their art.

For someone like Michael Jackson who has been accused but not convicted (and who is dead and cannot defend himself), I don't pay much attention. To me the recent accusations are too easy. And I'm skeptical. And I'm skeptical of parents who seemingly give him unlimited access to their kids. Who does that? Which makes it more difficult for me to believe their stories.

As far as older artist who we know to have racist, sexist and/or antisemitic views: I chalk that up to the general ignorance of the time. Even the most brilliant artist can be ignorant. Art is about creating meaning from nothing. The artist is judged on that, not on being the most intelligent person in the room.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Can you separate the Art ...»Reply #8