UKC

Couldn't see that anyone has put up a thread on this artistic conundrum.

Now we are assured that the lead singer is a convicted paedophile (and I have bought Lost Prophets CDs for my sons!) what is the impact on their artistic merit?

Hitler was a mildly talented water colorist.

Wagner just sails through.

Morrissey is a grumpy git.

So to what extent is the character of the artist a determining factor in how their work is valued?

In reply to andyathome:

I would not buy their records because of it. Whether there is merit or not I would not like to put money in his pocket.

In reply to puppythedog:



Yes. That's an interesting perspective. I HAVE put some money in 'his/their' pocket by buying CD's. But I'm interested in the impact on the perception of their artistic worth.

P.G Wodehouse. A fascist. Are the Wooster novels devalued because of that?

In reply to andyathome:



No, fascist or no, he was one funny bugger!

In reply to andyathome:

NO not all devalued because of it. I think once art is out there it stands and falls on its own merits. But had Wodehouse published now for the first time and I knew he was a fascist I would have kept my money to myself.


I do believe artistic merit is not determined by the artist's behaviour (outside of their art) but I don't think you can divorce artistic merit from source when considering whether to buy.

In reply to puppythedog:

Yes, I think there's a difference between judging 'artistic merit' and personally appreciating the art form. So you might think Hitler's water colours or the Lostprophets music has artistic merit but there's no way you would ever want them in your home because of what they reminded you of.

In reply to andyathome:

Seems to be far far worse than Savile but much less publicity....weird.

In reply to Morgan Woods:

I'm not sure comparisons about worse are helpful. The thing about Saville is it was a prolonged abuse of power, authority as well as children.

In reply to andyathome:

If you take an artists,of whatever discipline, personal life/behavior into account when deciding whether to appreciate his/her work, you'd have a very long list of people to consider (dependent on what you consider wrong).

This is not at all a defense of the subject of this topic.

In reply to andyathome: I still have my Who albums, but then there were no charges against PT just a police caution ( the good works with children charities may have been more of a plus than a minus!)

In reply to Skip:

For me it is impotent to consider where money I spend is going and whether it seems rational to others or not if I knew that the artist (and for some reason it matters whether they are alive or not) had abused children or supported the abuse of children I would not enjoy their art in a way I would if they had not.

In reply to Morgan Woods:

But that isn't really the issue I'm interested in. Jimmie Saville hasn't really left us an artistic legacy apart from an interest in tacky track suits!

Can we value the 'artefact' separately from the identity of the 'artificer' is where I'm coming from. If a stunning work of art is produced by someone who is deemed to be 'disgusting' by the operating mores of the society within which they are operating does that mean that the art work is also devalued?


And re the Pete Townsend / paedophilia issues I think the courts and his autobiography have dealt with that?

In reply to andyathome:


Questionable political ideology judged with the benefit of hindsight

Sticking your penis into a toddler

Yeah, I can see how they can be comparable.

The upshot, just because your an play a three chord trick / handle Super 8 does not absolve a person from a greater crime.

There is no artistic merit angle, the guy is a paedophile, erm thassit. Why do we have to look at some artistic merit angle?

In reply to Morgan Woods:


Not really. I hadn't heard of this guy or know the bands music. Everyone has heard of JS.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Really? you've not come across The Who.

You must be the only person in Britain,

In reply to Oceanrower:

I thought this thread was about the Lost Prophets? If you look at my reply you will see it was directed at Morgan Woods who posted before the topic of the Who came up.

Also I am sure there are millions of kids who have never heard of the Who. Even if I had never heard of them I seriously doubt I would stand alone.

In reply to andyathome:

I didn't know who jimmy savile was before the abuse scandal.

In reply to puppythedog:

>The thing about Saville is it was a prolonged abuse of power, authority as well as children.


Also with Saville he was dead by the time the evidence came to light so it may have been a case of anger about the fact justice couldn't be served.

Saying that though, it was his case that highlighted the amount of 'celebrities' that have abused children.

In reply to Morgan Woods:


I'm not going to get in an argument about worse, for a start Ive not looked at the details of his crimes, but it is hardly more surprising that Saville has had far more publicity, he is far more famous ( in the UK at least) and it is a story of complicity and cover up in the UK establishment.

People still love Chuck Berry, but hes been convicted of several unsavoury acts surch as armed robbery and the transportation of a 14 year old girl across the state line for "immoral purposes".

In reply to Double Knee Bar:

James Brown had a very murky record as well - cameras in ladies toilets etc.

I never liked the Lost Prophets (so not sure if they ever had artistic merit), but it sucks for the rest of the band who will see their income dry-up because their lead singer/songwriter is a messed-up twunt.

In reply to andyathome:

can't say I've ever heard th elost prophets - any good?

on a similar vein I still think some of Gary glitter's songs (which were no 1's when i was a kid) stand up well.

In reply to andyathome:

This is an interesting predicament that I was talking to my wife about yesterday. I loved Start Something (Lostprophet album) and listened to it all the time 10 years ago and still love it today.

Can I still enjoy it? Obviously only I can answer that...but i'm not sure.

In reply to andyathome:

I'll think you'll find many rock stars have had shady relationships with underage girls. I'll name Led Zeppelin as a prime example. I could name others who have no convictions but then I may be accused of libel.

In reply to andyathome:

I think the art stands aside from personal issues and has still has merit in it's own right regardless.

The singer is clearly a morally depraved t**t. Yes I'm sure that many a rock band have been involved in back stage shenanigans with teenage girls (which I'm not justifying), but his actions allegedly go far beyond this.

He deserves all the punishment they can give him, but the rest of the band co-wrote/ co-performed the music and I will no doubt still listen to it.