Conversation The Forum
Helper icon Helpers: Chris2mates , LLstill , PrincessFruitBat

About us

Midsummer's Eve is a free online dating community - based around friendship, real meetups, real people, and real relationships. We've been online since 1999 and have twice won Radio 2's Web Site of the Day award. So why not join us for free and join in the discussion?

Individual Bad Behaviour of Artits

And Censorship Of Their Artistic Works

1 2 3 Next >  Last >> 

Timmee  Male  Hampshire 4-Nov-2017 19:25 Message #4704734
I was listening to discussion of Kevin Spacey on the BBC's 'P.M. Programme' this afternoon. Jane Hill was discussing that Netflix had put a halt on filming the new House Of Cards s. I can see that if Kevin Spacey is facing criminal trial then he may not be available to film more episodes. I was surprised however, when Jane Hill suggested to her interviewee that Netflix might consider removing all previous episodes of House Of Cards from its listings.

Should all art created by Artists with criminal convictions be removed from public availability?

Could their work be returned for public view when their convictions are spent?

Should this also happen when artists are the subject of un-proven allegations?

I have House of Cards box sets of DVDs - should I surrender them to Jane Hill and the Minsitry Of Truth for burning at 451 degrees farenheit?
Hierophant  Male  East Anglia 4-Nov-2017 20:39 Message #4704735
Aren't all the allegations - Spacey, Weinstein and all the MP's - at the moment unproven? Sadly, that's the way it is, their careers are trashed already whatever the legal outcome.
With artists it will naturally follow that their work will become toxic if they are convicted...
Nigel_In_Devon  Male  Devon 4-Nov-2017 22:57 Message #4704747
My thoughts exactly Heiro. More cases of trial by media!
Jeff  Male  East Sussex 5-Nov-2017 02:13 Message #4704750
I think that the arts (and sciences) should be judged on what one considers to be their merits, not on who created them. So they shouldn't be removed from view due to criminal convictions. It might hurt the artist's feelings, but the court's sentence doesn't say that should be done, and it could deprive people who go to art galleries.

Art galleries shouldn't consider who the artist is. For example art by Tracey Emin gets shown at the Royal Academy. After her earlier works she became a Professor of Drawing at the Royal Academy, and I suspect that is the reason that they continue to show her work. I think that most of her work is awful, and if the selectors didn't know that it was by her then they wouldn't select it.

Hitler's paintings shouldn't be judged on the man. (Sorry to use Godwin's law.)
Conversely, the artwork of an extremely kind person shouldn't be judged to be good based on that person's character.

"Individual Bad Behaviour of Artits"

Badly behaved painters of nudes say "Ah, tits!" then make love to their models. If they take advantage of vulnerable models, (like Picasso did to some), we shouldn't ban all their work.
Timmee  Male  Hampshire 5-Nov-2017 11:05 Message #4704759
Thank you for highlighting my typo Jeff - it was clumsiness rather than a deliberate poor attempt at humour.

The worst of people can create the most beautiful works or Art.
We make a huge mistake it we value ideas based on who proposed them.
wonderoushen  Female  Gwynedd 5-Nov-2017 12:21 Message #4704765
Its a difficult one, I used to love Bill Cosby but I find it really difficult to watch now. We don't hear Gary Glitter on the radio anymore since his convictions, even many of his diehard fans stopped listening to him in disgust at his actions. Its unlikely we will ever see Jimmy Saville on anything other than programs about people getting away with abuse. I think I will still watch House of Cards, but all the time instead of marveling at how Spacey managed to get into the head of and portray such a venal character to watching it and wondering how much of the venality is the "real" Spacey?
Timmee  Male  Hampshire 6-Nov-2017 11:21 Message #4704821
When I was about 15 or 16 (and a huge Bowie fan) one of my friends announced that he'd dumped all his Bowie records because Bowie was "a poof." We'd both grown up in a society where being gay was frowned upon and homosexuals were subject to shaming. However, my friends's actions caused me to think about the whole issue and to conclude that society's treatment of gays was totally unjust. Maybe, I thought, it was Bowie's strangeness and non-comformitiy that made him so brilliant? I was damned if I was going to posture machismo and force myself to denounce the works of my favourite artist. I told my buddy that and he was stunned.

In the past our society equatated homoxsexuality with moral depravity and I do say that it is a great illustration of why we should not trash great works or art because we disapprove of their authors.

In the case of house of cards, I heard a female journalist saying that in the light of current knowledge, some of the plotlines were very creepy and that perhaps Kevin Spacey had input his own sexual fantasies into the direction of the plot. I say that if that's so then it helps to explain why House of Cards is such a brilliant portrait of a monster. It is not ONLY a brilliant portrait of the monster himself but also all the lesser monsters and the system of corruption, betrayal, and love on money that supports and enables him.

I think one of the reasons Hollywood and the U.S. establishment are so keen to censor Spacey now is that they know House of Cards shows the public a political system failing to serve them and rotten to its core. If Spacey's alledge crimes contributed to the brilliance of his art and to our greater knowledge of ourselves, then something good has come from the bad.
wonderoushen  Female  Gwynedd 6-Nov-2017 12:08 Message #4704824
Its the rest of the cast and crew of HofC that feel for, their work has been tainted by association and they will have lost their jobs.

Timmee I sort of get where you're coming from with Bowie, but at that time there was also recognition that homosexuality wasn't moral depravity, I remember when Bowie was outed as bisexual and Elton John as gay, the gay rights movement wasn't as widespread as it became a few years later, when songs like 'Sing if you're glad to be gay' came out. Of course there was and still is prejudice against gay people, but theres a big difference, being gay dosen't make you an abuser and I don't think there will ever come a time when our collective moral compass will swing so far out of whack that abuse and harassment become OK.

I disagree that Spacey is being censored because his art is to close to the truth for some peoples comfort, but because he's a sexual predator, sometimes its really that simple and theres no dark conspiracy.
HonestBob  Male  the Central region 6-Nov-2017 14:04 Message #4704841
"Should all art created by Artists with criminal convictions be removed from public availability?"

Well if that becomes the case...

Winona Ryders work should have been removed.

Cheryl Tweedy - Cole - Fernandez Versini - Payne... and the rest, wasn't she convicted of ABH for assault with a shoe or a bottle in a toilet in a club?

Demi Moore... there is a video on youtube of her passionately kissing a boy of 14-15 when she was about 30, so get rid of your Gi Jane and Striptease DVDs. I would post a link to the video, but not sure how that would work... Would I be guilty of sharing videos of abuse?

Or is it only men who are to be boycotted and trashed in the media without much/any evidence?

Where do these same women stand with Hilary Clinton?

The more of these unfounded allegations that pour in, the less I believe any of them.

Any of these females making claims, if they are found to be completely false... boycott their work.
HonestBob  Male  the Central region 6-Nov-2017 14:28 Message #4704845
"When I was about 15 or 16 (and a huge Bowie fan) one of my friends announced that he'd dumped all his Bowie records because Bowie was "a poof." "

That is quite poor, glad we have came a long way since then. Few great men I admire are gay, thank god we don't live in those days anymore Timmee or their words would never have reached my ears.
Timmee  Male  Hampshire 7-Nov-2017 19:29 Message #4704898
"Its the rest of the cast and crew of HofC that feel for, their work has been tainted by association and they will have lost their jobs."

Quite: - that's another negative consequence of censoring a work of art when its author is labelled a criminal. They will loose performance royalties too if the media company and artistic community decided to shun previous series, and deny views the chance to view them. And all this with nothing proven and no trail having taken place.

It is a trait of dictatorships to re-write history and censor art when previously influential individuals are discredited. The Nazis banned art they did not like and subsequently people denigrated Wagner because the Nazis liked his works. Public debate in the U.S. currently seems to be characterised by aggression and hysterical over-reaction followed by even more hysterical counter-reactions. I'm saying we should behave like a civilized & enlightened society here in the U.K.
Timmee  Male  Hampshire 9-Nov-2017 20:08 Message #4704965
Hate to say I told you so - but a Hollywood movie studio has just announced that it is deleting Kevin Spacey from a completed movie (All The Money In The World about the Getty Kidnapping) and re-doing all his scenes with another actor (Christopher Plummer I think.) They have done this on the basis of allegations with no trial or verdict having taken place.

Being a free-speech, warts & all contrarian, I shall be boycotting the air-brushed 'Snowflake' version.
Dustybin  Male  Suffolk 9-Nov-2017 21:26 Message #4704971
Free-speech , warts and all contrarian? Is that the same as a silly bugger?
wonderoushen  Female  Gwynedd 10-Nov-2017 10:10 Message #4704995
I think this is the best way forward for a film that was complete, its a way of showing disgust for Spacey's actions whilst showcasing everyone elses work.

In most other areas of employment if the sort of serious allegations were made as have been made against Spacey then the person under investigation would be suspended whilst investigation were carried out, I see this in the same vein.

Timmee  Male  Hampshire 10-Nov-2017 16:09 Message #4705009
All well and good with the proviso that if Spacey is not convicted, the movie company re-edit the film again to put him back in and compensate him for loss of reputation and earnings.
Timmee  Male  Hampshire 10-Nov-2017 16:10 Message #4705010
p.s. Yeah Dusty.
iii  Male  Avon 10-Nov-2017 16:32 Message #4705013
I doubt very much that this is an end of the Hollywood scandal.

My personal opinion is that the Trump presidency is behind the outing of all these perverts. His campaign was big on draining the swamp and when it comes to swamps none are bigger than politics and Hollywood.

If this is the case then I bet there's a lot of actors shitting it about now.
Dustybin  Male  Suffolk 10-Nov-2017 18:32 Message #4705025
Spacey was cast in a 40 million dollar film which was due to be released in a few weeks. In view of the accusations against him it was unlikely to do very well at the box office! To hold the film back would mean whoever put up the money would have had to wait for years to get their investment back.

Spacey is a rich man and if he is charged he can afford a top defence team which means the whole sorry mess will drag on for years.

Depending on the small print in his contract there must be a possibility he will still get paid for the work he did and collect a share of the profits?
Timmee  Male  Hampshire 10-Nov-2017 19:13 Message #4705028
Notoriety often boosts a movie's box office takings. If Spacey is convicted then he can be punished and his earnings used to pay compensation or fines. As I understand it there is no allegation of rape so if he were to be convicted of anything, he would probably not be imprisoned.

Incidentally Dusty, as a free speech advocate, I strongly support your right to call me a "Silly Bugger" or worse.
hannah  Female  South East London 15-Nov-2017 20:40 Message #4705473
"Should all art created by Artists with criminal convictions be removed from public availability?"

For me, it would depend on the nature of the conviction. I would refer to the victim/s. Crimes of a sexual nature have an indelible impact on the victim. Remember the Chad Evans rape case? If i had been his victim, i would not want to see his face on the tv or anywhere else again.

I was going to buy and watch the X-Men series until i realised who had directed it. I certainly don't want to enjoy or pay for any paedophiles artistic endeavour. I should imagine it's worse for the victims.
Timmee  Male  Hampshire 17-Nov-2017 20:22 Message #4705645
You are properly exercising your choice to boycott X-Men. Would you go further and make that choice for others by banning it from sale or public viewing?

In the case of Ched Evans, should people be free to employ him as a footballer once he has served any sentence proscribed by our courts?
mancers  Male  Greater Manchester 17-Nov-2017 21:40 Message #4705652
Ched Evans is free and playing football again, I'm not sure if he is having a re-trial, but the charges look likely to be dropped.
hannah  Female  South East London 19-Nov-2017 10:30 Message #4705836
"Would you go further and make that choice for others by banning it from sale or public viewing?"

No, but I'd remove his name from the credits...
hannah  Female  South East London 19-Nov-2017 10:33 Message #4705837
"In the case of Ched Evans, should people be free to employ him as a footballer once he has served any sentence proscribed by our courts?"

If he is guilty of that rape and the victim doesn't want to see his face in the limelight, then no, he should find less visible employment.
capnblackbeard  Male  Hertfordshire 19-Nov-2017 10:42 Message #4705838
i think if artist works were censored , half of all art would dissapear, from painters who have murdered people to rap artists, rockstars and many other celebrities who have commited crimes ranging from drug possesion to assults,

1 2 3 Next >  Last >> 

Back to top  Back to top

Help with conversations Help with conversations »