Emile Nolde a Nazi (when it counted), Paul Gauguin was an asshole, Picasso was a SUPER BIG asshole, yadda.



 

It works the other way around, too, I think: I maintain that Albert Speer was a genius, despite his leading role in building the Nazi and Hitler brands, because his genius was so incandescent.

I'll settle for 'evil genius'.

It's going to take a better psycho-historian than me to tease out WTF was going on their twisted minds, but whatever.

>any answer is, in part, relative to the beholder

w3rd.

So this is just going to be me rambling about how I deal with this.

I think you *have* to separate the art from the artist. Because, aside from anything else, if you don't, you're left with far less good shit. I mean Kant was a big fucking racist but we can't just throw out Kant and, presumably, everything influenced by Kant and everything influenced by *that* stuff and so on.

Exceptions for me being:

- When the enormity is present in the work itself, with a little bit of adjusting for inflation (were they a monster by the standards of their time, like).

- When the enormity operates in the same realm as the art such that it ruins/taints it (as with Gill). (This one's a bit wishy-washy. Thinkers in the sociological/political sphere who owned slaves? Moral philosophers who were racists? etc.).

- When they're living and my 'support' will help them do bad shit (I won't pay for anything where any portion of the money would go to Orson Scott Card, like).

Also it does kinda seem that being a *bit of a twat* is a prerequisite of rising to the top of one's field.

(Only yesterday I was listening to Spotify and a track I liked came on so I followed the artists or liked them or whatever it is on Spotify and then went to look them up. Turns out they're big fucking homophobes. It's always really sad.)





 

Also I think there's something to be said for embracing the imperfection of our 'heroes'. We want them to be saints but that's kinda childish - they were flawed and human.

They can be both gifted visionaries in their field *and* abhorrent monsters. Not one or the other but both, and accepting and processing that is healthy - guides us away from overly elevating them.

 

Appreciate the gift, deplore the package. A boundless capacity for evil seems to be in our dna. Knowing that, perhaps we can do better (no evidence yet).

There's always the risk when you start looking at German philosophers, mind you. I mean without Hegel there almost certainly would never have been a Marx, but Hegel was up there with Kant. Hegel believed that Africa wasn't even part of history and it's hard to be much more dismissive than that. As a maths teacher Wittgenstein beat small children if they didn't understand him, in one case to the extent that a boy was knocked unconscious. Heidegger has been let off the hook for being a Nazi because "everybody had to join" which doesn't explain why he joined in 1933 which was before "everybody had to join" and why some of his lesser known writing is viciously anti-semitic, even arguing in terms of his philosophy that Jews are incapable of being completely human. Nietzsche was just bonkers so that's probably OK.




 

I think about this from time to time as well. I sometimes find that when I've attempted to get over it and continue with the 'art' my enjoyment is still tempered by the knowledge and lessened even though I've logically convinced myself otherwise.

Somewhat relatedly, Nick Cave writes these incredibly thoughtful/moving/funny/interesting responses to letters from fans on his Red Hand Files site, it's a good weekly thing. Anyway this week he's responded to someone asking about old lyrics that are a bit homophobic by today's thinking.
https://www.theredhandfiles.com/do-you-need-to-change-lyrics/

And I read that and I'm like, well that's good for you Nick but you're evidently not sparing much thought for anyone on the receiving end of it here, with this clear annoyance at the current "perpetually pissed off coterie of pearl-clutchers". ANYWAY I don't think that lyric or any others of his are particularly anything to worry about, most of his work is ludicrous caricature and I'm too "normal" to be a target of any of it so it's hard to judge for sure I suppose. I just thought it was interesting at the time and then reminded of it here. "being a *bit of a twat* is a prerequisite of rising to the top of one's field" indeed, at least it helps, I think, there's the occasional exception of course.

 

Yeah, Heidegger's Nazism seems to have been *quite enthusiastic*.

 

>I think about this from time to time as well. I sometimes find that when I've attempted to get over it and continue with the 'art' my enjoyment is still tempered by the knowledge and lessened even though I've logically convinced myself otherwise.

Yeah, that's usually where I end up too.

I’ve also consciously avoided finding out if most bands/authors/etc are on Twitter lest they turn out to be dicks. 

:D

The Schrödinger approach. I should do that - just stop looking into anyone whose work I like.

I shudder a bit whenever I start up a film that has the miramax logo. I think what bothers me most are living artists who manufacture stupid asshole artworks that sell for astronomical prices, and have blockbuster shows, artists like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst (and maybe Banksy)*. For whatever reason high-visibility artists who made brilliant work** but behaved badly bother me less.

*extending also to best-selling illiterate authors and no-talent pop stars

**specifically using the past tense here.  :-{)

Oh God yeah, that crop of artists are all unmitigated shits.

But maybe they're really nice people?

Maybe.

Particularly vile considering that Hirst boasts that "his own" ideas are stolen.

Yup, absolutely.

Jesus fucking christ.

No doubt after years of being told that he's great and with wheelbarrows full of cash being dumped at his door, he really believes that his magic breath can add value to a pack of pencils.