I have no interest in ever watching Bill Cosby but I will watch and look at the work of Leni Reifenstahl. That can't say anything good about me. Maybe because the former is trying to be funny? (Michael, by the way, who does not have a bad word to say about most anyone, cannot bear Cosby. He acted on an episode and witnessed horrendous behavior). MANHATTAN was why I fell in love with New York. I was in the audience at Shakespeare in the Park one of nights they filmed one of the scenes for the glorious montage. Even when it first came out, I was uncomfortable around the Mariel Hemingway scenes but I just sort of bleeped over them. I tried to watch it last year and I couldn't just bleep over them any more. Michaelangelo was apparently a dick too. I've watched theatre directors that I truly admire behave totally in appropriately ways with the excuse of, "Well it's just ____. What are you gonna do?" Bing Crosby was apparently no day at the beach. There's a whole sequence in Holiday Inn, my favorite Christmas movie, where everyone is in blackface. It's jaw-dropping. The most jaw-dropping aspect of it is that nobody in the scenes remarks on it. Bing sings an inspirational song about freedom covered in bootblack and his black maid back in the kitchen sings a verse of it to her own kids as if they should use that to learn about being free.
I have long had the ability to 'selectively watch' all sorts of things. I'm not so good at it anymore. I think that the art and the person can, and might have to, be seperate issues. There's a spectacular sculpture garden in Oslo that Michael and I spent an afternoon in and, of course, we discovered later that the artist was a Nazi. The sculpture garden was still spectacular even if the man, himself, wasn't.
I'm just babbling now, but maybe I can't watch Cosby is because all of the things he preached he clearly didn't believe in. Someone like Michaelangelo may have been looking for some sort of absolution in his work. Cosby just seems like a hypocrite.
Clearly, I don't have a coherent response for you, but I am right there with you in the questioning.
MAN, you have perspective--and stories! So many stories. I can only imagine how horrified Michael must have been by Cosby's behavior. It's so hard witnessing these things.
The fact that "the line" keeps moving all over the place for me is the part that troubles. I prefer less ambiguity in my moral ambiguities. Less gray, more black and white. On you, it looks better, like you're aware and thinking it through. On me, it just stinks of hypocrisy.
Ha! I don't think that black and white works (however much I'd like it to, as well!) I think we live in a world of gray. I am also totally willing to cop to some convenient hypocrisy as well, lol.
It would be so much easier if we humans were less convoluted. Off topic, I know, but I often think about the INSANE amount of work you and Michael are doing right now, and how exciting it must be to move forward even if it’s still Covid times. Just wish I were there to see it.
As a computer software professional, I will *always* be angry at Lord Byron for the way he treated his daughter Ada.
Ada was a true genius. I give thanks for her work. She was miles above her father, and her effect on history was of a much larger magnitude than his.
Does Lord Byron's horrid behavior remind anyone else of Kanye West's insane behavior?
Our culture has long been much too willing to give male genius a free pass for rotten behavior outside of their literary or film or music purview.
And you forgot to mention never forgiving Roman Polanski. I will never watch his movies again. The French should extradite Polanski instead of adulating him, eyeroll. Woody Allen was an amateur compared to Polanski.
"Our culture has long been much too willing to give male genius a free pass for rotten behavior outside of their literary or film or music purview." BAM! And of course you know who Ada is. I was tempted to mention her in this article, but she's far too important to be relegated to the margins of her father's biopic. She's the reason we have computers in the first place.
I commented at length on you Caravaggio piece, so I'll try to avoid repeating myself here.
There is no necessary connection between artistic genius and abusive behavior, although it is easy to picture why the torment of such genius might bedevil a person into externalizing their demons. But I don't recall the "3 B's" (Bach, Beethoven, Brahms) being especially monstrous, even as Beethoven (at least) was rather tormented. But power and privilege do invite license.
However, what stood out for me this time were the *enablers* that permitted the monster to operate almost without let. "Entremetteuse" -- what a term! (Had to look that one up.) And clearly a well enough established position to actually *have* a term. Unlike people of "simple" power and privilege -- the Weinsteins and Epsteins of the world -- artists are only powerful at second remove, and must have enablers. (Roman Polanski was given a free pass to leave the US even after the rape charges had been filed.) Even the Weinsteins and Epsteins need enablers, as recent events have made clear: when that superstructure crumbles, all that remains are low-rent pedos and rapists in the spotlight. (Marilyn Monroe is reputed to have said that the best part about being a star was never having to blow another producer.)
Right? The fact of her having said that always made me sad, even as a little girl. I hated that she felt it necessary to do that. And in Weinstein's case, fame provided no armor. He went after anything and anyone he could.
The enablers (we're looking at you, Jizzlaine) are just as sick as the sickos. When they're women, I'll admit to being doubly outraged. I expect better of them. I wrong and stupid to expect that, but I do. Is there anyone left who possesses an actual human heart?
This is an old post, but I came across it doing some cursory research on Lord Byron. While I’d read his poetry in school, I didn’t know much about him as a person. Now I do, and sheesh, what an awful man.
The list of predatory men grows ever longer: Kevin Spacey, Aziz Ansari, Morgan Freeman, Dustin Hoffman. Few of these men faced major repercussions for their actions. Now, in 2024, most of them have resumed their careers as if nothing ever happened. So much for cancel culture.
I have the same inner battles, though. Can I still enjoy The Usual Suspects? The Shawshank Redemption? Kramer vs. Kramer? Should I? What about the music of David Bowie? Does he get a pass because the teenagers he had sex with supposedly did so consensually? Or because I really like his music and don’t want to give it up? These are all difficult things to reconcile.
We all wrestle with this. Byron’s letters are fantastic. One has to know his life to fully enjoy the letters.
And to know his life is to admit he was a cad. He was cruel to his wife. Why did Annabella turn down good men to marry Byron. Gossip was rife that he was a wild man.
I feel like time does create a disconnect between an artists crimes and their work. I love Caravaggio! Always have. And I can’t pretend to really know what life was like when he was alive or his circumstances. But if you really want to be disgusted, look up Eric Gill.
For what it's worth, I don't think you need to agonize over Lord Byron to enjoy his artistry. The man has been dead for well over a hundred years, his victims too. That you're aware of his legacy, and that you acknowledge it and because of this you don't put him on a pedestal, is all the clearance you need to revere his work. I don't think that we need to torment ourselves about enjoying the work of those who have long ceased to exit. Current artists with objectionable legacies is where the real quandary is, because they're still alive and well. As I've expressed before, there's no hard and fast, easy-to-follow template for this. Each person has to decide for themselves what does, or does not, disqualify these artists in that person's eye. It's just impossible for there to be a, "one size fits all," standard for it, because how you receive and appreciate art is as personal as it gets for human beings. I used to agonize more about these artists, but no more. The key for me is to acknowledge the difficult legacy and then determine it it's too objectionable for ME, while also acknowledging that others can legitimately feel different; and just leave it at that.
I have no interest in ever watching Bill Cosby but I will watch and look at the work of Leni Reifenstahl. That can't say anything good about me. Maybe because the former is trying to be funny? (Michael, by the way, who does not have a bad word to say about most anyone, cannot bear Cosby. He acted on an episode and witnessed horrendous behavior). MANHATTAN was why I fell in love with New York. I was in the audience at Shakespeare in the Park one of nights they filmed one of the scenes for the glorious montage. Even when it first came out, I was uncomfortable around the Mariel Hemingway scenes but I just sort of bleeped over them. I tried to watch it last year and I couldn't just bleep over them any more. Michaelangelo was apparently a dick too. I've watched theatre directors that I truly admire behave totally in appropriately ways with the excuse of, "Well it's just ____. What are you gonna do?" Bing Crosby was apparently no day at the beach. There's a whole sequence in Holiday Inn, my favorite Christmas movie, where everyone is in blackface. It's jaw-dropping. The most jaw-dropping aspect of it is that nobody in the scenes remarks on it. Bing sings an inspirational song about freedom covered in bootblack and his black maid back in the kitchen sings a verse of it to her own kids as if they should use that to learn about being free.
I have long had the ability to 'selectively watch' all sorts of things. I'm not so good at it anymore. I think that the art and the person can, and might have to, be seperate issues. There's a spectacular sculpture garden in Oslo that Michael and I spent an afternoon in and, of course, we discovered later that the artist was a Nazi. The sculpture garden was still spectacular even if the man, himself, wasn't.
I'm just babbling now, but maybe I can't watch Cosby is because all of the things he preached he clearly didn't believe in. Someone like Michaelangelo may have been looking for some sort of absolution in his work. Cosby just seems like a hypocrite.
Clearly, I don't have a coherent response for you, but I am right there with you in the questioning.
MAN, you have perspective--and stories! So many stories. I can only imagine how horrified Michael must have been by Cosby's behavior. It's so hard witnessing these things.
The fact that "the line" keeps moving all over the place for me is the part that troubles. I prefer less ambiguity in my moral ambiguities. Less gray, more black and white. On you, it looks better, like you're aware and thinking it through. On me, it just stinks of hypocrisy.
Ha! I don't think that black and white works (however much I'd like it to, as well!) I think we live in a world of gray. I am also totally willing to cop to some convenient hypocrisy as well, lol.
It would be so much easier if we humans were less convoluted. Off topic, I know, but I often think about the INSANE amount of work you and Michael are doing right now, and how exciting it must be to move forward even if it’s still Covid times. Just wish I were there to see it.
As a computer software professional, I will *always* be angry at Lord Byron for the way he treated his daughter Ada.
Ada was a true genius. I give thanks for her work. She was miles above her father, and her effect on history was of a much larger magnitude than his.
Does Lord Byron's horrid behavior remind anyone else of Kanye West's insane behavior?
Our culture has long been much too willing to give male genius a free pass for rotten behavior outside of their literary or film or music purview.
And you forgot to mention never forgiving Roman Polanski. I will never watch his movies again. The French should extradite Polanski instead of adulating him, eyeroll. Woody Allen was an amateur compared to Polanski.
"Our culture has long been much too willing to give male genius a free pass for rotten behavior outside of their literary or film or music purview." BAM! And of course you know who Ada is. I was tempted to mention her in this article, but she's far too important to be relegated to the margins of her father's biopic. She's the reason we have computers in the first place.
I love your brain, Caroline. I always will.
Love your brain back, and I thought you handled the Ada issue perfectly.
I commented at length on you Caravaggio piece, so I'll try to avoid repeating myself here.
There is no necessary connection between artistic genius and abusive behavior, although it is easy to picture why the torment of such genius might bedevil a person into externalizing their demons. But I don't recall the "3 B's" (Bach, Beethoven, Brahms) being especially monstrous, even as Beethoven (at least) was rather tormented. But power and privilege do invite license.
However, what stood out for me this time were the *enablers* that permitted the monster to operate almost without let. "Entremetteuse" -- what a term! (Had to look that one up.) And clearly a well enough established position to actually *have* a term. Unlike people of "simple" power and privilege -- the Weinsteins and Epsteins of the world -- artists are only powerful at second remove, and must have enablers. (Roman Polanski was given a free pass to leave the US even after the rape charges had been filed.) Even the Weinsteins and Epsteins need enablers, as recent events have made clear: when that superstructure crumbles, all that remains are low-rent pedos and rapists in the spotlight. (Marilyn Monroe is reputed to have said that the best part about being a star was never having to blow another producer.)
Right? The fact of her having said that always made me sad, even as a little girl. I hated that she felt it necessary to do that. And in Weinstein's case, fame provided no armor. He went after anything and anyone he could.
The enablers (we're looking at you, Jizzlaine) are just as sick as the sickos. When they're women, I'll admit to being doubly outraged. I expect better of them. I wrong and stupid to expect that, but I do. Is there anyone left who possesses an actual human heart?
This is an old post, but I came across it doing some cursory research on Lord Byron. While I’d read his poetry in school, I didn’t know much about him as a person. Now I do, and sheesh, what an awful man.
The list of predatory men grows ever longer: Kevin Spacey, Aziz Ansari, Morgan Freeman, Dustin Hoffman. Few of these men faced major repercussions for their actions. Now, in 2024, most of them have resumed their careers as if nothing ever happened. So much for cancel culture.
I have the same inner battles, though. Can I still enjoy The Usual Suspects? The Shawshank Redemption? Kramer vs. Kramer? Should I? What about the music of David Bowie? Does he get a pass because the teenagers he had sex with supposedly did so consensually? Or because I really like his music and don’t want to give it up? These are all difficult things to reconcile.
We all wrestle with this. Byron’s letters are fantastic. One has to know his life to fully enjoy the letters.
And to know his life is to admit he was a cad. He was cruel to his wife. Why did Annabella turn down good men to marry Byron. Gossip was rife that he was a wild man.
I feel like time does create a disconnect between an artists crimes and their work. I love Caravaggio! Always have. And I can’t pretend to really know what life was like when he was alive or his circumstances. But if you really want to be disgusted, look up Eric Gill.
For what it's worth, I don't think you need to agonize over Lord Byron to enjoy his artistry. The man has been dead for well over a hundred years, his victims too. That you're aware of his legacy, and that you acknowledge it and because of this you don't put him on a pedestal, is all the clearance you need to revere his work. I don't think that we need to torment ourselves about enjoying the work of those who have long ceased to exit. Current artists with objectionable legacies is where the real quandary is, because they're still alive and well. As I've expressed before, there's no hard and fast, easy-to-follow template for this. Each person has to decide for themselves what does, or does not, disqualify these artists in that person's eye. It's just impossible for there to be a, "one size fits all," standard for it, because how you receive and appreciate art is as personal as it gets for human beings. I used to agonize more about these artists, but no more. The key for me is to acknowledge the difficult legacy and then determine it it's too objectionable for ME, while also acknowledging that others can legitimately feel different; and just leave it at that.