Re: ethical issues
> From: Oeivind Idsoe <oivind.idso@...>Excellent point. There's no question that if you dig around enough, you'll find a lot of unappealing things about any artist that you admire. Granted, some are much more repulsive than others but if you're really going to be so principled that you'll listen to NO ONE you don't agree with or anyone you find questionable, there'll be no music for you. The same is true not just for musicians, film makers or painters but... people in general!!!
> Subject: Re: ethical issues
> In any case, I guess we should seperate two things: one, the feeling of
> discomfort when listening to or buying a piece of work made by fx. a racist, in
> other words the supportive/political issue; two, the *interpretation*/reception
> of a piece of work, which can still be seperated from the policital views of
> the artist (which is what I was talking about to begin with).
> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 09:27:12 -0800
> From: Matthew Weber <mweber@...>
> The problem with this is that you can end up not listening to anything,
> because everybody has some sort of unpleasant character trait(s).
> My personal solution is to avoid supporting living anti-Semites and bigots.More specifically, I'd say that I wouldn't support anti-Semites or bigots who use their work to spread their sick hate. The problem is going overboard and saying 'we can't have any of this available to anyone.' Your heart might be in the right place but then you're siding up with such notables as Stalin and Hitler who also thought that 'dangerous' thoughts should be illegal.
Perfect Sound Forever
online music magazine
- Oeivind Idsoe...
>In any case, I guess we should seperate two things: one, the feeling ofracist, in
>discomfort when listening to or buying a piece of work made by fx. a
>other words the supportive/political issue; two, the*interpretation*/reception
>of a piece of work, which can still be seperated from the policital viewsof
>the artist (which is what I was talking about to begin with).good points.
Referring to your first point; maybe a lot depends on your feelings for
someones work before learning of their views. If I heard bad things about an
artist I was unfamiliar with, I'm sure it would affect my opinion of their
work (I know that's not being very objective but...I guess that's the
humanist in me :) ). Conversely, if you hear bad things about a personal
hero, you find excuses/reasons for them. I found myself doing this last year
with PJ Harveys pro-fox hunting comments (being an admirer of her work and a
pretty staunch anti-hunting supporter). I know it's stating the obvious, but
it really is what you personally see in someones work. If you see some logic
or integrity in the work of, say, Muslimgauze or Hunter S. Thompson or Steve
Albini, you'll accept it.
>Just rambling. It�s late.but at least you know what you're rambling about :)
>The problem with this is that you can end up not listening to anything,of
>because everybody has some sort of unpleasant character trait(s). Say we
>axe Wagner for anti-Semitism; what about Miles Davis smacking his wife
>around? Do we not read Eliot or Pound because of their misguided support
>Mussolini (though both of them later repented).....No, I agree. I'm certainly no PC puritan, vetting every purchase. I believe
>......You may feel the need to be more restrictive, and that's okay.
there could be something in the idea of the best art coming from those most
troubled/damaged (I'll avoid 'tortured', some cliches should die). I admit
it troubles me to read some of the stuff about Miles Davis but I still love
his music. Human ethics is a strange contradictory beast. Oh to be
religious and have it all mapped out for me...