Deep Thought

[howeird]

Over on scendan and cinchntouch's pages, there is some serious ranting soapboxing opinion thrashing philosophizing about When Good Artists Go Bad. I've posted a bit there, but want to bring it on here.

The question is, can we separate our opinion an artist from our opinion of his art? And should we? Do we refuse to buy beautiful books, paintings, whatever from an artist because the artist is repulsive, a criminal, or belongs to the KKK?

I have a two-part answer. If the artist is alive, and will profit from your buying his art, then don't buy it. Encourage others not to buy it. But if the artist is not alive, or will not profit from you buying his art (a second-hand book, or maybe he's donated the proceeds to charity) then go ahead.

---

The specific case which brought this up is Harlan Ellison groped a woman's breast at the WorldCon Hugo Awards ceremony last week. Lots of people are saying they will toss his books as a result of this despicable behavior. As far as I'm concerned, the woman who was assaulted needs to file charges, and the rest of us need to stop buying any more of his stuff. What you do with any of his stuff you already own doesn't really matter, since he's already pocketed the profits. I don't feel good about throwing away a good book, no mater how big an a-hole the author is/was. Book burning has severe bad vibes for me. I won't throw away my Poe volumes because he was a drug addict, or my Lewis Carrol because he was a pedophile. I will, however, throw away a book that sucks on its own, regardless of how pure the author.

What do you think?
[Poll #810592]

Comments

[scendan.livejournal.com]

I rather like your guidelines about extant/non-extant authors.

[blackbird-song.livejournal.com]

You don't know me at all, but I found you via the post of scendan's that you mentioned here. I agree wholeheartedly with your two-part answer to the question of whether or not one should purchase good works by an author or artist who behaves badly. You put it exactly as I would have, had I made a post on the subject.

Thank you for making the poll, and for letting complete strangers participate in it.

Catherine

[howeird]

Hi Catherine,
Welcome to my humble journal pages!

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

I had not rants about Ellison on my page at all - thanks to you I have now had to write a Harlan rant, and as I wasn't in the mood to write a Harlan Rant is came in at a measly three pages. If I were really in the mood for a Harlan rant it would have been longer I can assure you.

BTW, the accustations that Carroll was a pedophile have not been proven.

[howeird]

I apologize for anticipating your rantiness. It was someone else's LJ pages on which I was replying to your non-rants, I guess.

I was a friend of one of Prof. Dodgeson's great-nieces, and she told me he was extremely fond of naked children, and loved to photograph them. He apparently believed clothing to be out of place on children. I call that a pedophile, legal though it may be.

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

Granted there is a preponderance of evidence, but if Michael Jackson can be innocent...

Odd thing, reminds me of David Copperfield's (the character not the magicians) first wife.

[howeird]

My friend said she had the photos to prove it. Come to think of it, I've also seen them in biographies.

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

I've read the accounts and opinions (not seen the stories) and understand that there is some debate as to what the photos and his statements mean. No one disputes their reality. I think it opens the door to one of those slippery slope arguments as to what the Victorians thought constituted pedaphillia and whether or not the photos constitute kiddie porn, etc, etc. That is why I made the remark about David Copperfield's first wife and how she was so childlike that it is spooky to modern sensibilitites.

Socialdeconstrucionism aside (or even duly considered): I tend to think that if it quacks like a duck...

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

sorry meant to say not seen the photos -- reminds me, there was a book a while back that claimed Lewis Carroll was Jack the Ripper.

This is complete nonsense, but I just thought I would mention it.

[howeird]

there was a book a while back that claimed Lewis Carroll was Jack the Ripper. This is complete nonsense, but I just thought I would mention it
Yes, I've heard the theories, but everyone knows Jack the Ripper was really Meg Leatherapron, great-grandma of Margaret Thatcher.

The photos are very good quality, usually shot outdoors, and sometimes he put angel's wings either on the child, or on the backdrop so they looked like they were on the child. One biography said he was scrupulous about having the mother present, and sometimes invited to mother to be in the photo, though I think they all declined to disrobe.

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

Isn't the film Dream Child about this?

Don't mention Meg, look what happened when Tony Blair did, they sucked out his spine.

[pyrzqxgl.livejournal.com]

There's an issue of Sergio Aragones and Mark Evanier's "Fanboy" comics where police are investigating a possible robbery, but after searching the scene one of the only unusual things they can find is "a rare photo of Harlan Ellison not offending anyone".

I loved Harlan SOOOO MUUUCCCCHH when I was about 13, and if The Last Dangerous Visions ever comes out I will definitely buy it.

I know he's been apologizing, but I don't think he totally gets it, and may finally have managed to do something that gets him.

[howeird]

Sounds like a very tongue in cheek remark, coming from a fanboy mag. I wonder if he's any relation to that other bad boy Ellison, the Larry.