PDA

View Full Version : Can an artist's views impact your feelings on their work?



CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-09-2010, 06:26 PM
A question:

I was watching Beck, and he was talking about the Fabian Society and Fabian Sociaists, and mentioned as point of note that George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, amongst others, were socialists and members of this Society, and he went on to detail Shaw's views on eugenics. A lot of other writers, especially of the early 20th century, such as Franz Kafka and Ernest Hemingway also were socialists.
Would a person's political views or personal beliefs impact you being a fan of their work? For example would knowing Shaw, H.G. Wells, Kafka, and Hemingway (or ANY other artist) was a communist or believer in eugenics make you choose not to read any of their works?

Personally, I think in the case of Shaw, Hemingway, Kafka, their talent overcomes any personal and/or political beliefs of theirs that I disagree with. I wouldn't let an artist's politics influence whether I'm a fan of their work. For example, two of my favorite actors are Clark Gable and Tom Selleck; Both are/were very staunchly conservative and I'd probably disagree with them on quite a bit, but it doesn't stop me from being a fan of theirs.

Rockntractor
10-09-2010, 06:33 PM
Whether I want it to or not it effects my attitude when I approach their work but if their work is really good I tend to overlook their character and enjoy it anyway.

BadCat
10-09-2010, 08:02 PM
Absolutely.

warpig
10-09-2010, 09:13 PM
It can and does affect me in how both I view their work and whether or not I will spend money on their products.

Odysseus
10-09-2010, 09:49 PM
Whether I want it to or not it effects my attitude when I approach their work but if their work is really good I tend to overlook their character and enjoy it anyway.

Yeah, but it has to be truly great work for me to overlook their off-screen/off-stage antics, and sometimes they are so vile or over the top that it becomes really hard to do. BTW, this goes beyond just politics. I have a hard time enjoying someone's work when I know that they are personally reprehensible in other ways. I won't pay to see a Roman Polanski movie, for example. I used to, before the extradition controversy, but the crazed response in Hollywood made it impossible to think about his projects without having his rape of a child in my mind.

Basically, the harder than some Hollywood moonbat works to alienate me, the more likely they are to succeed.

NJCardFan
10-09-2010, 11:28 PM
Yes, actually. But I'd venture a guess that this affects liberals more than conservatives. And the funny thing is that conservative artists, actors, or musicians don't usually wear their politics on their sleeve. Liberal entertainers do. But conservatives are more apt to look past politics in the name of entertainment. Liberals, not so much. Look no further than Mel Gibson. Do you honestly believe that if Gibson was just another Hollywood barking moonbat he'd be vilified even if he pulled the same stunts? If you say yes, you're not only disingenuous, you're a liar.

Gingersnap
10-11-2010, 11:33 AM
Yes, actually. But I'd venture a guess that this affects liberals more than conservatives. And the funny thing is that conservative artists, actors, or musicians don't usually wear their politics on their sleeve. Liberal entertainers do. But conservatives are more apt to look past politics in the name of entertainment. Liberals, not so much. Look no further than Mel Gibson. Do you honestly believe that if Gibson was just another Hollywood barking moonbat he'd be vilified even if he pulled the same stunts? If you say yes, you're not only disingenuous, you're a liar.

I tend to agree with this and it's something with a long history in Western Culture. We forget the the politics of artists and writers from the Enlightenment, the Great Awakening, the Civil War era, and so on.

Now, the Internet makes the political views of living artists and actors very much a part of their legacy for both good and bad. People can't help but be more affected by these views when they are so publicized.

Sadly, in terms of personal life, people are affected by celebrity culture in a mostly negative way. It teaches girls that they are disposable when they are no longer sexually interesting and it teaches boys that being opportunistic is rewarded as long as you look cool doing it. It teaches everybody that the popular (often shallow) view of an issue is the only view that matters.

noonwitch
10-11-2010, 01:13 PM
Yes, actually. But I'd venture a guess that this affects liberals more than conservatives. And the funny thing is that conservative artists, actors, or musicians don't usually wear their politics on their sleeve. Liberal entertainers do. But conservatives are more apt to look past politics in the name of entertainment. Liberals, not so much. Look no further than Mel Gibson. Do you honestly believe that if Gibson was just another Hollywood barking moonbat he'd be vilified even if he pulled the same stunts? If you say yes, you're not only disingenuous, you're a liar.


I think if Mel was a liberal, he would have to do worse than he's done to be vilified to the degree that he has been vilifiied.


A good example of the ultimate liberal behaving badly and only having it mentioned in biographies is John Lennon. He once was drunk at a Vegas nightclub, emerged from the restroom with a kotex stuck to his head (I assume it was not a used one). He then asked his waitress "Don't you know who I am?", and she smartly responded "Yes, you are some asshole with a kotex stuck to his head". I don't think this made the media at the time, and but it made it into both Yoko-approved biographies and non-Yoko approved bios.

Jodie Foster got arrested for cocaine possession when she was a college student, but was given a break by both the legal system and the media. This was due more to the Hinkley situation, she had a lot of public sympathy because of that, and it had little to do with politics. And, because of what she went through over that, people tend not to mention it anymore.


Lindsay, Paris, Britney are probably not political at all, but their antics are not just followed by tabloids these days.

Apache
10-11-2010, 01:53 PM
Yes!

Odysseus
10-11-2010, 04:09 PM
I think if Mel was a liberal, he would have to do worse than he's done to be vilified to the degree that he has been vilifiied.

A good example of the ultimate liberal behaving badly and only having it mentioned in biographies is John Lennon. He once was drunk at a Vegas nightclub, emerged from the restroom with a kotex stuck to his head (I assume it was not a used one). He then asked his waitress "Don't you know who I am?", and she smartly responded "Yes, you are some asshole with a kotex stuck to his head". I don't think this made the media at the time, and but it made it into both Yoko-approved biographies and non-Yoko approved bios.

Jodie Foster got arrested for cocaine possession when she was a college student, but was given a break by both the legal system and the media. This was due more to the Hinkley situation, she had a lot of public sympathy because of that, and it had little to do with politics. And, because of what she went through over that, people tend not to mention it anymore.

Lindsay, Paris, Britney are probably not political at all, but their antics are not just followed by tabloids these days.

To see the difference, just ask yourself the following: An A-list actor gets a call from his agent. He has his choice of projects, with two offers on the table from two different directors, Mel Gibson and Roman Polanski. Keeping in mind that Gibson was accused, not convicted, of assaulting his girlfriend, and used ethnic slurs towards her on the phone, presumably while drunk and that Polanski was convicted of raping a child, which director will the actor choose to work for, and which choice will be more controversial in Hollywood among the A-list celebrities that he hangs out with?

noonwitch
10-11-2010, 04:28 PM
To see the difference, just ask yourself the following: An A-list actor gets a call from his agent. He has his choice of projects, with two offers on the table from two different directors, Mel Gibson and Roman Polanski. Keeping in mind that Gibson was accused, not convicted, of assaulting his girlfriend, and used ethnic slurs towards her on the phone, presumably while drunk and that Polanski was convicted of raping a child, which director will the actor choose to work for, and which choice will be more controversial in Hollywood among the A-list celebrities that he hangs out with?



If they are filming the movie in the US, they are going to call Mel because he's still allowed here. I don't get the defense of Polanski. He's scum, even if he has made a few good movies.

I would actually argue that Mel is the better director. His movies are far more entertaining. Braveheart is a heart-stirring story, well told and well acted. Apocolypta is one of the most fascinating movies I've ever seen. The scene with the panther is so awesome, I've never seen anything like that in a movie before or since.

Odysseus
10-11-2010, 05:01 PM
If they are filming the movie in the US, they are going to call Mel because he's still allowed here. I don't get the defense of Polanski. He's scum, even if he has made a few good movies.

I would actually argue that Mel is the better director. His movies are far more entertaining. Braveheart is a heart-stirring story, well told and well acted. Apocolypta is one of the most fascinating movies I've ever seen. The scene with the panther is so awesome, I've never seen anything like that in a movie before or since.

I'll have to see it. But assuming that all else is equal, note that Polanski has not only made multiple movies since fleeing the US and won academy awards (an approbation of his Hollywood peers), he has also managed to make a movie since the extradition controversy began, when it was impossible not to know what he was and why he was in exile, and yet he was able to get Pierce Brosnan, Ewan McGregor, Olivia Williams and Kim Cattrall to star in Ghost Writer, and they defended him or pretended to a kind of agnosticism about his moral squalor. McGregor said "I was sent the script from Roman Polanski asking me to play the part. Roman's not someone I knew or met but he's certainly someone I wanted to work with. I don't comment on his case because it has nothing to do with me. I work with him as an actor ... I've known him for less than a year." I can't imagine him saying that about Mel.

Gibson will be a pariah while Polanski is screwing teenagers in Paris in his nineties.