Anyone watching the HBO Michael Jackson doc?

[Jeffrey]

Mia Farrow is absolutely nuts...

.... on her good days!

[bundabergdevil]

I watched most of the first episode last night, and intend to finish the film as soon as possible.

I was previously a big Cosby fan, but have sworn off his work in light of his behaviors. I suppose I'll be doing the same with Michael Jackson's work (and Ryan Adams' work, already done so with Woody Allen's work, Tom Cruise's work, etc.).
I'm interested: What are y'all's reactions here? Are you able to separate the art from the behavior of the artist? If one attempts to do so, does that excuse the behavior or dishonor victims?
Sadly, this grappling is becoming increasingly common, and I am genuinely interested to hear what other people do with this information and their assessment of/relationship with these abusers' art.

This is a very tricky subject. I struggle with it most with Woody Allen as I really love so many of his movies. My gut tells me that watching his movies makes me an accomplice in some way, I guess I conveniently don't think about it when I get pulled into any of them that I see on TV. It is really easy when I see the ones he isn't in. It's one thing to watch, how about the folks who continue to work with him? I guess the Ronan Farrow publications of recent years may have finally shut him down as his last film, shot in 2017, has not been released. But the rumors and such have been out there for years.

[/B]"

Couple thoughts on the separating art/artist question:

1. If we extend the idea beyond artists to business leaders, politicians, scientists, etc, it's almost impossible to cut off exposure to or "support" for people (living or dead) that have done something really bad. The list of abusers, rapists, murderers, murder-subsidizers, human traffickers, con men/women, etc who have achieved something of consequence is long and make for one hell of an university alumni list...the world would look much different without their genius so I worry about drawing so many lines in the sand that I find myself out of beach.

2. I think it matters first if the person is still living and stands to benefit from his/her art or accomplishments. If s/he is, then hopefully the justice system works. These works often aren't singular though. Should everyone who worked on Good Will Hunting or Bohemian Rhapsody have an asterisk next to their work because Weinstein produced the former and Brian Singer directed (most of) the latter? Should everyone who works at a company suffer for the sins of its leader(s)? Let's say a chemical company that knowingly polluted water sources or whose founder supported anti-semitism (thinking the recent debate about Henry Ford)? The point is --- the sinner isn't the only one to suffer if we boycott.

3. For the deceased, I guess you hope for an honest accounting of their legacy. Michael Jackson was a genius and a pedophile. Richard Nixon was a crook but did a couple of damn good things for the nation. Some people seem to have an awful hard time with the "both things can be true" nature of people and only want their heroes fighting villains.

4. How long do we think Michael Jackson's name will be relevant in popular culture? 40 years? 50 years? I can name an artist or two from the 1950s and 1940s. The 30s? 20s? I got nothing. Do we think he's the Mozart or Beethoven of our musical era? That is, will people still know his name and his music hundreds of years from now? If so, there will be plenty of books written about him and his predilection for children will undoubtedly be a part of that as it should be.

[wilson]

This is a very tricky subject...

Couple thoughts on the separating art/artist question...

Interesting thoughts from you both; thanks for sharing them.
Here's another interesting take:
What Do We Do with the Art of Monstrous Men?

[PackMan97]

Couple thoughts on the separating art/artist question:

1. If we extend the idea beyond artists to business leaders, politicians, scientists, etc, it's almost impossible to cut off exposure to or "support" for people (living or dead) that have done something really bad. The list of abusers, rapists, murderers, murder-subsidizers, human traffickers, con men/women, etc who have achieved something of consequence is long and make for one hell of an university alumni list...the world would look much different without their genius so I worry about drawing so many lines in the sand that I find myself out of beach.

2. I think it matters first if the person is still living and stands to benefit from his/her art or accomplishments. If s/he is, then hopefully the justice system works. These works often aren't singular though. Should everyone who worked on Good Will Hunting or Bohemian Rhapsody have an asterisk next to their work because Weinstein produced the former and Brian Singer directed (most of) the latter? Should everyone who works at a company suffer for the sins of its leader(s)? Let's say a chemical company that knowingly polluted water sources or whose founder supported anti-semitism (thinking the recent debate about Henry Ford)? The point is --- the sinner isn't the only one to suffer if we boycott.

3. For the deceased, I guess you hope for an honest accounting of their legacy. Michael Jackson was a genius and a pedophile. Richard Nixon was a crook but did a couple of damn good things for the nation. Some people seem to have an awful hard time with the "both things can be true" nature of people and only want their heroes fighting villains.

4. How long do we think Michael Jackson's name will be relevant in popular culture? 40 years? 50 years? I can name an artist or two from the 1950s and 1940s. The 30s? 20s? I got nothing. Do we think he's the Mozart or Beethoven of our musical era? That is, will people still know his name and his music hundreds of years from now? If so, there will be plenty of books written about him and his predilection for children will undoubtedly be a part of that as it should be.

1. I will certainly to the extent that I can. It's not always possible, but I will try. I have certainly changed by financial places of business in the wake of the last recession. I have definitely changed how much college sports I consume based on the Cheats skating and a few other things. I'm not going to boycott my 401k at work if I find out Vanguard is full of bad people, but I can talk to my benefits team about why I think we should have a new provider next year. The same with Health Insurance. If they come back with "it saves us some money, so we are ok with their behavior" I would probably look for a new employer.

2. It's harder for behind the scenes guys, or information that is hard to find. I'm not checking to see if Weinstein's company produced a movie before I go see it. Don't care that much. But I will not go see something that i know is directed by Polanski, for example.

3. I think we get this right for the most part. Aside from Nixon of course, but then folks on a Duke board would be wanting to highlight some of his more positive achievements

4. I really don't know. I think the biggest problem is that radio and media have transformed significantly since the golden age of radio. There wasn't as much music and more programming that eventually moved to the television. I would think guys like Frank Sinatra, Johnny Cash, Elvis Presley, etc...the first of the post-Golden Age musicians will be remembered in 100 years. I think in a few hundred years when kids study music from the 1900s, Michael Jackson will certainly be included in a study along with Madonna as the biggest artists of the 1980s.

[rsvman]

For me, true art exists as separate from its creator. I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson and never have been. But if he had written some songs I really liked, I would still really like them, regardless of what he did. I love "Pictures at an Exhibition" even though he was ultimately a self-destructive alcoholic. "I Believe I Can Fly," in my opinion, is fairly inspirational, even though R. Kelly is repulsive.

The work of art, in any form, once it is produced, is either good or it isn't. I don't see any reason why it can't be independently judged.