ZJR (winterknight) wrote in chautauqua,

Art, Artist, Ethics, and separation. Got any answers?

Some radio stations are refusing to play Michael Jackson's music. Others aren't promoting his new album. CBS isn't airing his TV special. Now, this is like a leap from spam to roast beef, but...

Can you separate the artist from the art?
Should our ethics be part of how we judge whether or not something's worthy of looking at or listening to?
Is displaying, promoting, or enjoying art also condoning the wrong-doing of the artist?
Is there something inherently unethical in enjoying the work of someone who's committed a serious breach of morals?
How good does art have to be before you stop caring who made it?
Do you hold artists/musicians to a different moral standard than other people?
Is eccentricity an excuse for breaking the law as well as breaking down social norms?
Is it the artist's duty to challenge the legal strictures of society as well as the moral and traditional ones?
Have you got any artists in mind whose art overshadows their ethical or legal transgressions?
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
I think it's ridiculous, considering he hasn't even been proven guilty.
I'm sure a lot of people will buy his music no matter what, who knows, perhaps more now than before. I think Jackson has made too great an impact on society and the world as a whole, a positive one that is, for all to just shun him. Not so sadly, the law doesn't give a fuck about talent, if you do something wrong you should be punished for it, but those who appreciate art and music do. Jackson as a 'smooth criminal' should be condemned regardless of his musical standing, but Jackson as an artist should not be condemned by music-lovers and fans. They should keep the two separated.