 |
| Copyright MARVEL COMICS |
We all have our favourite singers, musicians, actors, authors, comedians, performers, comicbook artists and writers, etc., don't we? So let me ask you a question, prompted by some comments in my recent post about Supercar Annuals. If one of your favourite 'artistes' were revealed to have been indulging in the sort of behaviour that Glitter, Savile, and Harris had been up to, how would you react beyond being shocked, horrified, and disgusted?
Would you dispose of any records, books, comics, etc., by the offending parties - even if it meant in doing so you were also jettisoning part of your fondly-recalled childhood or teenage years, or would you be able to disconnect the individuals from their product and continue enjoying their work and embracing its nostalgic associations with your youth?
Or would it have to be a complete rejection because the formerly favoured person or persons now so appalled you that you wouldn't want to own anything by them in order to demonstrate your disapproval, and also in case continued ownership was seen by others as condoning their vile and reprehensible actions in some way?
Is it possible to separate the works of an individual from their crimes, or (in your mind) do they go hand-in-hand and therefore must both be cast into outer darkness and obliterated from your life? All comments welcome.
I recently bought a book about the work of Eric Gill. It was discounted presumably because of recent revelations about his life, which has nothing to do with his brilliant type designs. Being disgusted with his behavior might be fine if he was still alive, but does nothing to change the man now.
ReplyDelete'Changing' the offender wasn't really what I was thinking of, T47. I'm more curious about how such revelations would change other people's perceptions (or not) of the 'work', and whether they could isolate it in their minds from the offender. Could they still appreciate the work - whether it be music, artwork, literature, or whatever - despite no longer appreciating the person behind it? However, thanks for being the first reader brave enough to respond to what some others might regard as too difficult (or awkward) a subject to consider.
ReplyDeleteIf one of my favorite talents were revealed (proven not just accused) to be involved with a heinous crime, I might stop getting new material from them, but I would not destroy the stuff I already possess. I'd stop getting new stuff so as not to in any way support their ability to defend themselves from their victim or victims. I'd keep the old stuff because I deemed it well crafted and that assessment is not affected by news of the day. Many artists are pricks personally or make lifestyle choices some might be confused or offended by.
ReplyDeleteIf the offending artist is now deceased it's easy to separate the work from the offending behavior as any artistic piece stands on its own merits, be it a painting, music, sculpture or whatever.
ReplyDeleteThe late Rolf Harris saw his career and reputation fall apart when the public heard of his misdeeds. His being alive made it difficult to separate him from his work.
In the case of Eric Gill the beauty of his creations stand on their own merits and are distant from his personal behavior now seen in retrospect.
That seems eminently sensible, RJ, and I can't disagree with your last sentence. Ignoring for the moment whether something is well-crafted or not, though, does the nostalgia factor play any part in your thinking - as in because something represents a happy period in your childhood or youth, you'd be loath to part with it on those grounds alone?
ReplyDelete******
Regarding Rolf Harris, T47, difficult, perhaps, to separate him from his works, but surely not necessarily impossible. His song from the '60s, Two Little Boys, is something I recall fondly from childhood and I still have a 45rpm single of it in my record collection. It's part of the soundtrack to my life and if I threw it away, it would be like also throwing away the part of my life with which I associate it. I assume you liked the work of Eric Gill before you learned of his perverse behaviour (not just with his daughters, but also his dog), but if you were only experiencing his work for the first time already knowing of his aberrations, would you be able to separate them then? And what if he were still alive when you first discovered his work?
Kid, how is T47 the first Crivens reader "brave enough" to respond to this topic when both John Pitt and I have already done so in a previous post?
ReplyDeleteHe's the first person to respond to THIS specific post on the topic, CJ. The post to which you and JP responded was about Supercar Annuals and we fell into the discussion by 'accident', as it were. I thought I'd specifically explore the subject in a separate post, and T47 was the first to respond to it. Not sure why you're so mystified - it's pretty obvious what I meant.
ReplyDeleteI'd better respond to THIS particular post on the topic then, Kid - as I said previously, I don't have any problem separating the performer from the performance and I certainly wouldn't throw away something I cherished just because its' creator had been newly unmasked as a pervert or whatever but, like Rip, I wouldn't buy any new stuff.
ReplyDeleteInteresting answer as usual, CJ. I wonder if anyone threw away their 'Jim'll Fix It' medallions they'd had since childhood after Savile's crimes later came to light?
ReplyDeleteKid, it would indeed be interesting to know if anyone disposed of their Jim'll Fix It badge but I hope they didn't as getting on TV was a huge achievement and shouldn't be tainted by the show's creepy host.
ReplyDeletePity the child who appeared on Jim'll Fix It asking to meet Gary Glitter or Rolf Harris - surely there must have been such a child.
There would probably be a few such children, I'd imagine, CJ.
ReplyDeleteSavile didn't possess even an ounce of discernible talent, so I never could understand why he was regarded as such a big 'star' in his day.
You could say the same about Phillip Schofield and a lot of other TV celebrities.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's a talent to look as if one doesn't have a talent, CJ.
ReplyDeleteIt all depends on what they did. Let’s say it’s Jimmy Saville. He was bad. Was he as bad as Bill Cosby? What about Robert Blake who was found not guilty of murdering his wife?
ReplyDeleteFor some reason people forget all the bad stuff. The only one who has not escaped that fate is Fatty Arbuckle and he was found not guilty.
Savile and Cosby are scum, PS, so in that respect, they're both as bad as each other. Fatty Arbuckle (he'd probably have to be called Freddy nowadays) certainly seems to have got the short end of the stick. Although found not guilty, Blake's career never fully recovered from him being charged with his wife's murder, and a later civil case found him liable for it. So, if he did it, he didn't quite get away scot-free.
ReplyDeleteI've never heard of Robert Blake and I still don't recognise him even after googling him.
ReplyDeleteThen you obviously never watched Baretta when you were a kid in the '70s, CJ.
ReplyDeleteJust had a quick look on eBay and someone paid £49.99 for 2 Jim'll Fix It annuals, £42.99 for 1 annual, £10.50 for a Radio Times with Savile on the cover and £4.99 for a Stoke Mandeville Hospital badge with him on. It seems that regardless of the crime, someone will always be interested. I don't know what I'd do if one of my heroes turned out to be a wrong 'un. I've invested too much in Elvis and Doctor Who for me to throw it all away.
ReplyDeleteI take it you mean emotional investment, M, and not just financial? As for Annuals with Savile on the cover, I wouldn't pay 49 pence, never mind 49 quid. Though I suppose it would depend on what the contents were.
ReplyDeleteSeparating art from the artists is a pretty difficult subject and even if you agree that you shouldn't listen to , watch, read or view the work off a convicted pervert, murderer etc probably doing that is more difficult than you might think....and would mean missing out on a lot of good inspirational art.
ReplyDeleteLike most folk I despise what Harvey Wiensteim did but I'm pretty sure I have and will watch many of his film's without beimg aware of it (I rarely watch credits) and even if I was is it fair to stop watching the actors and many others that worked on one of his films. The same is partly true of Gary Glitter, his band (the Glitter Band) were pretty decent so do they suffer for his sins. Also on Rock n Roll parts 1 and 2 ( without doubt pop classics) Glitter had little input into the vocals other than grunting on the song he co wrote with Mike Leander (and I doubt he had a lot to do with writing it) so Mike Leander loses out because Glitters na!e is on the single.
Then there's the double standard, it seems ok to listen to Jonathan King who was convicted of sexual assault on boys, but I've heard his songs on the radio and have one of his on my Walkman (Everyones gone to the moon), Phil Spector was convicted of murder but is still considered a musical genius and his music is still played on the radio and there are many many others I think people are unaware are of being perverts\ murderers. Woody Allen is another star that is lauded yet his life has been full of controversy but his films are still on TV the cinema.
Glitter is a vile person but many pf his and his bands songs are 1970s gems, would I listen to them? Well yes, but only on my Walkman with headphones on. But I'm not a massive fan of his work so I wouldn't miss his work but he shouldn't be whitewashed out of his influence on the music industry . In 20 years time someone will rediscover his work and say he was a flawed genius and it will all be forged about so for me it's a long term moot point.
Seville was a talentless evil sod I never liked him as a kid. Rolf Harris I liked as a child but I don't think many folk will miss his work so don't really care about them.
A well-considered response, McS, and I pretty much agree with all of it. I think we sometimes have to regard the public personas of many celebrities as fantasy creations, that may or may not bear some resemblance to who they actually are. That way, it's perhaps a bit easier to distinguish between fantasy and reality and separate the two. For example, for many years Rolf Harris was a well-loved public figure who seemed like a nice guy, though the 'real' Rolf now appears to have been somewhat different to how we all perceived him. I prefer to remember him as I (and the rest of the country) once thought he was, not how he was later revealed to be. Almost like a Rolf Harris from an alternative dimension, as it were.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Jonathan King, I've got his single, Lazy Bones, that I bought many years ago before his behaviour came to light. I don't know the details of his conviction, but given society's tendency to rewrite history in accordance with how things are done now, what would happen if he only ever 'slept' with males over the age of 16, seeing as how 16 is now the legal age of consent? Would he, could he be pardoned on that basis? Sure, the legal age back then was either 21 or 18, so he broke the rules of his time. That's why I'm sceptical of people being posthumously pardoned for things that were crimes at the time, but are not perceived as such nowadays.
I took a slight detour there, but I think it's worth considering.
I don't have a problem with people being posthumously pardoned for things that were crimes at the time but aren't any more. Often people were convicted of "crimes" which were nothing more than blinkered prejudice and backward attitudes.
ReplyDeleteThat's what 40-year-olds convicted of having sex with 17-year-olds back in 1967 will be saying, CJ. And those who were prosecuted for taking 'recreational drugs' will now be saying that since the laws are more relaxed on such matters nowadays, they should have their convictions wiped. Your definition of blinkered prejudice and backward attitudes may differ from others.
ReplyDeleteKid, I must assume you are totally comfortable about all those innocent women convicted of witchcraft or the mentally ill soldiers shot for "cowardice" in the First World War or slaves being punished for running away from their masters on Britain's plantations in the West Indies or people being hanged or transported to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread to feed their starving children or people being jailed for being homosexual. They were all victims of a cruel, ignorant and morally bankrupt legal system and pardoning those victims won't change anything but it does recognise the injustices of the past at least.
ReplyDeleteWell, as there's no such thing as witches (in the supernatural sense), then those women were clearly innocent of the crime they were charged with. As for being hanged or transported to Australia for stealing, then while you can rightly protest at the severity of their punishment, the fact is that those people were actually guilty of the crimes they were accused of. As far as I'm aware, it wasn't a crime merely to be homosexual, it was only a crime to indulge in such behaviour. Therefore, surely they should have been more careful than to be caught in the act. So, given your apparent thinking, as the law of consent is now 16, should all those who were convicted of having sex with anyone under the age of 21 (but over 16) be pardoned on the basis that such behaviour is no longer considered a crime?
ReplyDeleteYes, they should.
ReplyDeleteAnd in that way lies madness and chaos, CJ. Or, in other words - Oh no they shouldn't. Whether people agreed with certain things being illegal in the past or not, they knew the 'rules' and had to pay the consequences for breaking them. True, some punishments were unnecessarily severe, even outrageous, but that in and of itself doesn't automatically require that those crimes be retroactively re-categorised.
ReplyDeleteSo we shouldn't pardon the convicted witches either?
ReplyDeleteI hardly think their convictions are going to impede their job prospects or social standing after so many centuries, CJ, do you? We all recognise just how ridiculous the charge of being a witch is, we don't need any pointless virtue signalling by politicians to remind us. It's an empty gesture that the 'witches' don't benefit from in the slightest.
ReplyDeleteI recall the scientist Alan Turing being pardoned a few years ago for a homosexual offence in the early '50s so I googled him and apparently there's a 2017 law which now pardons all gay men who were convicted of such offences. And all the shell-shocked soldiers shot (try saying that quickly) for cowardice got a blanket pardon about 20 years ago I think. Didn't Nicola Sturgeon want to pardon all the convicted witches in Scotland?
ReplyDeleteYou googled Alan Turing, CJ? Is that a euphemism, and if so, do you really want to publicly admit to it? And, I don't think it was ever illegal to be homosexual, it was only ever illegal to indulge in homosexual acts. So you weren't actually prosecuted for being gay, only for indulging your sexual predilections, especially in a public place. As for those soldiers, I wonder if any of them were actually cowards? I guess we'll never know for sure. Nicola Sturgeon may have wanted all Scottish witches pardoned, but only because she is one herself.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, being pardoned for a crime doesn't necessarily mean that the conviction is quashed, as the Australian woman being released from jail after 20 years demonstrates. So far, her conviction still stands, though that may change.
ReplyDeleteI will be brief. If I like or liked any work of any kind of artist then I will always like the work and not get rid of it. However, I cease to like the person.
ReplyDeleteMcS raised a valid point though with Spector. It would seem from what is shown on the television that murder is a lesser crime than paedophilia?
That's probably the best way to look at things, JP, if we don't want to jettison aspects of our past that we enjoyed in perfect innocence.
ReplyDeleteI think there are circumstances in which I could understand murder, but I don't think I could ever understand the second crime you name. And long may it be so.
I tend to approach the dicey actions of creative people on a case by case basis. Though I don't condone Bill Cosby's actions in any way, he does seem to be an example of a guy with indubitable talent who did stupid, immoral things for sex. Sex makes a lot of people stupid, often because it's tied to one's own sense of self importance. I can imagine, without condoning, the idea that Cosby thought that any woman he approached "owed" him something because she was a nobody and he was a somebody.
ReplyDeleteYet Cosby remains an important figure in entertainment, if only for the role his co-starring role on I SPY helped break the color barrier. He wasn't responsible for the witty banter and ironic attitude of the scripts, but he put those qualities across, and made Alexander Scott feel like a real character rather than just another rote figure. I still what I can remember of his old standup routines, though standup is pretty evanescent in the world of culture. I can barely remember any of the COSBY SHOW stories, though, and in my book it's mainly significant for inspiring its antithesis, MARRIED WITH CHILDREN.
More minor sins can keep me from buying an author's work, but I realize there's not always a clear correlation. I thought Gail Simone's WOMEN IN REFRIGERATORS stunt was poorly conceived and is sort of a distant ancestor to the woke culture in today's comics. But Simone picked up the BIRDS OF PREY comic, which under Chuck Dixon was just an okay formula comic, and she made it into a better than average formula comic, which I followed for a while after she left.
Plug Time: I remember from an earlier post your liking for Barry Allen, so you may be amused by my analysis of a funky Flash story from 1969:
https://arche-arc.blogspot.com/2023/06/near-myths-threat-of-high-rise.html
Be warned, though, that it's Frank Robbins/Ross Andru wackiness. But I think it's weird enough to reward rereading.
I remember watching I Spy back in the day, GP, but can't recall much about it apart from the two characters being tennis players. If it's the comic mag I'm thinking of, I only ever picked up one issue of Birds Of Prey, and that was because the cover was a tribute to the '60s Batgirl's first appearance. Women In Refrigerators I'm not familiar with. Right - I'm off to explore that link.
ReplyDelete