Discussion
coppice said:
Spacey was brilliant though, and obviously having a blast in the role.
'Judge the art , not the artist' .
How about the music of one Glitter, G.which I believe turns up in the latest Tarantino? (Though I haven't seen it, and I think I'm right in saying that Mr Gadd no longer gets royalties?)'Judge the art , not the artist' .
gregs656 said:
coppice said:
'Judge the art , not the artist' .
Assuming you know anything of the artist, the two are inseparable.
t. I'd draw the line at extolling Hitler's paintings but will continue to enjoy work by Spacey, Allen and Polanski . And Glitter , if he hadn't just turned out derivative crap coppice said:
They're not at all ; I loathe the modern tendency to write off a body of work because of a lynch mob boycott (or even disapproval ) of artist who (not unusually in the business ) turns out to be a bit of a st. I'd draw the line at extolling Hitler's paintings but will continue to enjoy work by Spacey, Allen and Polanski . And Glitter , if he hadn't just turned out derivative crap
It’s not a modern tendency to interpret art this way. t. I'd draw the line at extolling Hitler's paintings but will continue to enjoy work by Spacey, Allen and Polanski . And Glitter , if he hadn't just turned out derivative crap Also, I am not defending the tendency you describe. I am simply stating that once you know something about an artist this will inform your judgement on their product. Art is a creative expression of the artist. It requires a creator. There is no sense in which the creator is separate from their product with art. This is why a Monet, for example, is worth more than an exact replica of a Monet.
I have no problem with people enjoying these people’s art but I do think they should own it, and imo the ‘judge the art’ thing is a complete cop out.
ThunderSpook said:
You know he’s not been found guilty of anything right?
You know the difference between a general statement and a specific one, right? Where did I mention any specific artist? gregs656 said:
Taylor James said:
Why would he not receive royalties if he has retained the rights to the music?
You're assuming he did retain the rights, but he didn't, he sold them a long time a go to Snapper Records.Thanks for confirming where the rights are held. IMO whoever has the rights should get paid.
Edited by Taylor James on Wednesday 13th November 15:55
gregs656 said:
coppice said:
They're not at all ; I loathe the modern tendency to write off a body of work because of a lynch mob boycott (or even disapproval ) of artist who (not unusually in the business ) turns out to be a bit of a st. I'd draw the line at extolling Hitler's paintings but will continue to enjoy work by Spacey, Allen and Polanski . And Glitter , if he hadn't just turned out derivative crap
It’s not a modern tendency to interpret art this way. t. I'd draw the line at extolling Hitler's paintings but will continue to enjoy work by Spacey, Allen and Polanski . And Glitter , if he hadn't just turned out derivative crap No it isn't - because it isn't anything to do with interpretation of art. It is part of the recent tendency to protest against a piece of art not because of its inherent qualities but simply and only because of something its creator is alleged to have done.
[
coppice said:
It’s not a modern tendency to interpret art this way.
No it isn't - because it isn't anything to do with interpretation of art. It is part of the recent tendency to protest against a piece of art not because of its inherent qualities but simply and only because of something its creator is alleged to have done.
[
It is absolutely to do with the interpretation of art. That is kind of the point. Part of the inherent quality of the art *is* it's creator. No it isn't - because it isn't anything to do with interpretation of art. It is part of the recent tendency to protest against a piece of art not because of its inherent qualities but simply and only because of something its creator is alleged to have done.
[
And, again, I make no comment on Spacey in particular.
gregs656 said:
coppice said:
It’s not a modern tendency to interpret art this way.
No it isn't - because it isn't anything to do with interpretation of art. It is part of the recent tendency to protest against a piece of art not because of its inherent qualities but simply and only because of something its creator is alleged to have done.
[
It is absolutely to do with the interpretation of art. That is kind of the point. Part of the inherent quality of the art *is* it's creator. No it isn't - because it isn't anything to do with interpretation of art. It is part of the recent tendency to protest against a piece of art not because of its inherent qualities but simply and only because of something its creator is alleged to have done.
[
And, again, I make no comment on Spacey in particular.
Anyway... what we are dealing with here is the human reaction of disgust. Which again is a complex subject and interesting topic. Disgust, like art can be an irrational response or interpretation based on learnt behaviour.
Some will find listening to glitters music disgusting, why? Well there is no universal disgusting reaction. The USA even did many experiments on using smells to disperse crowds. What they found was that the smells they found disgusting where actually pleasant to the Vietnamese, look up smelly fruit/food for example.
Back to glitter, some people based on personal experiences and learnt behaviour will have a disgust reaction to his music. Others won’t.
The same way there is no universally liked art in any form. People react differently to different things.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff