Separating the Artist and Their Art

[lugaru]

Now do you guys ever have the opposite happen?

I mean Artists who you support because you really like them (based off interviews, forums, etc) but you are not that into the work?

A good example is Rob Liefield... It has been years since his artstyle was cool to me but he is a burning ember of comics love.

David Mack is for me one of the most unique artists in the buisness but he seems to be telling the same story again and again be it with Kabuki or Echo. Also he caught a lot of flack for lifting art when doing "superhero" style drawings, which is a shame because he is better than that, just not a superhero style artist.

Lastly there is Neil Gaiman, who I love but I always prefered his comics work to his novels and he seems to prefer doing novels and kids books. It is a shame, Sandman is some of the best comics ever.

[evaD]

For me it's a choice. I can decide to separate the two and often do. Where I sometimes have difficulty is when the artist can't separate themselves from their own work. There are some who become so interwoven into the art there is no separation, only acceptance or rejection of the whole.

[slurmo]

Now do you guys ever have the opposite happen?

I mean Artists who you support because you really like them (based off interviews, forums, etc) but you are not that into the work?

all the time. usually at shows. an intelligent well mannered artist I will support. Generally the self publishers. But once again, we don't talk politics.   

[GrimlocksPS]

I can separate the two up until their views infect their work. Willingham and Fables is one of those situations.

[ford]

Yes and no for me. When the 'heavy hitters' do or say silly things it doesn't bother me too much, sometimes it's amusing, sometimes depressing/angering. When Miller/Moore/etc mouth off I can easily sperate them from their work mostly because I run very hot and cold on their work, mostly cold.

Now do you guys ever have the opposite happen?

I mean Artists who you support because you really like them (based off interviews, forums, etc) but you are not that into the work?

Definitely, I fall victim to this all the time, especially when it's long audio interviews. The upside is that it mostly gets me to look at new and exciting things but also warps my perception on the work a bit.

I can separate the two up until their views infect their work. Willingham and Fables is one of those situations.

For me it depends and it can't be separated in to a "yes" or "no" answer. If the artist's political or social views bleed too much in to their work making it didactic, it becomes unreadable to me.

Bill Willingham is a great example where I don't agree with his politics hardly ever, but I enjoy his work. I never feel his stories are pushing an agenda or if it is, it isn't so intrusive that I can't see past it.

For some weird reason when I found out about Willingham's political views I really couldn't separate them from his work. I kept reading Fables because I had liked it so much in the past, which I'm glad I did. Now I can comfortably separate them but also have found my interest /enjoyment of Fables has dissipated somewhat.

[slurmo]

I don't read Fables and I don't know exactly which viewpoints Bill Willingham has. Can someone briefly and objectively inform me on which views are the ones that people have taken issue with?

I'm just curious because his name has come up quite a few times here, and I'm not familiar with the man nor his work.

[Steve Raker]

...Where I sometimes have difficulty is when the artist can't separate themselves from their own work. There are some who become so interwoven into the art there is no separation, only acceptance or rejection of the whole.

 

karma...well said

[zack kruse]

I had previously decided to not weigh in on this topic, if no other reason than I really don’t want to get into a debate. At all. Then I read some of the later posts and there are a lot of levelheaded points of view, IMHO. With so many other reasonable points of view, I felt more comfortable giving my two cents. It’s one of the reasons I love this forum. Now here’s what I think:

I don’t care. Not even a little bit. If I got all flibbity gibbet every time someone famous espoused a political, economic, social, or religious view that was different from me, I wouldn’t be able to watch TV, read books, watch any movies, or listen to nearly any music ever…except for maybe Rush…maybe.

It’s flat out unimportant. It doesn’t change my opinion on anything and it doesn’t necessarily diminish my opinion of said famous person…either with their work or them as people. People disagree. Sometimes when people disagree one or both of them speak in flamboyant, hyperbolic terms. So what? Welcome to Thanksgiving dinner at my Aunt’s house.

We’re all free to buy or not buy anything that we want for whatever reasons we choose. Guess what? Nobody cares about those either. The only reasons that any of us really care about are our own.

The only thing that has ever made me stop supporting a person’s work is when they are or were directly, physically or financially, harming other people. That’s the only criteria I have and, frankly, I think it’s the probably the most reasonable one. I say that I think it’s the most reasonable one because, again, if we all stopped enjoying creators’ work because of their political (or other) opinions, then there wouldn’t be much left to enjoy. It’s silly and it only comes up when someone particularly noteworthy gets particularly mouthy…any other day of the week this conversation doesn’t happen and no one thinks twice about this.

To support that: how many people said the same thing about Miller when he made extraordinarily similar comments a few years back on NPR? Remember that? People got all flibbity gibbet then, too. Turns out most people didn’t care enough about it to stop buying his work. They didn’t even care enough to remember…why? Because, outside of their initial outrage and the righteous indignation they put forth on the internet, they really weren’t offended and it didn’t stop people from enjoying his work. It’s just wasn’t a big deal.

Miller didn’t rape anyone, he didn’t assault anyone, and he didn’t steal from anyone. He has a political opinion that goes against the grain of what many members of the comics community have, and he put forth that opinion in a cranky, curmudgeonly manner. Big whoop.

What makes this even sillier is the fact that, if Miller had said that in support of the Occupy Movement in an equally cranky or curmudgeonly manner, there’s no way that we would be having this conversation (again).

I don’t necessarily agree with all of what Frank said or how he said it…but I really can’t be bothered to worry about it either. It doesn’t make his work from the ‘70s to the ‘90s any less brilliant, and it doesn’t make the Spirit movie any better (or good), it has zero impact on those things. The only impact it can possibly have is the one that we, as individuals, psychologically impose on it.

[Jordan]

I had previously decided to not weigh in on this topic, if no other reason than I really don’t want to get into a debate. At all. Then I read some of the later posts and there are a lot of levelheaded points of view, IMHO. With so many other reasonable points of view, I felt more comfortable giving my two cents. It’s one of the reasons I love this forum. Now here’s what I think:

I don’t care. Not even a little bit. If I got all flibbity gibbet every time someone famous espoused a political, economic, social, or religious view that was different from me, I wouldn’t be able to watch TV, read books, watch any movies, or listen to nearly any music ever…except for maybe Rush…maybe.

It’s flat out unimportant. It doesn’t change my opinion on anything and it doesn’t necessarily diminish my opinion of said famous person…either with their work or them as people. People disagree. Sometimes when people disagree one or both of them speak in flamboyant, hyperbolic terms. So what? Welcome to Thanksgiving dinner at my Aunt’s house.

We’re all free to buy or not buy anything that we want for whatever reasons we choose. Guess what? Nobody cares about those either. The only reasons that any of us really care about are our own.

The only thing that has ever made me stop supporting a person’s work is when they are or were directly, physically or financially, harming other people. That’s the only criteria I have and, frankly, I think it’s the probably the most reasonable one. I say that I think it’s the most reasonable one because, again, if we all stopped enjoying creators’ work because of their political (or other) opinions, then there wouldn’t be much left to enjoy. It’s silly and it only comes up when someone particularly noteworthy gets particularly mouthy…any other day of the week this conversation doesn’t happen and no one thinks twice about this.

To support that: how many people said the same thing about Miller when he made extraordinarily similar comments a few years back on NPR? Remember that? People got all flibbity gibbet then, too. Turns out most people didn’t care enough about it to stop buying his work. They didn’t even care enough to remember…why? Because, outside of their initial outrage and the righteous indignation they put forth on the internet, they really weren’t offended and it didn’t stop people from enjoying his work. It’s just wasn’t a big deal.

Miller didn’t rape anyone, he didn’t assault anyone, and he didn’t steal from anyone. He has a political opinion that goes against the grain of what many members of the comics community have, and he put forth that opinion in a cranky, curmudgeonly manner. Big whoop.

What makes this even sillier is the fact that, if Miller had said that in support of the Occupy Movement in an equally cranky or curmudgeonly manner, there’s no way that we would be having this conversation (again).

I don’t necessarily agree with all of what Frank said or how he said it…but I really can’t be bothered to worry about it either. It doesn’t make his work from the ‘70s to the ‘90s any less brilliant, and it doesn’t make the Spirit movie any better (or good), it has zero impact on those things. The only impact it can possibly have is the one that we, as individuals, psychologically impose on it.

 

[Jordan]

I don't read Fables and I don't know exactly which viewpoints Bill Willingham has. Can someone briefly and objectively inform me on which views are the ones that people have taken issue with?

I'm just curious because his name has come up quite a few times here, and I'm not familiar with the man nor his work.

I'm going to guess, only from Fables and some of his introductions to the trades, that Willingham is very, very conservative and/or Libertarian; the Fable government in the comics is weak; almost comically so.  They also firmly believe in individual rights and responsibility; I seem to remember Snow White not blaming that big bearded dude at all for what happened at the farm early on in the series.  I remember a talk between Bigby and the Adversary about Israel that indicates (to me) that he is also VERY pro-Israel.

I guess people take issue with these things?  They don't seem that extreme to me 

[GrimlocksPS]

I'm going to guess, only from Fables and some of his introductions to the trades, that Willingham is very, very conservative and/or Libertarian; the Fable government in the comics is weak; almost comically so.  They also firmly believe in individual rights and responsibility; I seem to remember Snow White not blaming that big bearded dude at all for what happened at the farm early on in the series.  I remember a talk between Bigby and the Adversary about Israel that indicates (to me) that he is also VERY pro-Israel.

I guess people take issue with these things?  They don't seem that extreme to me 

He IS very Pro Israel and when he incorporated those views into Fables it really turned me off. But that was a few years ago when I was super political. Now I'm thinking I probably wouldn't care. My politics/beliefs shouldn't stop me from enjoying the media I love.

I used to hate overtly religious themes in comics whether they were pro or anti religion. I recently picked up Preacher and loved the heck out of it.

[monsta]

This is the ultimate Yes & No situation.

I can love and appreciate a piece of art without having any knowledge of the artist. The art stands on it's own, and I am not effected by anything that defines that artist.

So if I know the work without knowing the artist, then yes.

If I know the artist or things about the artist, then no.

[leafinsectman (Dan)]

I feel like there should be an in-between answer in that poll. Or have it be a rating scale like "how well are you able to separate art from artist (rate between 1-5)".

Like many others, it depends on the artist and what they're like or what they've done. I guess how I'm feeling on any particular day will influence things. I'm sure the quality of the art (or how much it affects me) is also a factor. If I already love something before I knew of an artist's weirdness then I'll probably still like it somehow but it might affect future stuff.

Sometimes I can fully separate. Sometimes I can't but it isn't a big issue. On rare occasions I would stop consuming the art. That said, if the art is good and the artist isn't a serial killer/rapist/pedophile/some other horrible shit then I think I'd be able to do it.

[MickeyRossi]

Sometimes I find a work is compelling because I don't agree with the viewpoint of the author.

Steve Ditko's Mr A is a good example. No matter your opinion on Objectivism, you can't read that and think Ditko's being casual. It's a work of profound sincerity. He might be batshitcrazy, but he put it down on paper and we get to experience it. I don't need to agree with Objectivism in order to spend some quality time in the mind of Objectivist. A handful of other writers fall into this category for me, too. For instance, I don't need to buy into the effectiveness of Egyptian Sex Magic to enjoy Alan Moore's Promethea. I do like that Alan Moore seems to buy into it, though.

On the far end of this spectrum, you get guys like filmmaker Richard Kern, whose whole artistic statement is intended to push your limits and offend. Handful of those in music, too - GG Allin comes to mind. If you really want to be offended by someone's work, check out ol' GG Allin. Frank Miller's statements pale by comparison. Actually you may not want to do that - GG's a truly horrid person.

So am I bothered by Frank Miller's might-makes-right statements? Nah. Honestly, it's probably that mindset that made Ronin, 300, and Dark Knight such good reads. Though, it be a lot easier to laugh off his statements if Holy Terror wasn't sooooo bad. This isn't a defense or endorsement of those comments, simply an admission that I sometimes like visiting someplace I wouldn't want to live....metaphorically. Bring on the rightwing fascists, the hippie liberals, the new age pseudoscientists, the magicians, the conservatives, the libertines, and the nutcases. Now: Entertain me, dammit!

 

[David]

I feel like there should be an in-between answer in that poll.

I figured it was a yes or no question.  There are those, like Vince and Zack, who can.  And then there are many others, as you pointed out, who cannot.  It "depends" means you can't.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  Everyone has a sliding scale.

[S. Earl]

It's not a yes or no question, it's shades of grey.

When it comes to differing world views, I can look past it for the art (to a point, outright hate speech is never cool). My Grandfather still holds on to plenty of old ways of thinking, but I don't write him off because of it, I just let him know I don't agree. But when it comes to something beyond world view and actual violent crime or abuse of any kind... then it's hard for me to get over and seperate from the art.

Two examples that come to mind are Nick Oleveri who used to be in QOTSA who beat his girlfriend and then held off a SWAT team earlier this year, and then Pitchfork went and posted a review of the new Leviathan record and reminded me of something I wished I forgot today.

http://pitchforkmedia.com/features/show-no-mercy/8660-show-no-mercy/?utm_campaign=features&utm_medium=site&utm_source=related

I was a huge fan of Leviathan, and Whiteheads tattoo work as well. But ever since these charges were leveled against him, I've had a very difficult time putting his music back on. He is being charged with a pretty vile and heinous act.

[leafinsectman (Dan)]

I figured it was a yes or no question.  There are those, like Vince and Zack, who can.  And then there are many others, as you pointed out, who cannot.  It "depends" means you can't.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  Everyone has a sliding scale.

Fair enough. I guess I can't fully do it 100% of the time but it doesn't really bother me too much unless there's some extreme stuff going on.

Can anyone really say they can do it for every possible scenario?

[David]

It's not a yes or no question, it's shades of grey.

If I asked at what point do you stop separating the artist from the art? then I could understand the shades of grey.

If you were under oath and in the witness box when asked do you drive faster than the posted speed limit? and said well, there was time I was late for work and then when my wife was pregnant and we were on our way to the hospital, then the answer is yes.

I know there are certain situations where if you find a creator a little abrasive (like, say, Erik Larsen), but you still enjoy Savage Dragon, it's no big deal.  And then you have someone that outright lies (oh, such as, maybe a Micah Wright) and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth to the point where the stories just aren't 'fun' any more.  That's fine.  I knew we were going to get a ton of as long as they don't rape children, then I still read their work answers.  I was curious to see who can enjoy the printed work regardless of the creator's mindset and who can't.

[leafinsectman (Dan)]

It can be a yes or no question. Sure, my answer is a shade of grey type answer but my previous comment about the poll was partly because I've been conditioned to get more data from people after having worked at a market research company for years.

[S. Earl]

I know there are certain situations where if you find a creator a little abrasive (like, say, Erik Larsen), but you still enjoy Savage Dragon, it's no big deal.  And then you have someone that outright lies (oh, such as, maybe a Micah Wright) and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth to the point where the stories just aren't 'fun' any more.  That's fine.  I knew we were going to get a ton of as long as they don't rape children, then I still read their work answers.  I was curious to see who can enjoy the printed work regardless of the creator's mindset and who can't.

On that level, it's a yes. I can seperate them. I do it all the time. In this modern age (twitter, blogs, etc) you get to see behind the curtain all too often. I'm sure that many of the books created in the Bronze and Silver age that I enjoy were created by quite a few peopel that may have had some colorful opinions that would rub me the wrong way.

The Internet Givith, and the Internet Taketh away in that regard.