3 ms·

I thought it was gauche to not be able to separate a man from his art?

• wolfram74 3y ago
  Do you think it makes a difference if the person is bad person but their work contributes meaningfully to their field vs if the person is affable but their work is geared towards reducing the signal to noise ratio of other channels of communication?
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• busterarm 3y ago
  That's only applied to pedophile rapists like Roman Polanski and not the most dangerous element of our society, people who vote for the wrong party. Besides, if you get hired to work on a Polanski film, free travel outside the US! Why bother working for the pedophile rapists already in LA?
• ethanbond 3y ago
  This is certainly a topic of debate (obviously) and not settled within, as far as I can tell, any "section" of society. Anyway, even assume you buy into that, it's usually unidirectional: a person's personal infractions don't necessarily have to destroy one's appreciation for their artwork. The O'Keefe case (not that I necessarily do or do not agree with it) is the reverse: his work reflects poorly on his character. This directional flow, as far as I can tell, is not really hotly debated. People don't really debate "does engaging in bad behavior make you a bad person?" they just debate whether specific behavior is bad or not. Totally different from the art/artist debate.