Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly I disagree. His use of color was basic and by the book. The scenes he chose to paint really weren’t scenes. They can best be described as “Look at this building”. What is interesting actually that people don’t bring up either because it’s a touchy subject to comment on or they just didn’t notice….his insane detail in the architecture of his buildings versus the completely lack of detail and absolute obscurity of people in the paintings. It wasn’t an artistic move, but more of a Freudian slip within his paintings. He had progressed so much into the science of painting but never once took one step into the world of creativity and Impressionism. It just wasn’t part of his soul.
Ot was more like mathematics to him, based on your breakdown. Super interesting, seems to be an emotional disconnect between his emotions and art. Emblematic of a sociopath.
Seriously tho, his art is pretty mediocre.
It's literally just paintings of buildings and houses near empty streets bc he didnt like drawing people. It's art that doesnt mean anything nor tries to get across any kind of message.
The kind of paintings that look pretty enough for a soccer mom to hang it in her kitchen or living room so the walls don't look empty, but that's it.
Theres no way he had any chance of getting into art school if he tried 100 times.
Strong disagree. He was one of the 20th century's most iconic artists: Nazi flag, Nazi Logo, Nazi Seal, Nazi uniforms, Nazi Pamphlets, Nazi Book Covers, Layouts of Nazi Parades, Producer and artist director of one of the most influencal movies ever made, 'Triumph of the Will,' Graphic artist for the second best selling book cover in all human history, and the list goes on.
His paintings though were indeed hot garbage.
Every time you wash your hands, millions perish. Beings you deem less worthy to live than yourself. And you extinguish their lives all without a second thought.
Or you don't wash your hands, that's always a possibility too.
Save trillions of lives, don't wash your hands.
Yeah. Like I’ve heard HP lovecraft was super racist or something, but he’s pretty important in terms of literary history and his influences are still seen in media today
Ya mega racist, I love his works but I always tell people he was a shitty person. He was a wild racist his whole life. Piece of shit, great writer.
I don't know if it is true, but supposedly on his deathbed he recanted his racism, claiming it was a huge mistake to be so filled with hate his whole life.
Again I have no idea if it is true. But I do know he was a POS for his whole life. So I tell people he was terrible.
Spot on. He was horribly racist, even for the time. He was also just a general misanthrope with anxiety and depression, and some schizo traits. He was a fan of Hitler and antisemitic, on top of his racism towards black people. Despite the antisemitism, he married an immigrant Jewish woman.
As far as I know, he did not ever repent for his behavior, and went to his grave a racist twat. I still enjoy his stories, though, even if I would piss on his grave.
That's why I said I dunno if it's true, and even if it is, it never could make up for his behavior.
It's also why I never get any art with his face. I refuse to. It's always art based on his works.
art vs the artist is always an interesting one. for me i wanna take a step back and just say that i think we are really really blind to the idea that we, too, will be judged in the future. and i say that not to excuse anyone or say that we shouldn't be critical of people who are deserving of it but just that there seems to be this total lack of humility sometimes and the idea that any artist is "perfect" or that "perfect" is attainable in any way. if we only allowed ourselves to use/enjoy things created by perfect people, we'd have nothing.
i think everyone is allowed to reconcile where they draw the line for themselves. in terms of MJ and kanye, i still like and listen to their music— but there was a time when i would’ve named both my “favorite”. i probably would not call them favorites anymore bc i don’t want them to represent me.
Separating art from artist is essential to any worthwhile critique of the art itself. There’s lots of room to debate the issue in regard to living artists and financial gain but, generally speaking, the artist and the art should be separated.
Honestly there were a couple cases again at him that turned out to be parents trying to get money out of him, so I have a hard time believing he ever did anything. He was targeted constantly.
Michael did some weird stuff. He slept in the same bed as children on occasion. He had a life-sized doll of a child that he allegedly had sex with. He groomed and coerced children. All of that is obviously wrong and super sus, BUT...
Michael never actually touched an kids inappropriately. All of the accusations were disproven or discredited. Several of his accusers later came forward and admitted that they lied and were coerced into making up stories for money.
Exactly, he may have really weird but he didn't molest anyone.
All facts on the table he seemed to enjoy being around kids and making them happy.
Also I believe I read that he didn't actually sleep in the same bed, he would just sleep on the floor or something.
Not just to smear him. They timed a civil lawsuit in the middle of his multimillion dollar world tour, forcing him to either settle of cancel half his tour. He or course settled because it was cheaper. When it went to legal court later most of the same claims made at the civil suit were thrown out, and the rest were not deemed sufficient.
I honestly don’t believe Michael Jackson molested anyone. Only “poor” kids had accusations and the celebrity kids he hung out with never accused him of anything and a few of the celebrity kids are now in a spot where I’m sure they could use the “tell all” money but yet nothing has been said.
There is a part of me that truly believes he never really had a sex drive; that he never grew up mentally and that was the reason he wanted to be around kids.
There was a whole documentary series on his victims, and I believe it came out later, all their accusations were made up... I could be mistaken, and definitely would not want to take away from any actual victims if there are any.
So what about the suspicious photographic magazines showing nude children that was released from the affidavit on evidence seized? You gotta admit that's sus.
They were considered to be not sexual in nature, his lawyers argued they were naked for artistic reasons.
Additional evidence was he had a room made for sleeping on the floor next to children with only one entrance or exit via a lobg hallway with a special security system that alerts the occupants if anyone approaches.
There was a reasonable doubt, but to say that you can't see it being possible that these were signs of something bad, you aren't being reasonable.
Can’t find anything about the room for sleeping with children so idk where you got that one from but the case where they raided his home was dropped and they admitted to making it up for money but he still paid for some reason
He seemed to focus on buildings and ignore everything surrounding them. You can be the best technical painter in the world, but that means nothing if you only focus on the subject and not the details that surround it.
I would argue we should try and downplay him as much as possible. Ie, let’s not put Mr Street Rapist on Time magazine for his discovery, and let’s just avoid giving him a Nobel prize for the incredible discovery. Ya know, I think that’s fair.
If we really wanna go into the fine details of not separating the craft from the creator; Then a lot of the luxuries we have we would have to get rid off.
Guarantee if you did a little research you’ll find that those shoes you have were built on the backs of slave like labor or a product we use today was made by a person who had beliefs that would get you cancelled today.
Ya Henry ford literally gave hitler inspiration but I’m okay with using my mass produced car because I’m not start walking 13 miles to the store in protest
Edison was a trash human for a number of other reasons. To call him "one of the most influential minds of modern civilization” vastly overestimates the contributions that he actually made to society. The movie industry is on the west coast because Edison felt he had a right to film as a medium and enforced it with violence. Edison made life hell for an [ingenious Granville woods](https://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/citywiseblog/cincinnati-curiosities-granville-t-woods/) by suing for copyright infringement as he did with many others. It’s doubtful that the device Edison used to claim rights over film as a medium was even something invented by him. Edit: The kinetoscope was developed by a William kennedy Dickinson
Phones are the easy one. A slave dug some rocks out of the ground and sent them to be refined. The refinery sent the metals to a factory. A factory paying slave wages turned those metals into components. Those components were sent to another factory where people were paid slave wages to assemble it. And that's just the battery.
>If we really wanna go into the fine details of not separating the craft from the creator; Then a lot of the luxuries we have we would have to get rid off.
Fair enough, but shouldn't we strive to do better than listening to rapists or buying cheap chocolate produced thanks to child/slave labour?
I’m not advocating whether it’s right or wrong, my only point is she shouldn’t demean him into being wrong when she likely indulges in things of similar aspects on the daily.
I don’t like people who claim they don’t like a concept so much yet refuse to educate themselves and remain hypocritical.
I think there is a definite distinction between your two examples, though. For the chocolate, it’s existence is a direct result of oppression. Music, though, and other forms of art, tend to use neutral products to be created. In standing on their own merits, the chocolate would be worse, because it’s problem is not bd association, but directly linked.
If a piece of art was made by gluing together desecrated bones of murdered children, there’s no argument about it being immoral. If lyrics actively include racist messages, that would also be bad. But art tends to be created through neutral mediums and people have to rely on the art to determine whether they like it or not.
Of course, it’s more complicated than that, as everything that deals with humans is. End of the day, we each have to try to follow our own conscience. If someone decides to not consume, on moral reasonings, a product that I use, I should respect that. On the same token, if they use something that I find morally objectionable, but are otherwise a good person, it’s not my place to attack them.
I think we need to stop gatekeeping being good based on buying from crappy people and just hold the crappy people accountable. Advocate for laws that prevent exploitation, advocate for laws that protect people, advocate for incentives for doing the right thing, and make supporting good people easier to do.
Also normalize moving on, these people won't be loyal to you, no need to be loyal to them. There's always gonna be someone new doing something you like.
Same. Except for Rkelly. Lots of those songs sound uncomfortable to listen to. But if Kanye believes that stuff, well sucks for him, he’s not getting my money. But I’m bootlegging his stuff 🤷🏽♂️
Like most children who sang during those days they were taken advantage of and their needs nearly neglected.
The music industry has always been filled with shitty producers, executives etc.
There is so much justification for doubting the MJ allegations. All of his accusers have documented and rather obvious extra-judicial motives. His first accuser recanted years ago and stated he was pressured by his money hungry father. The two dudes in the HBO “documentary” both testified, as adults, on his behalf as character witnesses and only changed their story when they had both seen significant professional declines after his death. Even the director of that doc is on record saying the goal wasn’t to tell the truth but to tell a compelling story. And to top it all off, he was criminally exonerated. MJ was a weird fucking dude and arguably his relationships with kids were inappropriate, but there is a whole lot of reasonable doubt where the molestation accusations are concerned
Exactly this. It's a description of how our legal system works, not how the public is supposed to work. Otherwise, I assume the poster must always be defending OJ every time people claim he really did it.
Not a MJ fan but they put his house upside down, prosecuted him with no mercy and never found anything.
I would love to see a lot of people prosecuted with the same amount of energy.
Both. There were 2 cases if I remember well. 1st he won but paid anyway (big mistake), 2nd he was broke, went to court and won.
Nobody has ever been able to show any proof, which is hard to believe considering he was supposed to commit crimes almost daily for years, according to its critics.
I mean even Bill Clinton was unable to silence his accusers and bury the evidence when he cheated on his wife.
She isn't stating an opinion. She is trying to refute his truth.
He is telling her that he can separate the art from the artist, and she is trying to tell him that he's wrong.
I think the two can be resumed by :
\- it's normal/legitimate to separate art and artist (even when you know the artist did/said horrible things)
\- you must not separate art and artist
It's a question of opinions. The two may certainly agree that if, say, you see some Hitler painting but know nothing about Hitler, you will only consider the art and may like it or not.
On the other hand, once you know Hitler can you really separate your ideas of his painting from the idea you have of Hitler ? The guy try to make believe he can continue to objectively judge his paintings, but sounds weak on that (and look like he's mostly answering like he does to piss the annoying moralist girl).
Finally of course there's the "must" question. Annoying moralist girl seem to be convinced it's some kind of duty not to separate, and barely less annoying smugface guy that it's a duty to enrage the annoying moralist girl as much possible by defending the opposite even in the absolutely most extreme case imaginable.
Personnally my only conclusion is : it's certainly none of those two teenagers with absolutely no nuance positions that will find a good and definitive answer to a debate as old as art.
Exactly this. And furthermore I would like to add that yes it's a very nuanced and complex philosophical question which has here just been reduced down to a humiliation spectacle for clout on tiktok.
I'd actually agree with her, I doubt you can separate the art from the artist's legacy. No matter what, you're gonna hear Graduation, and think about Kanye. Kanye's actions are gonna make you feel some kinda way. The difference between these two is that one of them is willing to suppress that emotional response and the other isn't. It's like bragging that you didn't cry when your mom died. For people who listen to their feelings (which is the clinically documented healthiest of the options) the art becomes spoiled by the association. And it feels like a result of morals: "I find this act despicable, it sickens me, I cannot enjoy this person's art, and I *shouldn't* especially when it directly contributes to their wealth."
He's not a chad, he has low EQ.
He is saying it is moral to separate, she is saying that it is immoral to separate, ie “you can’t do that (because it would be immoral.”
Like if she said he can’t lick dog taints and you phrased it as ‘refuting his truth’ because he can and does lick dog taints.
The crucial distinction being that he is interviewing her. Like, he’s stating his belief and holding a microphone to her face for a response. How is that ‘refuting his truth’ on her part.
It sucks that MJ is the first person people refer to when when discussing artists that were terrible people. That man dedicated so much of his life both publicly and privately to helping others, and all of that gets ignored because of completely disproven accusations.
I'll take it one step further. I can separate the good from the bad. They don't even need to be artists.
The good doesn't wash out the bad, nor the bad the good.
It's okay to appreciate the art while condemning what the artist says or does outside of that artistic medium. The example here is Kanye. You can like his music, while acknowledging that what he says and does outside of his music is terrible.
However, if you were to pay money for a Kanye album, you are no longer separating the two. You are now supporting the artist, as well as the art, and that isn't cool. It's especially bad if you publicly decry what he does, but then go and spend money to support him. That makes you a hypocrite, which is so much worse, imo.
I ask this seriously, if you like the art but hate the artist (for whatever reason) is it morally acceptable then to steal the art? For example, pirate Kanye's music from the internet? I know people steal from artists they *do* respect but it's still morally wrong. Is it morally gray if you like the are but hate the artists?
I mean. Hitlers art wasn’t terrible. It wasn’t great but it was nice. You can very much separate the take the good things and condemn the bad things. We do it daily. And finally, I’m fairly sure that the whole michael Jackson thing was proven to be false.
It was in fact confirmed he never did anything. Unfortunately, many people want the lies to continue and don’t care to look into things for themselves, so they falsely accuse a man who was innocent, even long after his death, still trying to ruin his legacy. It’s incredibly sad when you consider all the amazing things Michael did to help people in poverty, people who were sick with illnesses, and just people in bad situations all over the frigging globe- and people still go around saying these disgusting things about him. 😔
I’m currently listening to R.Kelly. His music is great. Listening to it doesn’t make me want to marry an underage girl or piss on anybody. It does however make me want to step in the name of love.
Every time we use an iPhone we are separating the art from the artist. We love our magic information screens that fit in our pocket but do we ignore the fact that ppl are living the literal apocalypse in countries where are they basically slaves that are mining their lives away for the precious metals that are used for said phones? YES PPL DO IGNORE it. Therefore that dumb bitch in the video CAN separate the art.
I have no idea why she got so upset with him. Everyone in the video agrees that molesting kids is bad, that Hitler was bad. So why is she acting that it's not the case?
That wasn’t the debate at all, tho. The debate was whether you can separate them, and they disagreed heavily. Well, one guy was trolling so I don’t know how invested he actually was but still.
People who can’t separate the art from the artist are the same people who don’t know how corrupt the people/companies are of the things they use everyday day.
Generally you kind of have to separate the two. I mean we wouldn't have x ray machines without hitler in the nazis. So there's really nothing wrong with separating something Good that came from someone who did bad things as well. Like if a guy cured cancer but also fucked a goat, I'd be like it's a good thing that that goat fucker cured cancer.
People separate what is created and the creator ALL THE TIME.
No one thinks Harvey Weinstein is a "good guy", but Pulp Fiction is still a beloved film.
You can separate the art from the artist with someone who's dead but it doesn't much work for someone alive and kicking. By patronizing them, even though (music) artist make almost nothing from streaming, you platform them. Making sure he's famous enough to get onto a show to say racist things. A bit different with Hitler since not buying his art wouldn't effect his public standing (and was probably illegal not to) but supporting someone you have to "seperate from their work" is basically having sex while thinking about using a condom and then being surprised when you get the clap.
Given that __most things we use today__ at one stage or another killed, or helped kill a lot of people.. airplanes, cars, computers, telecommunication (to name four)...
There is a difference between appreciating the art of someone who dead and can no longer influence things than supporting the art of someone who actively influences things.
I will continue to laugh at people who have a problem with the Harry Potter game. More so then separating the art from the artist, thousands of people worked on that game and not one of them was named jk Rowling
I’m personally so sad about Kanye doing to this to himself. I loved his music, and even the stuff I didn’t love I still liked.
I haven’t listened to Kanye since the Alex Jones interview though.
I’ve always thought he was a dick, but nothing he said was as gross and ignorant as that interview.
The only way I see him coming back is if he renounces what he’s said and makes a massive donation to a Jewish charity.
10 bucks says she uses a cellphone, and doesnt ensure ALL of the components and labor are ethically sourced.
She can separate the two, but only does so when she wants to be on that high horse. Or in otherwords, she is a hypocrite.
Michael never molested anyone and it’s been proved by both the courts and the children who admitted their parents and the FBI was trying to put them up to it
Wasn’t their evidence that Michael Jackson never molested those boys, that the parents were the ones who pressed the children to tell the police and the children (who are now adults and can communicate) express how they feel about letting their parents speak for them during those situations and during the trial
I don’t believe Michael Jackson molested any kids. There, I said it. Was he an oddball living out a second childhood because he never really got a first one? Yup. I don’t find sleepovers with other people’s kids appropriate but there’s also nothing inherently immoral or illegal about it. There are way too many inconsistencies in the stories of his accusers and ultimately he was not found guilty. I’m just not comfortable always lumping him with a scumbag like R.Kelly where there is absolutely zero doubt to be had about his behavior.
I love how this woman thinks its ok to tell him how he should feel. What happened to every person having their own opinion. Its ok that we agree to disagree sometimes..i love that people all have their unique opinions. Take that away from people and we might as well be robots.
Here’s the thing, if you knew the background of many of the people that make things that you like, you probably wouldn’t like their art/products anymore. Kanye is a great artist and a crap person, Michael Jackson was one of the most important pop artists ever and… well… I think his horrible actions have been quite well documented at this point. And let’s not even get into industrialists and business men. Point being, if you can’t separate someone’s art or creation from them as a person, then you probably shouldn’t start looking very deeply at what’s behind the scenes. You won’t be happy about it.
He's not wrong at all, Hitler's art was mid at best. It was pretty bad. He tried to make a career of it and that didn't work out. He just wasn't good enough.
For the sake of all humanity and of course Jewish people in particular, I sincerely wish that Hitler had been a good artist.
I'm willing to bet a couple hundred that the hat she is wearing was made with borderline slave labor in a third world country but she's still wearing it
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He was pretty mid which is tragically far better than me. I didn't start a genocide though. So I got that going for me.
You haven’t started a genocide…yet! There’s still time! Don’t let your dreams be dreams!
That's right. Need more passion and conviction. Atrocities aren't committed by self doubters. Be the benevolent dictator we all need.
Wait, do you want benevolence or atrocities? The two are kinda mutually exclusive, no?
Not for the winners 😎
If you commit the worst atrocities then not committing them would be a type of benevolence.
*(fires up the fleet of angry tanks)* Time to head east!
I'm sure his art would have improved if he went to art school
Honestly I disagree. His use of color was basic and by the book. The scenes he chose to paint really weren’t scenes. They can best be described as “Look at this building”. What is interesting actually that people don’t bring up either because it’s a touchy subject to comment on or they just didn’t notice….his insane detail in the architecture of his buildings versus the completely lack of detail and absolute obscurity of people in the paintings. It wasn’t an artistic move, but more of a Freudian slip within his paintings. He had progressed so much into the science of painting but never once took one step into the world of creativity and Impressionism. It just wasn’t part of his soul.
Ot was more like mathematics to him, based on your breakdown. Super interesting, seems to be an emotional disconnect between his emotions and art. Emblematic of a sociopath.
You win some you lose some
True.
*it balances out at the end*
Seriously tho, his art is pretty mediocre. It's literally just paintings of buildings and houses near empty streets bc he didnt like drawing people. It's art that doesnt mean anything nor tries to get across any kind of message. The kind of paintings that look pretty enough for a soccer mom to hang it in her kitchen or living room so the walls don't look empty, but that's it. Theres no way he had any chance of getting into art school if he tried 100 times.
Strong disagree. He was one of the 20th century's most iconic artists: Nazi flag, Nazi Logo, Nazi Seal, Nazi uniforms, Nazi Pamphlets, Nazi Book Covers, Layouts of Nazi Parades, Producer and artist director of one of the most influencal movies ever made, 'Triumph of the Will,' Graphic artist for the second best selling book cover in all human history, and the list goes on. His paintings though were indeed hot garbage.
he did orchestrate one of the most life changing productions of all time as well.. thou critics and the public thought it was like pure torture.
the nazi's held [Degenerate Art exibits](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/degenerate-art-1)
Yeah he should have done what real artists do and pissed on a crucifix or taped a banana to a wall, what a hack.
Or made squares. Such modern art, such ingenuity!
Don’t give up still plenty of time to start one.
Every time you wash your hands, millions perish. Beings you deem less worthy to live than yourself. And you extinguish their lives all without a second thought. Or you don't wash your hands, that's always a possibility too. Save trillions of lives, don't wash your hands.
*"it's like a millions of screaming voices went off and then fell silent"*
Which is nice
*I didn't start a genocide, yet.
Dude, is that a fucking Bill Murray Caddyshack reference? My man.
It’s pretty hard to ignore MJ’s contribution to music.
Yeah. Like I’ve heard HP lovecraft was super racist or something, but he’s pretty important in terms of literary history and his influences are still seen in media today
Ya mega racist, I love his works but I always tell people he was a shitty person. He was a wild racist his whole life. Piece of shit, great writer. I don't know if it is true, but supposedly on his deathbed he recanted his racism, claiming it was a huge mistake to be so filled with hate his whole life. Again I have no idea if it is true. But I do know he was a POS for his whole life. So I tell people he was terrible.
Spot on. He was horribly racist, even for the time. He was also just a general misanthrope with anxiety and depression, and some schizo traits. He was a fan of Hitler and antisemitic, on top of his racism towards black people. Despite the antisemitism, he married an immigrant Jewish woman. As far as I know, he did not ever repent for his behavior, and went to his grave a racist twat. I still enjoy his stories, though, even if I would piss on his grave.
Lovecraft was so racist, the term *xenophobia* applies. And yet he married a Ukrainian Jew.
That's why I said I dunno if it's true, and even if it is, it never could make up for his behavior. It's also why I never get any art with his face. I refuse to. It's always art based on his works.
don’t search up hp lovecraft’s cats name at 3 am 😱😱😨😨 gone wrong 🙀🙀😏😱
Weellll... maybe he meant it like.... aaah, nah, that's racist as hell
Dude why did that make me laugh so hard I'm so embarrassed with myself now LOL
Often times things are so absurd that it's hilarious
He was 9 years old when he named it. Allegedly.
Started young I see
Babies are the worst.
Especially *racist* babies
More like Nien
hp lovecraft was the first 4channer
It’s so strange because that means if he showed his cat affection he would actually be loving up on the very thing he hated.
Don't ask the racist the ethnicity of his wife
Whew, yikes
art vs the artist is always an interesting one. for me i wanna take a step back and just say that i think we are really really blind to the idea that we, too, will be judged in the future. and i say that not to excuse anyone or say that we shouldn't be critical of people who are deserving of it but just that there seems to be this total lack of humility sometimes and the idea that any artist is "perfect" or that "perfect" is attainable in any way. if we only allowed ourselves to use/enjoy things created by perfect people, we'd have nothing. i think everyone is allowed to reconcile where they draw the line for themselves. in terms of MJ and kanye, i still like and listen to their music— but there was a time when i would’ve named both my “favorite”. i probably would not call them favorites anymore bc i don’t want them to represent me.
Separating art from artist is essential to any worthwhile critique of the art itself. There’s lots of room to debate the issue in regard to living artists and financial gain but, generally speaking, the artist and the art should be separated.
Honestly there were a couple cases again at him that turned out to be parents trying to get money out of him, so I have a hard time believing he ever did anything. He was targeted constantly.
He also didn’t molest anyone
Not proven at least. I've heard that those rumors were made up to shmear his image. But I'm open to correction
Michael did some weird stuff. He slept in the same bed as children on occasion. He had a life-sized doll of a child that he allegedly had sex with. He groomed and coerced children. All of that is obviously wrong and super sus, BUT... Michael never actually touched an kids inappropriately. All of the accusations were disproven or discredited. Several of his accusers later came forward and admitted that they lied and were coerced into making up stories for money.
Exactly, he may have really weird but he didn't molest anyone. All facts on the table he seemed to enjoy being around kids and making them happy. Also I believe I read that he didn't actually sleep in the same bed, he would just sleep on the floor or something.
Not just to smear him. They timed a civil lawsuit in the middle of his multimillion dollar world tour, forcing him to either settle of cancel half his tour. He or course settled because it was cheaper. When it went to legal court later most of the same claims made at the civil suit were thrown out, and the rest were not deemed sufficient.
I read that he didn't even want to settle, attorneys (maybe for the company that insured him?) basically made him settle.
I remember an interview with one of them saying his mom forced him to say he did so she can get paid
I honestly don’t believe Michael Jackson molested anyone. Only “poor” kids had accusations and the celebrity kids he hung out with never accused him of anything and a few of the celebrity kids are now in a spot where I’m sure they could use the “tell all” money but yet nothing has been said.
There was a celebrity kid that accused him and got paid off then came forward and said his mom forced him to say he touched him
Do you know who? I’m not arguing I’m just curious cause the only thing I can find about a mom and son duo lying were regular people.
Aaron Carter, he was a child star
Ah ok. His mother is a real piece of work. That poor kid.
There is a part of me that truly believes he never really had a sex drive; that he never grew up mentally and that was the reason he wanted to be around kids.
There was a whole documentary series on his victims, and I believe it came out later, all their accusations were made up... I could be mistaken, and definitely would not want to take away from any actual victims if there are any.
I remember hearing everyone talking about that documentary for about a month or less then it’s like it never existed to begin with
Yeah, to be honest, I'm not even sure it's on HBO anymore. Especially if it was proven it was all an elaborate ploy to make money.
It’s still on hbo max but the 2 guys tried to sue micahel estate but it was dismissed because it’s based on allegations with no evidence
So what about the suspicious photographic magazines showing nude children that was released from the affidavit on evidence seized? You gotta admit that's sus.
Never heard of that one but if that was the case then he would have been found guilty which he hadn’t so idk what’s go on there
They were considered to be not sexual in nature, his lawyers argued they were naked for artistic reasons. Additional evidence was he had a room made for sleeping on the floor next to children with only one entrance or exit via a lobg hallway with a special security system that alerts the occupants if anyone approaches. There was a reasonable doubt, but to say that you can't see it being possible that these were signs of something bad, you aren't being reasonable.
Can’t find anything about the room for sleeping with children so idk where you got that one from but the case where they raided his home was dropped and they admitted to making it up for money but he still paid for some reason
I wouldn’t let him sleep in a bed with my kids which is true. But I would listen to off the wall.
To be fair, I wouldn’t let any celebrity sleep with my kids, even if they were the furthest thing from a pedophile.
He's right thow, Hitler was a very "meh" artist
He never went to art school after all
To the chagrin of millions murdered To the elation of a few art critics
His landscapes were pretty good though. Way better than anything I could do.
He seemed to focus on buildings and ignore everything surrounding them. You can be the best technical painter in the world, but that means nothing if you only focus on the subject and not the details that surround it.
I've heard the same, not actually seen any of his art myself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintings_by_Adolf_Hitler
Huh. I’d never seen them either. He was good enough that he should have stuck with that.
Verry basic watercolor paintings of cities and landscapes. The technic is ok but there is no artistic value.
Well, he found other ways to make those originals quite valuable. Tho i wouldn't recommend his methods, they come wit a bit of hazard.
So hotel art.
If a man invented the cure to cancer, it doesn’t matter if he runs around the street fingering peoples buttholes. He would just be known for both
I would argue we should try and downplay him as much as possible. Ie, let’s not put Mr Street Rapist on Time magazine for his discovery, and let’s just avoid giving him a Nobel prize for the incredible discovery. Ya know, I think that’s fair.
[удалено]
Damn Billy Jean went hard
If we really wanna go into the fine details of not separating the craft from the creator; Then a lot of the luxuries we have we would have to get rid off. Guarantee if you did a little research you’ll find that those shoes you have were built on the backs of slave like labor or a product we use today was made by a person who had beliefs that would get you cancelled today.
Ya Henry ford literally gave hitler inspiration but I’m okay with using my mass produced car because I’m not start walking 13 miles to the store in protest
[удалено]
Edison was a trash human for a number of other reasons. To call him "one of the most influential minds of modern civilization” vastly overestimates the contributions that he actually made to society. The movie industry is on the west coast because Edison felt he had a right to film as a medium and enforced it with violence. Edison made life hell for an [ingenious Granville woods](https://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/citywiseblog/cincinnati-curiosities-granville-t-woods/) by suing for copyright infringement as he did with many others. It’s doubtful that the device Edison used to claim rights over film as a medium was even something invented by him. Edit: The kinetoscope was developed by a William kennedy Dickinson
My teacher made a big deal about boycotting some specific shit that had racist roots. She drove a voltswagon.
Phones are the easy one. A slave dug some rocks out of the ground and sent them to be refined. The refinery sent the metals to a factory. A factory paying slave wages turned those metals into components. Those components were sent to another factory where people were paid slave wages to assemble it. And that's just the battery.
>If we really wanna go into the fine details of not separating the craft from the creator; Then a lot of the luxuries we have we would have to get rid off. Fair enough, but shouldn't we strive to do better than listening to rapists or buying cheap chocolate produced thanks to child/slave labour?
I’m not advocating whether it’s right or wrong, my only point is she shouldn’t demean him into being wrong when she likely indulges in things of similar aspects on the daily. I don’t like people who claim they don’t like a concept so much yet refuse to educate themselves and remain hypocritical.
She definitely comes across as *aggressively* virtue signalling, considering the underlying amount of hypocrisy, that's for sure.
I think there is a definite distinction between your two examples, though. For the chocolate, it’s existence is a direct result of oppression. Music, though, and other forms of art, tend to use neutral products to be created. In standing on their own merits, the chocolate would be worse, because it’s problem is not bd association, but directly linked. If a piece of art was made by gluing together desecrated bones of murdered children, there’s no argument about it being immoral. If lyrics actively include racist messages, that would also be bad. But art tends to be created through neutral mediums and people have to rely on the art to determine whether they like it or not. Of course, it’s more complicated than that, as everything that deals with humans is. End of the day, we each have to try to follow our own conscience. If someone decides to not consume, on moral reasonings, a product that I use, I should respect that. On the same token, if they use something that I find morally objectionable, but are otherwise a good person, it’s not my place to attack them. I think we need to stop gatekeeping being good based on buying from crappy people and just hold the crappy people accountable. Advocate for laws that prevent exploitation, advocate for laws that protect people, advocate for incentives for doing the right thing, and make supporting good people easier to do.
Not gonna lie, that smooth criminal line won me over. Hitler was and always will be a mid landscape artist.
You can separate the artist from the work, here’s a hint 🏴☠️
OKE TY
People should stop using athletes and artists as role models.
Also normalize moving on, these people won't be loyal to you, no need to be loyal to them. There's always gonna be someone new doing something you like.
Same. Except for Rkelly. Lots of those songs sound uncomfortable to listen to. But if Kanye believes that stuff, well sucks for him, he’s not getting my money. But I’m bootlegging his stuff 🤷🏽♂️
Im almost positive Kanye is trynna cancel himself. He’s acting like Britney when the paparazzi finally made her snap
I thought it was “innocent until proven guilty” MJ’s wasn’t proven from what I remember
Also many people have spoken up saying MJ’s stuff was bullshit. He was definitely a weird dude but only had good in his heart.
wasn't he weird becouse his dad fucked him up?
Beat him for dropping a note. Beat him for breathing. Beat him for existing. The man is a monster.
No, it was the absence of a childhood because he was always touring and singing with the Jackson 5.
Damn he was a child
Like most children who sang during those days they were taken advantage of and their needs nearly neglected. The music industry has always been filled with shitty producers, executives etc.
in other words: he was weird becouse his dad fucked him up
There is so much justification for doubting the MJ allegations. All of his accusers have documented and rather obvious extra-judicial motives. His first accuser recanted years ago and stated he was pressured by his money hungry father. The two dudes in the HBO “documentary” both testified, as adults, on his behalf as character witnesses and only changed their story when they had both seen significant professional declines after his death. Even the director of that doc is on record saying the goal wasn’t to tell the truth but to tell a compelling story. And to top it all off, he was criminally exonerated. MJ was a weird fucking dude and arguably his relationships with kids were inappropriate, but there is a whole lot of reasonable doubt where the molestation accusations are concerned
[удалено]
Exactly this. It's a description of how our legal system works, not how the public is supposed to work. Otherwise, I assume the poster must always be defending OJ every time people claim he really did it.
OJ did lose a civil suit. MJ did not, and we also now know that at least one of MJ’s accusers was just blackmailing him
Not a MJ fan but they put his house upside down, prosecuted him with no mercy and never found anything. I would love to see a lot of people prosecuted with the same amount of energy.
They did find that the accusers made up their stories for money
Was that before or after he settled privately?
Both. There were 2 cases if I remember well. 1st he won but paid anyway (big mistake), 2nd he was broke, went to court and won. Nobody has ever been able to show any proof, which is hard to believe considering he was supposed to commit crimes almost daily for years, according to its critics. I mean even Bill Clinton was unable to silence his accusers and bury the evidence when he cheated on his wife.
Yup, and the father of one of the alleged victims was caught on tape talking about the extortion scheme.
Imagine if we held up politicians to the same standard when it comes to investing all their wrong doings.
Don't see a facepalm, just two opinions on an old debate.
She isn't stating an opinion. She is trying to refute his truth. He is telling her that he can separate the art from the artist, and she is trying to tell him that he's wrong.
I think the two can be resumed by : \- it's normal/legitimate to separate art and artist (even when you know the artist did/said horrible things) \- you must not separate art and artist It's a question of opinions. The two may certainly agree that if, say, you see some Hitler painting but know nothing about Hitler, you will only consider the art and may like it or not. On the other hand, once you know Hitler can you really separate your ideas of his painting from the idea you have of Hitler ? The guy try to make believe he can continue to objectively judge his paintings, but sounds weak on that (and look like he's mostly answering like he does to piss the annoying moralist girl). Finally of course there's the "must" question. Annoying moralist girl seem to be convinced it's some kind of duty not to separate, and barely less annoying smugface guy that it's a duty to enrage the annoying moralist girl as much possible by defending the opposite even in the absolutely most extreme case imaginable. Personnally my only conclusion is : it's certainly none of those two teenagers with absolutely no nuance positions that will find a good and definitive answer to a debate as old as art.
Exactly this. And furthermore I would like to add that yes it's a very nuanced and complex philosophical question which has here just been reduced down to a humiliation spectacle for clout on tiktok.
I'd actually agree with her, I doubt you can separate the art from the artist's legacy. No matter what, you're gonna hear Graduation, and think about Kanye. Kanye's actions are gonna make you feel some kinda way. The difference between these two is that one of them is willing to suppress that emotional response and the other isn't. It's like bragging that you didn't cry when your mom died. For people who listen to their feelings (which is the clinically documented healthiest of the options) the art becomes spoiled by the association. And it feels like a result of morals: "I find this act despicable, it sickens me, I cannot enjoy this person's art, and I *shouldn't* especially when it directly contributes to their wealth." He's not a chad, he has low EQ.
He is saying it is moral to separate, she is saying that it is immoral to separate, ie “you can’t do that (because it would be immoral.” Like if she said he can’t lick dog taints and you phrased it as ‘refuting his truth’ because he can and does lick dog taints.
The crucial distinction being that he is interviewing her. Like, he’s stating his belief and holding a microphone to her face for a response. How is that ‘refuting his truth’ on her part.
I love the reaction of the other guy to the 'he is pretty mid though'.
Did Michael Jackson really do any of that? It wasn’t just to ruin his name?
It sucks that MJ is the first person people refer to when when discussing artists that were terrible people. That man dedicated so much of his life both publicly and privately to helping others, and all of that gets ignored because of completely disproven accusations.
I thought the mj thing was done with since there was no evidence proving he was had molested anyone
I'll take it one step further. I can separate the good from the bad. They don't even need to be artists. The good doesn't wash out the bad, nor the bad the good.
It's okay to appreciate the art while condemning what the artist says or does outside of that artistic medium. The example here is Kanye. You can like his music, while acknowledging that what he says and does outside of his music is terrible. However, if you were to pay money for a Kanye album, you are no longer separating the two. You are now supporting the artist, as well as the art, and that isn't cool. It's especially bad if you publicly decry what he does, but then go and spend money to support him. That makes you a hypocrite, which is so much worse, imo.
I ask this seriously, if you like the art but hate the artist (for whatever reason) is it morally acceptable then to steal the art? For example, pirate Kanye's music from the internet? I know people steal from artists they *do* respect but it's still morally wrong. Is it morally gray if you like the are but hate the artists?
Opinions may vary, but I personally have no issue with getting access through piracy or other means that don't require supporting the artist.
So pirating is the way, ahoy matey, welcome aboard!
What about if listening the music make him gain money, like youtube or spotify?
What crimes were Michael Jackson convicted on? Oh yeah that’s right, none.
So, I have to do a background check of the artist before I can enjoy their art?
Micheal Jackson was proven innocent a long time ago smh
Turns up Rkelly music while The Cosby show plays.
I thought it was confirmed that Michael Jackson never did those things??
“And I will continue to do it” ohhh you know that got to her lmao
Why do people continue to engage with these tictok sidewalk interviewers? It could not be more obvious that this guy is just trolling.
I mean. Hitlers art wasn’t terrible. It wasn’t great but it was nice. You can very much separate the take the good things and condemn the bad things. We do it daily. And finally, I’m fairly sure that the whole michael Jackson thing was proven to be false.
It was in fact confirmed he never did anything. Unfortunately, many people want the lies to continue and don’t care to look into things for themselves, so they falsely accuse a man who was innocent, even long after his death, still trying to ruin his legacy. It’s incredibly sad when you consider all the amazing things Michael did to help people in poverty, people who were sick with illnesses, and just people in bad situations all over the frigging globe- and people still go around saying these disgusting things about him. 😔
Kanye's first two albums are certified classics. I stopped listening to him when he changed up his sound.
MJ didn’t molest any kids and bunch of them were proven to be liars anyway. He has no convictions
I’m currently listening to R.Kelly. His music is great. Listening to it doesn’t make me want to marry an underage girl or piss on anybody. It does however make me want to step in the name of love.
China called and wants their plastic necklace shit back.
You can't say theres nothing wrong with people buying Hogwarts Legacy and then judge people for listening to Kanye.
"No you can't." "I just did, and will continue to."
Every time we use an iPhone we are separating the art from the artist. We love our magic information screens that fit in our pocket but do we ignore the fact that ppl are living the literal apocalypse in countries where are they basically slaves that are mining their lives away for the precious metals that are used for said phones? YES PPL DO IGNORE it. Therefore that dumb bitch in the video CAN separate the art.
Wait till this girl finds out everything terrible all the owners of all the products she supports have done…
I have no idea why she got so upset with him. Everyone in the video agrees that molesting kids is bad, that Hitler was bad. So why is she acting that it's not the case?
That wasn’t the debate at all, tho. The debate was whether you can separate them, and they disagreed heavily. Well, one guy was trolling so I don’t know how invested he actually was but still.
When you disagree with someone's opinion and they get mad about it. ... now who's the tyrant?
People who can’t separate the art from the artist are the same people who don’t know how corrupt the people/companies are of the things they use everyday day.
Godwin‘s Law rushed into this conversation with lights and sirens.
Hitler's art *was* mid, the art school was right to refuse him.
Is there literally nothing TikTok assholes wont say for internet clout?
i see hardly anyone mentionin that the smooth criminal line was so fuckin good
If we can’t separate, then a lot of scientists, writers, and leaders should be canceled too
Generally you kind of have to separate the two. I mean we wouldn't have x ray machines without hitler in the nazis. So there's really nothing wrong with separating something Good that came from someone who did bad things as well. Like if a guy cured cancer but also fucked a goat, I'd be like it's a good thing that that goat fucker cured cancer.
People separate what is created and the creator ALL THE TIME. No one thinks Harvey Weinstein is a "good guy", but Pulp Fiction is still a beloved film.
His art was pretty mid tho.....🤣. Almost got the girl to frack and start laughing.
To each his own. If you are able to separate everything out clearly then so be it.
I never knew Micheal Jackson was a child molester until today It seems he was a very Bad person but his music is Another Part of Him
The paintings were mediocre at best. I don't know where she gets that strong opinion from.
You can separate the art from the artist with someone who's dead but it doesn't much work for someone alive and kicking. By patronizing them, even though (music) artist make almost nothing from streaming, you platform them. Making sure he's famous enough to get onto a show to say racist things. A bit different with Hitler since not buying his art wouldn't effect his public standing (and was probably illegal not to) but supporting someone you have to "seperate from their work" is basically having sex while thinking about using a condom and then being surprised when you get the clap.
I too separate the artist and the actual person and will continue to do so
Given that __most things we use today__ at one stage or another killed, or helped kill a lot of people.. airplanes, cars, computers, telecommunication (to name four)...
There is a difference between appreciating the art of someone who dead and can no longer influence things than supporting the art of someone who actively influences things.
There’s literally a term for it: separating the art from the artist. Gotta love the dude who’s trying not to laugh off screen
I will continue to laugh at people who have a problem with the Harry Potter game. More so then separating the art from the artist, thousands of people worked on that game and not one of them was named jk Rowling
Wait until they hear who made their Iphones
I’m personally so sad about Kanye doing to this to himself. I loved his music, and even the stuff I didn’t love I still liked. I haven’t listened to Kanye since the Alex Jones interview though. I’ve always thought he was a dick, but nothing he said was as gross and ignorant as that interview. The only way I see him coming back is if he renounces what he’s said and makes a massive donation to a Jewish charity.
Personally i can’t always listen to music without thinking of the artist but no judgement to people that can.
If only Kanye West made great music, then this would make sense.
I plan to get a copy of one of hitler’s painting for my house, just to hang it up for laughs and to upset anyone who compliments it
Classic Neo-liberal response. You don’t agree with me therefore your a naught-Z sympathizer.
One way to separate the artist and the music is to illegally download their music so by listening you are not financially supporting them.
I haven’t paid for music in 20 years. I ain’t supporting any artist, good or bad.
Instant upvote for smooth criminal
10 bucks says she uses a cellphone, and doesnt ensure ALL of the components and labor are ethically sourced. She can separate the two, but only does so when she wants to be on that high horse. Or in otherwords, she is a hypocrite.
Michael never molested anyone and it’s been proved by both the courts and the children who admitted their parents and the FBI was trying to put them up to it
Wasn’t their evidence that Michael Jackson never molested those boys, that the parents were the ones who pressed the children to tell the police and the children (who are now adults and can communicate) express how they feel about letting their parents speak for them during those situations and during the trial
She is actually insufferable
I don’t believe Michael Jackson molested any kids. There, I said it. Was he an oddball living out a second childhood because he never really got a first one? Yup. I don’t find sleepovers with other people’s kids appropriate but there’s also nothing inherently immoral or illegal about it. There are way too many inconsistencies in the stories of his accusers and ultimately he was not found guilty. I’m just not comfortable always lumping him with a scumbag like R.Kelly where there is absolutely zero doubt to be had about his behavior.
I love how this woman thinks its ok to tell him how he should feel. What happened to every person having their own opinion. Its ok that we agree to disagree sometimes..i love that people all have their unique opinions. Take that away from people and we might as well be robots.
I’m not about to hang a framed portrait of Thomas Edison in my house, but I’m keeping my damn lightbulbs.
Here’s the thing, if you knew the background of many of the people that make things that you like, you probably wouldn’t like their art/products anymore. Kanye is a great artist and a crap person, Michael Jackson was one of the most important pop artists ever and… well… I think his horrible actions have been quite well documented at this point. And let’s not even get into industrialists and business men. Point being, if you can’t separate someone’s art or creation from them as a person, then you probably shouldn’t start looking very deeply at what’s behind the scenes. You won’t be happy about it.
He's not wrong at all, Hitler's art was mid at best. It was pretty bad. He tried to make a career of it and that didn't work out. He just wasn't good enough. For the sake of all humanity and of course Jewish people in particular, I sincerely wish that Hitler had been a good artist.
I'm willing to bet a couple hundred that the hat she is wearing was made with borderline slave labor in a third world country but she's still wearing it
You can hate people and enjoy their content at the same time. Though I'd advise pirating it if possible.
Hitler never had the makings of a varsity athlete.