Feminism

[Argobot]

I understand the need for something like it, but isn't a "trigger warning" in and of itself basically a trigger? I feel like if something terrible had happened to me, and someone tried to warn me that what I was about to read was going to remind me of that terrible thing, I'd immediately be reminded of that terrible thing. I am not at all saying that we should just throw all conversation about everything around willy nilly or that trigger warnings are worthless, but it's something that's always sort of confused me.

 

Anyway, yeah, that's pretty terrible, but I'm with clyde. If I was going to condemn one man's work because he's done things I find disgusting, well, most of humanity has done something I find disgusting, so I pretty much wouldn't be able to enjoy any piece of art.

 

Maybe, but I imagine that it's easier for most people to have an advanced warning so they can make a decision to keep reading or not versus being completely blindsided by their trauma.

 

Slightly unrelated but here's an article that looks at how "trigger warning" has been misappropriated over the years. http://www.theawl.com/2012/05/when-trigger-warning-lost-all-its-meaning

[Twig]

Maybe, but I imagine that it's easier for most people to have an advanced warning so they can make a decision to keep reading or not versus being completely blindsided by their trauma.

Oh, absolutely. At the very least, whatever I imagine might be triggered by a trigger warning has got to be less bad than being blindsided by some detailed description of a traumatic event.

 

Article is kind of interesting. It's kind of shitty that useful things lose meaning like that. I'm probably part of the problem. U:

[Bjorn]

I feel like it's much easier to dismiss the horrible behavior of one long dead than it is to reconcile the praise a living person receives for their work even though they may be a terrible person.  If the allegations are true, then every time Allen's work is praised, or he is held up as a paragon of cinema, you are causing direct harm to someone.  There is someone out there who was damaged by him, abused, through a betrayal of the most important love and trust that exists in the world.  The kind that only develops between a parent and child.  She lives every day in a world that declares a fucking movie is more important than a child's safety, health or protection. 

 

But this is more than just a single accusation.  Allen has a history of relationships with young women, borderline children.  First marriage was to a 16 year old (to be fair, he was 19 and it was 1956).  Later on he had a reported relationship with a 17 year old actress.  And finally he started a relationship with a teenager in whose life he had been a father figure for the previous 12 years (though he denies playing any such role).  A girl who is the sibling of 3 of his own children.  But "the heart wants what the heart wants" and he's fucking Woody Allen, and so gets away with it. 

 

Read this interview from after he and Farrow's daughter got married.  The language he uses is actually the same thing that we recognize now as the justifications that serial pedophiles (and shitty judges) use to justify their actions.  Example:

 

Q. Weren't you worried that the emotions and motivations were too complex for a young girl?

A. No. Because if you knew her, you'd know that's not true. She's a sharp, grownup person. She's probably more mature than I am. I really mean that.

 

Because at 18 or 19 she was sooooo grown up!  So mature!  Of course she fully understood the implications and fallout of everything that was happening, and there was absolutely no influence by a man more than twice her age who is a recognized master of emotional manipulation through his films.  I mean, what kind of crazy person would claim that this wasn't just a relationship of equals?

 

And then there's the level of blame that he assigns to Mia Farrow in that interview.  He claims that Farrow would have been just as upset if he had started an affair with his secretary as she was over him starting an affair with her daughter.  What kind of fucking misogynistic sociopath makes that kind of claim?

 

Bury Allen's work in a vault.  Let people appreciate it's roll in cinematic history a century from now.  Let him fade into obscurity and stop giving him the money, attention and adoration he seeks in life.

[clyde]

I feel like it's much easier to dismiss the horrible behavior of one long dead than it is to reconcile the praise a living person receives for their work even though they may be a terrible person. If the allegations are true, then every time Allen's work is praised, or he is held up as a paragon of cinema, you are causing direct harm to someone. There is someone out there who was damaged by him, abused, through a betrayal of the most important love and trust that exists in the world. The kind that only develops between a parent and child. She lives every day in a world that declares a fucking movie is more important than a child's safety, health or protection.

This is a reasonable concern. I certainly don't want my appreciation of Annie Hall to make a victim feel isolated and vulnerable. But I think there is a way to do that without pretending to not like the movie after I find out that the writer/director is a sexual predator. What I want is for victims to heal and offenders to be nerfed. This seems like a job that could be better handled by a reliable justice-system than a group of art-critics.

I'm not saying that the U.S. justice-system is reliable or that art-critics shouldn't discuss the crimes of artists.

Edit:

When the problem is framed in the way of "Either we appreciate everything Woody Allen did or we ignore all of it", people will feel a need to defend Woody Allen based on the worth of his oevre. Why distort the value of the contributions to culture with the injustices that have been committed by conflating them through attribution? We certainly don't want to give the perpetrator a lesser punishment because of his contribution (atleast i don't want to). One does not necessitate the other. Claiming that they should be inextricably bound through the author's name makes it look like good things come from bad.

[Gormongous]

This is just me and I don't hold anyone else to this expectation, but there is certainly enough amazing and beautiful stuff in the world never to need to patronize the works of a molester or rapist.

[youmeyou]

Fuck Woody Allen

 

Yup. He's a child molester to all but the willfully obtuse.

 

I think the risk is that, given how much slack he's been given up to this point, it's likely that all the sexual abuse stuff will fade into the backdrop as he continues to be lauded for his films. It requires us to be a stick in the mud and repeat "FUCK Woody Allen" every time his name is mentioned or a new movie of his gets praised. It's the only way his victims won't be forgotten as so many before have.

[clyde]

This is just me and I don't hold anyone else to this expectation, but there is certainly enough amazing and beautiful stuff in the world never to need to patronize the works of a molester or rapist.

So you aren't a fan of the Declaration of Independence?

It's not the raping or molesting that people are patronizing. This is a ridiculous side-effect of celebrity-worship.

[Gormongous]

So you aren't a fan of the Declaration of Independence?

It's not the raping or molesting that people are patronizing. This is a ridiculous side-effect of celebrity-worship.

 

We should probably get into the deification of the founding fathers in another thread. And no, as a work of art, I'm not terribly enamored by the Declaration of Independence, certainly not enough to say we should divorce it from any and all conversations about slave-owning and slave-molesting eighteenth-century white men.

 

In all seriousness, can you go into what about this is ridiculous? Do you mean that celebrity worship is ridiculous or that this side effect is ridiculous?

[clyde]

We should probably get into the deification of the founding fathers in another thread. And no, as a work of art, I'm not terribly enamored by the Declaration of Independence, certainly not enough to say we should divorce it from any and all conversations about slave-owning and slave-molesting eighteenth-century white men.

 

In all seriousness, can you go into what about this is ridiculous? Do you mean that celebrity worship is ridiculous or that this side effect is ridiculous?

I shouldn't have said "ridiculous", that was disrespectful.

Here is what I find hard to accept. I am currently enjoying the music of a band named "Washed Out". If I find out tommorow that one of their members is a child-molester, I cannot understand how the value of the music has suddenly disappeared. Of course I don't want to enable destructive behavior, but as someone who has a desire for knowledge, I can't just pretend like I don't like the music anymore. I think that doing so is a result of attribution-error.

I mean that celebrity-worship is going to result in these conundrums.

[Gormongous]

I shouldn't have said "ridiculous", that was disrespectful.

Here is what I find hard to accept. I am currently enjoying the music of a band named "Washed Out". If I find out tommorow that one of their members is a child-molester, I cannot understand how the value of the music has suddenly disappeared. Of course I don't want to enable destructive behavior, but as someone who has a desire for knowledge, I can't just pretend like I don't like the music anymore. I think that doing so is a result of attribution-error.

I mean that celebrity-worship is going to result in these conundrums.

 

I guess. I believe in death of the author as much as any good academic, but I'm still going to look askance at someone who insists we evaluate Hitler's paintings on their artistic merit alone.

[Zeusthecat]

Here is what I find hard to accept. I am currently enjoying the music of a band named "Washed Out". If I find out tommorow that one of their members is a child-molester, I cannot understand how the value of the music has suddenly disappeared. Of course I don't want to enable destructive behavior, but as someone who has a desire for knowledge, I can't just pretend like I don't like the music anymore. I think that doing so is a result of attribution-error.

 

I think your point is well taken. I would like to think there is a way to praise a piece of work without necessarily praising the author but I'm not sure that is truly possible. By doing so you are inherently praising the author that created it. But at the same time I agree with you that it is not practical to just automatically start disliking things whenever you find out they were created by a monster.

 

I think this is just one of those super shitty things about life that there is no avoiding.

[Bjorn]

There is a line of behavior that would make people distance themselves from a piece of art.  Something so deviant, so profoundly disturbing or disgusting, that it would drive virtually everyone away from the work.  Let your imagination run wild.  I won't bother to list my own ideas here.  I think everyone knows of something that would cause their stomach to turn at the mere thought of it, and once that thought was associated with the art, the art itself would become a catalyst to that revulsion.  Creators have been intrinsically linked to their creations for thousands of years of human history. 

 

This isn't about celebrity worship and forgiveness, or divorcing the author from the content.  It's about how crimes against women and girls just aren't stomach churning enough for many people in our society.  Allen's relationship history and the allegation of abuse are clearly not enough for some people to cross that line.  Not even when Allen starts a relationship with his children's teenage sister.  It's not when R. Kelly has been accused of rape almost as many times as he's released an album.  Not when Jerry Lee Lewis likely murdered one of his wives in a fit of rage.  Not when the a place kicker for Michigan was finally expelled 4 years after allegations of sexual assault were made.  Not like a college kicker is a huge celebrity.

 

For what it's worth, I'm not directing this at anyone in this thread, I think it's a pervasive attitude throughout society, and one that I also had until I started watching my daughter grow up.  Hell, I might still have some elements of it that I'm not even aware of.  It's taken me 20 years to unpack how many fucked up ideas got planted in my head growing up in an isolated, conservative Christian Midwest town. 

[Twig]

Hitler

AWW SHIT YA DONE GONE DID IT DIDN'T YA GORMONGOUS

 

(i'm sorry i'll leave now)

[clyde]

As a thought experiment, let's change it from art to science. What if we found out that Nikola Telsa was the most deplorable human being in all of existence. Would someone who appreciates alternating current be inconsiderate of the crimes Tesla had committed? 
I have been playing down my own difficulties with how knowledge of the author's reality can taint my enjoyment of their creations. I'm not as confident on this subject as I am putting forth. 
 

 

This isn't about celebrity worship and forgiveness, or divorcing the author from the content.  It's about how crimes against women and girls just aren't stomach churning enough for many people in our society.  Allen's relationship history and the allegation of abuse are clearly not enough for some people to cross that line.  Not even when Allen starts a relationship with his children's teenage sister.  It's not when R. Kelly has been accused of rape almost as many times as he's released an album.  Not when Jerry Lee Lewis likely murdered one of his wives in a fit of rage.  Not when the a place kicker for Michigan was finally expelled 4 years after allegations of sexual assault were made.  Not like a college kicker is a huge celebrity.

I understand that this is a great subject for discussion, but my argument is not about solely that. Your point is dependent on accepting a brand as a part of the audience's identity. To me there is a huge difference between saying "I like Woody Allen's films" and "I like Annie Hall". It's just that I don't usually notice the difference until I become aware of something like Woody Allen's fucked up behaviors.

[Bjorn]

As a thought experiment, let's change it from art to science. What if we found out that Nikola Telsa was the most deplorable human being in all of existence. Would someone who appreciates alternating current be inconsiderate of the crimes Tesla had committed? 

I have been playing down my own difficulties with how knowledge of the author's reality can taint my enjoyment of their creations. I'm not as confident on this subject as I am putting forth. 

 

I don't think you "appreciate" world changing inventions like alternating current, or the polio vaccine, or powered flight in the same way that you "appreciate" a work of art.  That's a bit too apples and oranges.  And again, that's another example of someone long dead whose crimes and victims would all be history. 

 

A better example might be if one of the founders of Google was discovered to be a true monster.  They defined what searching the internet is, functionally cataloging the greatest library humanity has ever created.  It's a company inextricably linked to daily life for many of us.  But if credible allegations surfaced, along with a personal history of questionable choices that reinforce the allegations of some terrible crime, I'd be a hell of a lot less likely to depend on Google services even at significant cost to myself.

[youmeyou]

This is rape culture:

 

http://twitchy.com/2014/02/04/palpable-bitchery-stephen-king-begs-for-mercy-after-tweet-about-dylan-farrows-account-of-abuse/

[clyde]

I don't think you "appreciate" world changing inventions like alternating current, or the polio vaccine, or powered flight in the same way that you "appreciate" a work of art. That's a bit too apples and oranges. And again, that's another example of someone long dead whose crimes and victims would all be history.

A better example might be if one of the founders of Google was discovered to be a true monster. They defined what searching the internet is, functionally cataloging the greatest library humanity has ever created. It's a company inextricably linked to daily life for many of us. But if credible allegations surfaced, along with a personal history of questionable choices that reinforce the allegations of some terrible crime, I'd be a hell of a lot less likely to depend on Google services even at significant cost to myself.

The Google example is speaking of a brand. A better example might be the invention of the transistor.

If art is valued as a brand, then I agree with you. I don't want to be identified as a predator apologist. I don't want to subscribe to a brand that appears to normalize or validate violent behaviors. But I do want to appreciate art as a useful point on the matrix of my worldview and I don't think it's fair that someone might assume I am a murder apoligist because I repeated "Language is a virus from outer-space." with enthusiasm.

Your interest in the artist being alive is understandable because I certainly don't want to fund ongoing abuse.

[agorman]

This is rape culture:

 

http://twitchy.com/2014/02/04/palpable-bitchery-stephen-king-begs-for-mercy-after-tweet-about-dylan-farrows-account-of-abuse/

 

Jesus Christ. Conversations like that one are why it's so difficult for me not to get incredibly angry when I'm talking to someone about it. I have friends that have reacted similarly saying "It's not so straightforward! It's complicated!" and I'm seriously asking myself why I still continue to be friends with them.

[Bjorn]

The Google example is speaking of a brand. A better example might be the invention of the transistor.

If art is valued as a brand, then I agree with you. I don't want to be identified as a predator apologist. I don't want to subscribe to a brand that appears to normalize or validate violent behaviors. But I do want to appreciate art as a useful point on the matrix of my worldview and I don't think it's fair that someone might assume I am a murder apoligist because I repeated "Language is a virus from outer-space." with enthusiasm.

Your interest in the artist being alive is understandable because I certainly don't want to fund ongoing abuse.

 

I tried to come up with a more apt modern sciency comparison, just to run the thought experiment on myself, but we just don't associate invention with the individual like that anymore. 

 

The living angle really is important to how I think about this, whether or not a perpetrator or their victim is still alive.  That someone was a monster 100+ years ago...meh, don't care.  It just doesn't carry any emotional weight to me.  Like slavery, I understand how American slavery, and its abolishment, led to a series of societal changes both good and bad, that ultimately have come down through the many decades since to still have an effect on how modern American society works.  But I don't particularly care if any historical individual had slaves.  And if we were talking about one of the influential silent film directors who guided early cinema and crimes he committed, again, I wouldn't really care.  In those cases, I completely agree that you can separate creator from content if you want, or you can academically look at how their actions may have affected their creations. But for living people, it's just too emotionally charged.

[Problem Machine]

I feel like this discussion centers around whether someone is a good person or a bad person, and that's not actually a world view that makes sense or is productive.

 

Woody Allen is a person. He did good art, for that he deserves praise. He did horrible things, for that he deserves prison. There's no reason for these two statements to be in conflict beyond our need to either be on Team Woody or Team Dylan. And, as Clyde points out, when we create that need, that means that people who love his art are by necessity on Team Woody, which means going to absurd lengths to discredit and ignore Dylan Farrow.

 

(Tangentially, this type of need is also causing the rapid implosion of our political system)

 

When someone does evil it doesn't do anything to erase the good they have done, any more than when someone does good it repairs the lives they've broken.

 

We should all be for the cause of justice for Dylan Farrow and the other victims of Woody Allen. Whether some of us are also fans of his work is immaterial to that discussion.

[Gormongous]

Woody Allen is a person. He did good art, for that he deserves praise. He did horrible things, for that he deserves prison. There's no reason for these two statements to be in conflict beyond our need to either be on Team Woody or Team Dylan. And, as Clyde points out, when we create that need, that means that people who love his art are by necessity on Team Woody, which means going to absurd lengths to discredit and ignore Dylan Farrow.

 

I don't think that need is created. I think that it's implicit and a lot of effort/good faith must be taken to dissociate ourselves from it. That's why there are pages and pages explaining how you can enjoy occult Nazi metal without being a Nazi or a Satanist, while acknowledging that the default stance is to assume both.

[Problem Machine]

Well, I didn't mean to imply that this was a new invention, but there is a cultural component as well. We're definitely wired to organize ourselves into societies this way, to discern between an 'us' and a 'them', but it gets worse the more we pander to it. Right now, that mentality is particularly popular, since it benefits those in power to encourage those with less power to focus on differences between themselves rather than focus on their common systemic oppression.

[Merus]

This isn't about celebrity worship and forgiveness, or divorcing the author from the content.  It's about how crimes against women and girls just aren't stomach churning enough for many people in our society.  Allen's relationship history and the allegation of abuse are clearly not enough for some people to cross that line.  Not even when Allen starts a relationship with his children's teenage sister.  It's not when R. Kelly has been accused of rape almost as many times as he's released an album.  Not when Jerry Lee Lewis likely murdered one of his wives in a fit of rage.  Not when the a place kicker for Michigan was finally expelled 4 years after allegations of sexual assault were made.  Not like a college kicker is a huge celebrity.

 

I don't know, I'm reminded of Chopper Reid's paintings. Chopper's not a rapist, but he was a gangster and a nasty piece of work, but he'd found that being a celebrity gangster was easier, more fun and much more lucrative. His art wasn't bad, but people really didn't have much of a problem putting aside what Chopper had done as a gangster, particularly because he was relatively charismatic.

 

It feels like it's got more to do with their crimes not personally affecting you. Chopper Reid is a larrikin who inspired some things I really like, but he probably killed a few people and certainly did permanent damage to more - but it's easier for me to see the larrikin. For most people, they've got a closer relationship to Woody Allen's films than they do to pederasty.

[syntheticgerbil]

Well, I know the final consensus in these discussions that is it is always going to be correct to separate the art from the artist, but I call bullshit on that. Even if the work is unrelated to the nasty lack of inhibiation by the artist, it is still of the same mindspace. An artist creates from the core of their being, their fears, attitude, bad habits, and every facet of their personality being a reason behind whatever decision made for the creation. To separate the art from the artist is silly in my mind and says a lot more about consumer society more than the artist itself. People often want to find a way to like some artist because a critic once said this and we should all look to them, or you've already invested so much time, money, and energy in to their movies, books, or games, that you can't let go now. Just because someone is critically acclaimed doesn't mean you have to bother. I've never seen a Woody Allen film and since I've grown up with all the talk about him, I'll probably never see one. You draw a parallel to Roman Polanski as well.

 

Throwing invention into the mix is just another part of the problem, as an invention is not an artwork, it is a means to an end. A transistor is not a film, sorry. That said, art can be a means to an end, but usually the artist making a page layout on a newspaper is just following instructions and using good judgment instead of following a personal creative calling.

 

If an artist, director, or musician I liked turned out to be a child molestor tomorrow, their shit would be in the trash because it would be forever tainted with the knowledge of what kind of person was actually behind this. And if they were truly putting their heart and soul in to the art, then you would most likely pick up the pedo vibes in the work. I don't think this has instantly happened ever anyway, usually a reveal of one's true character is preceded by rumors and raised eyebrows on creative decisions.

 

Anyway, I full agree with Gormongous' intial statement.

This is just me and I don't hold anyone else to this expectation, but there is certainly enough amazing and beautiful stuff in the world never to need to patronize the works of a molester or rapist.

Really guys, just go out there and make someone else famous. Leave the old hats to the critics, find a bright new soul.

[clyde]

You might want to remove any memories of the Cosby Show or any of his jokes. 
http://gawker.com/who-wants-to-remember-bill-cosbys-multiple-sex-assaul-1515923178