Comments on: Why We Have To Separate The Art From The Artist, And Why We Can’t

By: Cobraverde

Cobraverde — Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:31:00 +0000

I don’t see the relevance of lumping Woody Allen into this article. He committed no crime, nor was he charged with committing any crime, let alone the presumption of innocence. If you were using the criteria of life choices you disapprove of, there could’ve been I’m sure a dozen more artists mentioned.

By: MJS

MJS — Sun, 25 Sep 2016 00:15:00 +0000

Potentially controversial sentiment: maybe one doesn’t have to separate art from artist to enjoy the work of these filmmakers in the first place. Perhaps getting into the mind of someone like a Polanski or a Gibson via their art is, if anything, all the more interesting when you know that they are… I’m going to charitably say complicated… people in real life. Like, maybe the sadistic glee Gibson takes in watching Jewish leaders flog Jesus is all the more fascinating when you realize he’s… working out issues. And maybe the paranoia and persecution complexes of Roman Polanski’s characters are more interesting when you know they’re being written or interpreted by someone who is literally a fugitive from justice. I’m not saying that you should agree with these attitudes as an audience, but I am saying that you don’t need to like a person to be interested by them, and you also don’t necessarily need to agree with a work of art in order to appreciate it.

By: Josh King

Josh King — Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:23:00 +0000

I can’t unsee the films I already saw from these characters before I learned about their actions. Afterwards, however, it’s no sacrifice at all to watch no more from them. I don’t have to see all great art.

By: gregoryellwood

gregoryellwood — Thu, 22 Sep 2016 06:46:00 +0000

Great piece.