Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 36 of 36
  1. #31
    Members Return of the Rev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Flitting between the county league and mates rates at the amex!
    Posts
    18,616


    0 Not allowed!
    Nonce

    If chuck,elvis and Wacko lived on the local housing estates they would have been hounded out
    Do you think you are ill?
    Do your family think you are ill?

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #32

      3 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by DavidinSouthampton View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Potential question in a Philosophy or Arts subject exam: "Does breaking the law invalidate the quality of an artist's work?".
      He didn't just break the law though. did he? It's not mere drug possession, shoplifting or assault, he was imprisoned for his involvement with a 14 year old prostitute. He also set up one-way mirrors in the ladies' loo at his restaurant so he could film women (and no doubt very young girls too) peeing. That shows an extremely sophisticated, planned and niche level of sexual deviancy that borders on recidivism.

      Of course it is possible to separate the art from the artist, we all do it and surprisingly easily. We also act like complete hypocrites when we do so because we cherry-pick who we choose to separate from their art and whose art we condemn because of the artist. And we seem to do it based on fashions and attitudes. David Bowie, Pete Townshend, Iggy Pop and John Peel get free passes because they're cool. Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter et al are vilified. Cliff Richard, who hasn't even been charged and there's no proof of any wrongdoing, has been found guilty on social media by a smear campaign but because he isn't and was never fashionable isn't even afforded the same tolerance as convicted pop-stars like Chuck Berry here.

      I think you asked the wrong question. Yours is far too simplistic. I think a better question is one that asks whether there's a necessary link between the quality and ingenuity of an artist and a dark, immoral/amoral part of their character.

      Edit - the one person who not only gets a free pass but is continually praised by fellow actors and directors for reasons that I truly don't understand is Roman Polanski. He is a disgusting human being who should be in prison right now.
      Last edited by Buzzer; 20-03-2017 at 17:49.
      My music blog: de-minimis music
    • #33
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jan 2016
      Location
      West is BEST
      Posts
      2,768


      0 Not allowed!
      His music was good but it's wrong to eulogise a paedophile IMHO.
    • #34
      Members
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Posts
      15,213


      2 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by DavidinSouthampton View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Potential question in a Philosophy or Arts subject exam: "Does breaking the law invalidate the quality of an artist's work?"

      Personally I am able to accept that, on the one hand, Chuck Berry was a supremely talented musician and song-writer..... and that is not an over-statement. Stuff that he wrote was streets ahead of anybody else in his generation. It was about everyday life for teenagers, witty and clever lyrics that were very well written and very well performed. The words icon and legend are over-used, but he came closer than most.

      On the other hand, he was not a very nice man for all the reasons listed above, which I am not attempting to defend. It might alter the views of an individual about the person. It does not alter my own view of his artistic output, of which I am in awe, Teenage Wedding, Promised Land and Memphis, Tennessee being particular favourites.
      It's a good point. Steyning's own Eric Gill being a classic example of a respected artist whose private life makes Gary Glitter look like Mother Theresa. Can you separate the artist from their work? To be honest I'm not sure what side of the debate I'm on, but certainly Chuck Berry shouldn't be denied his place in musical history just becuase he wasn't a nice man. Likewise if anybody wants to do a retrospective of Top of The Pops in the 1970s it MUST include Jimmy Savile introducing Gary Glitter, as both those two were important players in the music of that era and shouldn't be airbrushed out of it.

      EDIT: And Buzzer's answer is very salient as well, especially with regard to those we forgive because they're 'cool'.

    • #35

      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Buzzer View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      He didn't just break the law though. did he? It's not mere drug possession, shoplifting or assault, he was imprisoned for his involvement with a 14 year old prostitute. He also set up one-way mirrors in the ladies' loo at his restaurant so he could film women (and no doubt very young girls too) peeing. That shows an extremely sophisticated, planned and niche level of sexual deviancy that borders on recidivism.

      Of course it is possible to separate the art from the artist, we all do it and surprisingly easily. We also act like complete hypocrites when we do so because we cherry-pick who we choose to separate from their art and whose art we condemn because of the artist. And we seem to do it based on fashions and attitudes. David Bowie, Pete Townshend, Iggy Pop and John Peel get free passes because they're cool. Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter et al are vilified. Cliff Richard, who hasn't even been charged and there's no proof of any wrongdoing, has been found guilty on social media by a smear campaign but because he isn't and was never fashionable isn't even afforded the same tolerance as convicted pop-stars like Chuck Berry here.

      I think you asked the wrong question. Yours is far too simplistic. I think a better question is one that asks whether there's a necessary link between the quality and ingenuity of an artist and a dark, immoral/amoral part of their character.

      Edit - the one person who not only gets a free pass but is continually praised by fellow actors and directors for reasons that I truly don't understand is Roman Polanski. He is a disgusting human being who should be in prison right now.
      I agree totally. I was trying in a hurry to think of other people who had been found out, and I could only think of Jerry lee Lewis.

      And I totally agree about Roman Polanski.

      I studied a lot of French literature many years ago, and much of the private lives of many of the freat names was about alcoholism, drugs and Syphilis...... not all of which is necessarily against the law, but leads one to think there is a link between excess and creativity....... not that this makes the excess excusable.
      "In football, everything is complicated by the presence of the opposing team". Jean-Paul Sartre.
    • #36
      Members Ron Manager's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2015
      Location
      Lentil Alley
      Posts
      319

      Mmmmm....jumpers for goalposts

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •