I just don’t see what this boycott can possibly do. Being published in the same journal as an another writer does not mean that you are supporting that writer.
It’s a poetry journal. You can kill a journal faster than a commercial venture.
I should have included the word good in the post you quoted. I don’t see killing the journal as a good thing. It won’t change the anti-Semite’s mind.
I believe I’ve read the essay about the similarities between Ender and Hitler to which you are referring. It contained such shocking coincidences as both Ender and Hitler having…an older brother and sister! :rolleyes:
The book does ask the reader to consider whether a man who commits genocide deserves our sympathy and if he can ever be redeemed (and Card clearly feels the answer is “yes”), but that’s quite different from asking the reader to believe that Hitler himself was a swell guy. I have my own issues with Card, but I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that he was writing Nazi propaganda.
Well, personally…first, it helps if the bad artist is dead. It’s a lot easier to look past the moral or criminal failings of someone who’s been in the grave for a hundred years.
And while I wouldn’t say the greatness of the art excuses the artist’s behavior—great art deserves to stand on it’s own merit—and I also wouldn’t say I’d necessarily boycott the art just on principle, the association with the artist may make it just too uncomfortable for me to enjoy. Especially if the artist got away unpunished for doing something horrible…that’d just push my buttons too much. If they’re still alive, it adds the problem that I might be aiding them financially or professionally by patronizing their art. Hell, even if they only have surviving victims (or the kin of victims), I’d feel like a bit of a ghoul.
For the record, “being a bad person” usually isn’t enough to make me wary of an artist. I’m talking rape, murder, crimes against humanity, stuff like that. I guess if the artist is merely a law-abiding asshole, but doing things that I find personally unusually abhorrent—I dunno, like messing up other artists’ careers out of spite, or doing political rallying for some really hideous cause—that’d be enough to do it, too.
Why do you think this is so? Chinatown was a great movie when it came out in 1974. How does the director’s actions three years later change that? Arguing that an artists personal behavior should influence how we view the quality of his work makes about as much sense as arguing that the quality of the work he produces should influence how we view his personal behavior. Roman Polanski is a rapist scumbag. Roman Polanski is also a supremely talented director. I don’t see how these two statements are in any sort of conflict with each other. I can enjoy the films he makes, and still look forward to the state finally laying their hands on this asshole and dropping him into a hole he can never crawl out of.
I get what you’re saying, but at some point an artist’s personal screw-ups can color their work for me, and even go back and infect their past works. Mel Gibson’s movies are tainted for me now. Charlie Sheen is hard to watch. For different reasons, it’s distressing now for me to see a Heath Ledger movie, knowing that he threw his life away so young. Maybe it’s easier with a director, because they’re not onscreen (or an author, for similar reasons). Polanski’s just been so front and center in the news, though, that I personally wouldn’t be able to wholly separate the man from his movies now.
I can entirely understand that as a personal, emotional reaction. However, the OP has put forward the idea that their work has been spoiled in some sort of an objective sense: it’s something he feels he needs to “remind” people about, as if that information should necessarily lead to a re-evaluation in people’s minds about the quality of Polanski’s films.
Well, that’s just nuts. 
That would be the crux of it, yeah, but I’m not necessarily proposing it a something that should be required by law … I’m thinking more that people’s moral standards should guide them here. And I’m not sure exactly what the standards should be. On the one hand, big budget films are huge undertakings that employ a lot of people, it’s easy to imagine that in a lot of them there’s SOMEONE at work who has done something that is in some way awful. But for most of them it’s just a gig, not a project that will reward them in the future with residual checks, fame and/or acclaim. But for the stars and directors whose names ARE associated with the project … sure, some consideration can be give as to whether you are rewarding a monster by watching the film, especially in cases where the monster’s wealth earned from the film and others like it has allowed him to escape the law.
I just think a case like Polanski’s is very clear-cut. If you watch his films you are rewarding a monster. It’s true that the personal qualities that made him evil may not be reflected in the film, perhaps some brighter part of himself is, but he’s still sitting fat and happy in some chateau in France laughing at everyone who thought he couldn’t get away with it.
-
Humans are not, by definition, black-or-white good or bad - “let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” right? You are dealing with the fact that *you *know something about *this *artist. How you process it is your call. I didn’t know that Arthur C. Clarke was a raging pedo, although if I had connected some dots in my brain, I should’ve. How I regard his work from this moment on is mine to deal with…
-
Art and artists often emerge from a damaged upbringing, so finding an artist who isn’t damaged in some way would be hard.
-
An artist’s relationship with their ego is weird and different - many put their vision (or quest for a vision) ahead of relationships, social propriety, good and evil, etc. If their art works - say Picasso - we discuss the art and his rampant dickishness and misogynism within that context. If their art does NOT work or endure - well, we have many of the artists we all know
We all have our lines and our rationalizations. Jimmy Page ripped off bluesmen he loved and respected - and was sued for it in some cases and lost and had to pay. Leave it at that and he is a right shit - end of story. But in most cases he radically transformed the songs and pushed the direction of the music in very, very different directions vs. the songwriter’s original intent - the art is there. So he shoulda paid and given credit for the origins of the song, yes - but the freshness of his work is, to my ears, undeniable…
It’s a slippery slope - laying out clear boundaries seems a futile, pointless exercise…
As it should be - not least, because you’d probably have paid far too much for thoroughly mediocre art. There’s a reason the man went into politics.
This is more important, I think. Especially since, as I understand it, Lovecraft really was something special in the bigotry department for his time. Even some of his friends thought he was out there.
Oddly, the man’s wife was Jewish. I can’t imagine how that worked.
Interesting example. Reading Ender’s Game for the first time is one of my cherished memories of childhood. Whenever there’s a book drive for local schools, I try to buy a copy and donate it, in the hopes it’ll have the same salutory effect on some other kid as it did for me. But there is that twinge that comes from knowing I’m tossing money at a cause I despise. I believe, however, that the good done by the book outweighs the harm done by its author.
Whether or not “everyone else was doing it” it was still a personal moral flaw of Lovecraft’s. It’s about an order of magnitude smaller flaw than Polanski’s but it leads me to reevaluate Lovecraft’s character. I know all about “Yellow peril” in fact I used the term in describing him.
Sure, I think child rape is horrible. I’m so ashamed!
So Polanski ran because he couldn’t get the kind of Hollywood “justice” he wanted. Boo-hoo. Plus, I think child rape was considered horrible even then. Maybe not AS horrible, but still, horrible enough.
OK fine, tear out every autobahn and improvement in Germany to any part of their infrastructure predating 1945. Throw away every item in your house that has Made in China, Made in Japan, Made in Italy, Made in Germany … made anywhere except the US - someone may have been oppressing a worker. Hitler sponsored the autobahn system and many infrastructure changes as part of various public works programs from the 30s. China has human rights violations.
Stop grocery shopping, stuff comes from overseas - OPRESSORS!!!1!1eleventy! No more coffee, chocolate, oil, gasoline …
:dubious::rolleyes:
Because if there’s one thing that’s exactly like watching a movie, it’s the existence of the autobahn.
Some of us actually do try to limit the amount of support we give to unethical products, though I don’t think it’s generally as easy as not watching Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson.
Thanks you for your reasoned response. :rolleyes: I personally dont care about the coffiee, chocolate, oil and gasoline so long as I have … sodium! It would be so horrible to live in world without sodium!
It can be fairly easy, like paying a little extra for Fair Trade coffee, or not buying Nike shoes. Some would call it PC, but if you think about these things, you are either moral or amoral in your responses to the world around you. It’s not just a matter of not breaking the law.
Well, not an awesome blues album, but how about some really pretty paintings?
(In no way arguing that he wasn’t a monster, but man, I’d be thrilled if I could paint that well.)
He doesn’t do people well but the dog is quite nicely done, and he does kick ass architectural renderings.
Pity he didn’t manage to get some degree in drafting and get a job in an architects office to keep him busy.
I don’t think I have ever seen so many of his pieces before. Never tried googling them, it never occurred to me to do so.