Poll: Separating the Art from the Artist
But we don't all have the same reactions and it is a very difficult question when it comes to someone we used to admire. Will we still 'enjoy' his work? Is boycott the only ethical answer?
In other words, should we separate the Art from the Artist?
(this question applies to the situation where the artist is proven guilty, admits his faults and/or makes amends, since it's the "fans" we're asking, many are eager to give the benefit of the doubt until a definite answer is given)
After voting, you may discuss the list here
Make Your Choice
A big fat 'Yes'. If absolutely none of the author's 'deviances' ever shows in his work, and if it reached an impressive level of excellency and eminence, then I don't think watching the movies/shows made either before or after the scandal would be like an endorsement of the things done privately. Not all the geniuses are good guys.
Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)Hell, no! I don't think the work of an artist eliminates the human responsibilities, precisely because it's an occupation centered on human beings and a specific appreciation of the world so there can't be conflicting values between the artist and the messages conveyed by the artistic work. So it's over for me, I will ignore every work he's done or played a major role in.
Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)Yes and no. I will still admire the work and I will never deny his cultural stature, but what I'm going to do is simply avoiding any opportunity to economically empower him (or her). I'll boycott as a matter of principles but not at the expenses of my deep personal appreciation.