I guess you and I are wired different then. I’ve never paid much attention to the artist when I was developing my music tastes. It was always “I like this song” instead of “I like this whole album”.
Considering musicians usually put great care into constructing an album, often around a theme, many which tell a specific story, I’d say you’re wired differently from the people whose music you listen to as well.
But your criterion seems to be “any atrocity an artist commits can be ignored as long as they are good enough at it.” So what determines the level of artistry where we can forgive an atrocity? Is it based on number of Grammy wins or…?
Some put great care into them, others just stick a bunch of related songs onto an album and hope for the best. Pink Floyd’s Animals is a terrible album full of tonally conflicting themes, but Sheep is one of my favourite Floyd songs of all time. You can pick a berry from a bush without having to scratch yourself on the brambles.
So what determines the level of artistry where we can forgive an atrocity?
If they have inspired derivative works, that are pro-humanist. Picasso was a horrible person, but his depiction of the Guernica definitely stirred a few minds to the atrocities happening at the time.
I see, so if I take a Hitler painting and satirize it so that it becomes a pro-humanist work, that makes his own work at a level of artistry where we can forgive his atrocities.
(I think at this stage in this somewhat friendly argument you are deliberately misconstruing my words)
No, someone being good does not make up for them being bad, but the good action alone can be admired by its own merit, and measured by the acts of good it inspires.
If something good does not make up for them being bad, then I don’t see why the good thing deserves my attention. If something else that was good was derived from it, it sounds like that is what deserves my attention.
You wouldn’t have the Taj Mahal without the Quran. Many people believe the Quran is a beautiful work of poetry despite being full of atrocities. I think it should be left in the dustbin of history because it’s a disgusting, immoral book that is responsible for countless atrocities and should be ignored by everyone outside of academic settings no matter how beautiful it is. But the Taj Mahal can be appreciated without reading a page of the Quran.
So appreciate the Taj Mahal. Leave the poetry of the Quran behind. It’s an immoral book written by an immoral person or people.
I wouldn’t suggest anyone read the beautiful poetry of the Quran as long as they don’t pay for it either.
The Quran immoral because because of the messages it conveys. The only way we can really say the people who wrote it were immoral is by inferring it from the work itself.
There are many times where the work / product / art stands on its own, and should you not know anything about the author, could not possibly be called immoral on its own merit. Admiring work like this, need not automatically validate the evil of the artist.
Just because you acknowledge that some aspect of something otherwise evil is good does not mean have to automatically excuse the bad, however you can recognise the good thing for just being good, on its own. You happily benefit from the work of shitty people, probably daily, it might even save your life one day.
Losing your appreciation for “something good” because of who made it is a perfectly reasonable take. But so is “something good” is good despite who made it.
Side note, genuinely wondering, is the Taj Mahal that intertwined with islam where we would not have it without? At the end of the day it is a tomb, and as far as I understand the biggest reason for it being built is love for the emperors wife
Considering musicians usually put great care into constructing an album, often around a theme, many which tell a specific story, I’d say you’re wired differently from the people whose music you listen to as well.
But your criterion seems to be “any atrocity an artist commits can be ignored as long as they are good enough at it.” So what determines the level of artistry where we can forgive an atrocity? Is it based on number of Grammy wins or…?
Some put great care into them, others just stick a bunch of related songs onto an album and hope for the best. Pink Floyd’s Animals is a terrible album full of tonally conflicting themes, but Sheep is one of my favourite Floyd songs of all time. You can pick a berry from a bush without having to scratch yourself on the brambles.
If they have inspired derivative works, that are pro-humanist. Picasso was a horrible person, but his depiction of the Guernica definitely stirred a few minds to the atrocities happening at the time.
I see, so if I take a Hitler painting and satirize it so that it becomes a pro-humanist work, that makes his own work at a level of artistry where we can forgive his atrocities.
(I think at this stage in this somewhat friendly argument you are deliberately misconstruing my words)
No, someone being good does not make up for them being bad, but the good action alone can be admired by its own merit, and measured by the acts of good it inspires.
If something good does not make up for them being bad, then I don’t see why the good thing deserves my attention. If something else that was good was derived from it, it sounds like that is what deserves my attention.
You wouldn’t have the Taj Mahal without the Quran. Many people believe the Quran is a beautiful work of poetry despite being full of atrocities. I think it should be left in the dustbin of history because it’s a disgusting, immoral book that is responsible for countless atrocities and should be ignored by everyone outside of academic settings no matter how beautiful it is. But the Taj Mahal can be appreciated without reading a page of the Quran.
So appreciate the Taj Mahal. Leave the poetry of the Quran behind. It’s an immoral book written by an immoral person or people.
I wouldn’t suggest anyone read the beautiful poetry of the Quran as long as they don’t pay for it either.
I feel like we’re in agreement then, the Quran is the artist and the Taj Mahal is one of its works.
The Quran is a book, not an artist. The artist was a pedophile. So no, we are not in agreement.
The Quran immoral because because of the messages it conveys. The only way we can really say the people who wrote it were immoral is by inferring it from the work itself.
There are many times where the work / product / art stands on its own, and should you not know anything about the author, could not possibly be called immoral on its own merit. Admiring work like this, need not automatically validate the evil of the artist.
Just because you acknowledge that some aspect of something otherwise evil is good does not mean have to automatically excuse the bad, however you can recognise the good thing for just being good, on its own. You happily benefit from the work of shitty people, probably daily, it might even save your life one day.
Losing your appreciation for “something good” because of who made it is a perfectly reasonable take. But so is “something good” is good despite who made it.
Side note, genuinely wondering, is the Taj Mahal that intertwined with islam where we would not have it without? At the end of the day it is a tomb, and as far as I understand the biggest reason for it being built is love for the emperors wife