Should we separate the man/woman from the artist ?

Some recent events have led me to ask myself this question, which is sometimes difficult to answer.

I am referring to the rapes committed by Polanski, who's rewarded and congratulated for his last film "J'accuse", and also more recently by the French rapper Koba la D (John you don't miss something if you don't know), who made homophobic remarks on his social media accounts. The lattest is being deprogrammed from most of the French festivals happening this summer, which refuse to promote artists who have bad behaviors/words about other communities. But Polanski is still free and lives his life in a easy way even if he committed the worst crime several times.

What do you think about this ? Should we be less extreme ? Or more strict ?
When is the limit reached ?

Can’t wait to read your reviews, kisses

Hi, Emma,
I'm finally taking the time to answer this post, as we couldn't finish this discussion in class!

So personally I don't mix the artist and the person behind it. For me they are like two separate people.
If I admire an artist it's only for his art and not his person. That's why I don't care what they do with their private life.
If I love an artist, no matter what he does, I cannot deny the fact that he is a talented person in his art.

Then I understand that some people boycott artists in protest. Like not going to see Polanski's movie "J'accuse". But for me it's not because I keep following the artist that I tolerate what he does.
As for Koba la D, I've seen videos where people explained that if he had been removed from the festivals it was because the organizers were afraid that people would boycott the festivals where he would be present. So fear of losing money.

Have a nice holiday

Sorry I didn't see this subject

It's interesting.

Firstly I'd say that the work of art is completely separate to the artist. More often than not I know nothing about the artist when I see a sculpture or painting or architecture or (maybe less often) music. I appreciate the work of art for itself and I think that must be the basis of my answer.

Therefore I can enjoy paintings or poems or films etc... in their own right.

Secondly I'd detest people whether they are artists or not because of their actions (or possibly even thoughts).

I am sure that we all love some form of art which is by a dead artist who whether we know it or not was a pig. I'm sure that there are whole sectors of art that have been created by groups of people who have been monstrous - the Nazis would be an easy example but I'm sure middle age Catholics were no different yet we have some incredible art, music, sculpture from these times and groups of people.

Thirdly I think we can appreciate the art of living monsters without appreciating the people - who should pay for their crimes - if you don't want to watch a film by Polanski or listen to music by a particular person because of who they are I think that's justified. I would certainly understand people not wanting to add to these people's wealth whilst they can still benefit from it. I have to hope that the punishment will be in accordance with the crime and that their popularity/notoriety is taken into account when the punishment is given out. Some people could actually become richer/more famous because of their crime - this shouldn't be allowed and therefore in that way we should be stricter but not in a "personal" way.

On a different angle what do you think about art itself that glorifies the bad?

Gangsta rap for example is very popular but it's subject is sexist, violent etc... Why are we appreciating and glorifying that?

Hi!  

As Emma said, the recent events led me wonder myself if I should separate the man/woman from the artist.
Until now that's what I used to do. For instance, I hate the singer Aya Nakamura, for me her songs make no sense but I hate the artist and not the woman. I always said I don't know the person, so I cannot hate the person she is, just her songs. Let's continue with music: I'm not a fan of Koba La D so I don't care if he is deprogrammed from festivals, I think it's justified and that's what he deserves.
But... is not complicated to reflect in this way. Because they aren't artists I love. In fact, it's harder in the opposite side, especially if the artist did something bad. For example Micheal Jackson... We'll never know if this story is true, even though many elements tend to make us think it is. And in no way I condone these behaviors. But I cannot boycott MJ bc he's an artist I like so much, he's talented. That's why I separate the artist from the person. But I do it bc it suits me. It's better for my conscience I think. However, I find it not coherent for myself. I mean, I ban every people who rape, kill, with values I don't like (homophobic, racist...) so why should I separate the artist from the person in those cases ?

According to your question John, I'm also between two opinion. Rap is a kind of music I really like, I listen to for a long time. I also like Sneazzy and Damso for example but I don't know why. I mean, I hate misogynistic remarks so why I continue to listen to this kind of rap? Okay the track is cool, catchy but why we/I forget the lyrics?  
Sorry, it's a question I couldn't reply.

Hi,

I know I may sound radical, but I'm going to go against what Adelaide said. For me a person remains a unique entity and cannot be a separate person.
A person must be judged on the whole of his actions and when there are more negative than positive then I consider that he is not a good person.

I agree that sometimes there is mystery or ignorance around a person, but if we are aware of the negative acts that he has done I cannot ignore them and find the positive in his paintings or others.

Concerning the glorification of evil in art and John's example. I think for most people who like this kind of music they don't necessarily know the words or the meaning of it. They just like the rhythm and the voices or just for the sake of fashion they like what other people like.

Hi

In fact, it is only the work that I judge and not the person who produced it.

Compared to art that glorifies evil, I think it is provocation.
I have the impression, in terms of song lyrics for example, that the artists are competing to see who will write the most daring lyrics.
I don't think the messages conveyed are the best, but a song isn't just about the lyrics.
And I tend to take what they say at the second or even third degree. Sometimes it's so exaggerated that it makes me laugh because I wonder how they dared to write that.

Hi everyone,

I'm very thankful for your answers. As I expected, it's rather varied.
I found your opinions legit and it's actually showing how much it can be a difficult question to answer.

The example of gangsta rap is really special. Young people listening to it mustn't know the seriousness of the acts declared in the lyrics.
They may like the "strong" effect that this kind of music generates, but it's important that they be clear with themselves about the background message.

Maybe it's hard to be totally aware about the bad side of some artists because it needs a lot of knowledge on the subject. People trying to educate themselves, even if it's not an easy thing, are on the good way to have enough discernment about what they find tolerable or not.

I'm not really inspired tonight but maybe the debate will continue later !

Hi,

Very interesting and topical subject on top of that, well done Emma :p

Personally, and as I could read it under this topic, I also think that we should not confuse the artist and the person.

However, some artists play with this double identity and it is sometimes difficult to differentiate the artist from the person.

Concerning the example of Koba la D, it is already a big word to consider him as an artist but what he did is intolerable.

I even wonder if he's really aware of what he's saying or if it's really voluntary.
Social networks are now too present for artists and are a huge way to communicate with their fans.

However, some people use them very badly, sometimes it would be better if they didn't when you see the bullshit that some people can say.

Hi !

I'm sorry but on this subject, on this question, I have only one answer : NO !
I write these words after The Cesars award ceremony which rewarded Polanski for his moovie "J'accuse" so I'm a little bit angry.
It's the same person who make moovies and destroy lives, why we have to separate a person in two parts ?
A pig stay a pig even if he is a "great" artist who made "great" films or songs.
It's a shame that the Cesars awarded a rapper in front of Adele Haenel (who left the Cesars room), in front of France. Then, most of actors applauded when Polanski won the award but when you applaud this artist, you applaud the person.
I think personally that the Cesars is the perfect representation of our partrichal society, institutions and representation of the white society (even if there are the actors of "Les Miserables" wow bravo!).

About Koba la D, what can I say.... he is not an artist for me so ??? but he is really stupid I never see that! He ruins his little career ! I think that he should be employ a person for his social networks accounts

See you !!!

Hello!

Thanks Adrien and Emeline!!!
I appreciate your critical point of view of social medias in this case. You're right, it increases artist's (or whatever they are) skids. Every person with a big community should be controlled and educated with a professional specialized in ethic or things like that. Because it can have bad issues.

The Cesars was a enormous shame. France dismiss an occasion to prove that it's not a country of stupid person who applause rapists. White conservative (trash) men are probably so glad that a person like him still keep this media coverage. It's so humiliating and hurtful to see Polanski's victims (and engaged feminists as Florence Foresti) leaving the ceremony or boycotting it because of this unhealthy atmosphere in the 7th art...

Did y'all see some support messages of celebrities ? (Brigitte Bardot, Jean Dujardin...). It's so cringe because they trivialize sexual assault (we can say "pedocriminal" also) by finding so good the Polanski's victory.

Yes I saw the message of Jean Dujardin, I'm so disappointed of his behavior... I don't understand but it's maybe male solidarity (LOL) !
All these actors who decide to don't come at this ceremony support this kind of acts (sexual assaults...), I can't believe that, it's unbelievable !!

Florence Foresti is my favorite humorist since many years, she realized a fantastic work at the Cesar ceremony, with her jokes, like everytime aha !
But I'm very optimistic because Polansky's cesar reinforce our determination (female determination) !

Hi !

First of all, I agree with Emeline, there's no way we can separate the man/woman and the artist.

And it's a disgrace to the cesar academy for rewarding Polanski !

On the other hand, I think we can separate the artist and his work and so a film and its actors can be rewarded. Other people who worked on the film "J'accuse" should not be incriminated in the same way as its director.

I saw an interview with Fanny Ardant stating that she supported Polanski. It made me angry. Looks like she never had children.. You just CAN'T "love" someone who raped children, even if it's a good friend.

Hi there,

God, I had this conversation this weekend as Mr.Violanski won with the césars, result: I had a fight with my father and my brother who think that it is possible to separate the Man and the artist.

For me, as I listened to it on the radio, that the film or even the film crew are rewarded, I agree because he was not alone, it is not his film only, it is the work of many people. But there, it is the Man who was rewarded, and I do not agree with this.

I have seen several videos on this subject, I do not understand how people can make a distinction. As the humorist Blanche Gardin said, it's weird that this indulgence only applies to artists because we're not going to say about a baker "yes, okay, he's a rapist but hey, his baguettes are good ", if someone said that, it would be absurd, but not for an artist?
We may be the best director or actor, or the richest, nothing justifies a crime.

The sad part with this story is that I learned the names of other celebrities like Charlie Chaplin who also raped ..

I rather agree with the fact that it is not the man and the artist that must be separated but rather the man and the work. A work can be beautiful but unfortunately produced by an artist who sucks..

As we were able to discuss it in person Emma, I think it is possible to love the work of an artist without accepting his words or his actions that sometimes contradict the image he is supposed to give. The example of Polanski is revealing on this subject. There's also Koba La D, a French rapper who recently made homophobic comments and that's caused a lot of reaction on the web. But I love his music and I don't stop at that and I keep listening to it because for me it's not because we listen or watch Polanski's films for example that we defend what they do. You have to put things in perspective.

As it was said there is the example of Michael Jackson, in spite of what he was able to do (if it is true, cf my presentation), in connection with pedophilia, it doesn't prevent to like and to listen to his music because his work has nothing to do with it. It is necessary to know how to differentiate the person in his private life and his facts socially incorrect and the work done which has nothing in link with.

Hello everyone,

it's a very interesting topic, i never thought about that.

So maybe i will be the only one who will agree with Adelaide, I really think that we should separate both the artist and the person behind. They are two separate people with two different behaviors.


if you love a painter because he makes beautiful art paintings, you won't stop admiring his painting because he raped a girl or something like that. What he did outside the field of art doesn't concern us at all.

Concerning Koba la D, sorry i never heard about him.

See you

Hi everyone,

This is a very current and sensitive subject.

I want to say that we must separate the man from the artist. But in certain contexts like Polanski's it is indeed very hard to separate the two. An artist is above all a man, and uses his experience, his past, his actions, his experiences, and his opinions to create. It is therefore difficult to separate the two on this basis.

I think one can allow oneself to appreciate one's work but to go so far as to acclaim and reward it, I think that is immoral. People question a politician's career when he is accused of embezzlement of public money, or rape. However, when it’s about an artist accused of sex crimes against minors, people question the separation between the man and the artist. Yet when it comes to the politician, the question is not whether he has done a good job for his country, or whether he is competent. So why does the question arise for an artist? Is talent an excuse? I think that Polanski, should not have been nominated, let alone won an award. This reflects a rather bad image of French cinema, which turns a blind eye to serious crimes.