Then there were some who shunned the man and his art strictly because of his ridiculous surgeries and his kid-touching ways. It was never really an issue for me because I was never a fan. Never owned one album of his even though I had been constantly bombarded with his music and videos during the 1980's. I probably would have burned any I owned, however, once I found out about his unhealthy predilections toward children.
You see, I have a very hard time separating the art from the artist. Especially when I find the artist to be loathsome.
Case in point: Roman Polanski.
He's obviously been all over the news lately because of his recent incarceration in Europe over his past crimes in this country and his subsequent escape from the law. Now, I've heard all the arguments regarding his actions. Both defending the man and demonizing him. I happen to be on the "demonize" side of the deal. I don't care that it was a different time and a different attitude. Bottom line, I believe that he drugged and raped that girl and he got away with it. That, in my book, is unforgivable. I only need to imagine that the poor girl was my daughter or niece and I'm filled with a rage that could only be quenched with his death at my hands. Preferably a slow and painful one.
So I've generally avoided his films. In fact, since Chinatown, the only Polanski films I have seen have been Frantic and The Ninth Gate. Both because I didn't realize they were Polanski films until after I had seen them. Silly, because The Ninth Gate was so evocative of Rosemary's Baby that I really should have known.
Maybe I am being pig-headed, but I don't see how producers keep funding this man's art. I don't understand why top actors feel the need to keep working with the man. He is a vile, creepy little gnome of a rapist and that's that.
In my humble opinion, of course.
And that is generally how it goes with me. I'm pretty sure Slyde would agree with me here although he takes his grudges to the Nth degree ofttimes. He still has a problem with Matthew Broderick, I believe, for killing a couple of women in Northern Ireland in an auto accident and only having to pay a $175 fine. Ferris Killer he calls him, or something like that. He has issues with Robin Williams, Woody Harrelson and a bunch of others as well, but I forget why. I tend not to have as much of a problem with artists who have been involved in tragic accidents. It's not like Broderick woke up that day and decided to kill a couple of people. He certainly didn't ply them with alcohol and drugs before running his car into them. Right?
So how about you? Are you able to separate the art from the artist? Is it a case-by-case thing or are you generally forgiving of an artist if they produce brilliant and/or enjoyable art?
I'm curious because I recently came across an artist whose personal views I find to be vile but whose art has always been both brilliant and enjoyable for me in the past. So I'm torn. Really for the first time in a case like this.
I'll talk more about who and why tomorrow after I hear from the madding crowd.
Note: Remember to play the Bug-Eyed Trivia Challenge every day. You can't convince me otherwise. He is a rapist.