3 ms·

You mean to tell me that you have no lines, no limits? Would you be so comfortable to praise an artist if you knew he was a murderer? What if he was a rapist? A

You mean to tell me that you have no lines, no limits? Would you be so comfortable to praise an artist if you knew he was a murderer? What if he was a rapist? A racist? A thief? What are your lines? After seeing the lasting damage of settler colonialism in the “third world“ I have little patience for these “nuanced” views. The Bushes and the Kiplings should be critiqued at every chance. History should not be kind to George Bush just because can draw a few puppies.

cafard 7y ago
Well, let's see: Benvenuto Cellini, at least one homicide I recall, frequent assaults with a deadly weapon, beating his mistress; racist, probably a great majority of all artists who ever lived, and please note that I don't mean "of all artists of European descent". Thieves, hmm, Jean Genet for starters. Nobody says that you have to approve of Kipling's notions of race or governance. Certainly I don't, certainly I find certain of his writings obnoxious, but some of his fiction is wonderful.
SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
> "You mean to tell me that you have no lines, no limits?" Straw man. > "Would you be so comfortable to praise an artist if you knew he was a murderer? What if he was a rapist? A racist? A thief?" Yes, absolutely. What you fail to realise is that I'd be praising the art, not the artist. I don't believe this makes me a hypocrite, I think this makes me objective. Praising a piece of art on its own merits in no way condones unrelated character traits of the artist. > "I have little patience for these “nuanced” views." I believe you. > "The Bushes and the Kiplings should be critiqued at every chance." I agree, but the critique should be rational and objective, and not based on your emotional response to unrelated issues. > "History should not be kind to George Bush just because can draw a few puppies." Nobody said it should.

cafard 7y ago

Well, let's see: Benvenuto Cellini, at least one homicide I recall, frequent assaults with a deadly weapon, beating his mistress; racist, probably a great majority of all artists who ever lived, and please note that I don't mean "of all artists of European descent". Thieves, hmm, Jean Genet for starters. Nobody says that you have to approve of Kipling's notions of race or governance. Certainly I don't, certainly I find certain of his writings obnoxious, but some of his fiction is wonderful.

SuddsMcDuff 7y ago

> "You mean to tell me that you have no lines, no limits?" Straw man. > "Would you be so comfortable to praise an artist if you knew he was a murderer? What if he was a rapist? A racist? A thief?" Yes, absolutely. What you fail to realise is that I'd be praising the art, not the artist. I don't believe this makes me a hypocrite, I think this makes me objective. Praising a piece of art on its own merits in no way condones unrelated character traits of the artist. > "I have little patience for these “nuanced” views." I believe you. > "The Bushes and the Kiplings should be critiqued at every chance." I agree, but the critique should be rational and objective, and not based on your emotional response to unrelated issues. > "History should not be kind to George Bush just because can draw a few puppies." Nobody said it should.