Bardot grew up in occupied France during WWII, like many of the Silent Generation. She came of age during the reconstruction of Europe.
As a child of Silent Generation parents, I had a 'too close for comfort' view of their foibles. What person can we point to who has not caused harm over the course of their life? Do we need to play a ranking game before we allow their works into the public sphere? How do we decide where to draw the line? Civil infractions but not criminal ones?
If I might be so cantankerous, perhaps the debate over their body of work is justified, perhaps it is the most important part. Are we allowed to marvel at the cleverness of Watson and his team, and be further awed by the many contributions which were made by unnamed, even disavowed persons? What is wrong with recognizing the beauty of the discovery, the power of the performance by the many talented and flawed humans who give a little glimmer of light to the world.
But beyond their work, do we also say, shut up and sing? Do we police the platform they naturally acquire by means of their accomplishments? Sure.
And my own experience has taught me that if Watson didn't manage to sort out the riddle of DNA's structure, someone else would have done so later. If Bardot didn't manage to mesmerize in "And God Created Woman" another talented Silent Generation artist probably would have, in a different screen play.
They would have skeletons, too, probably, certainly a list of sins, if you so believe. But judgement is tricky, something about casting stones. Fame, fortune, and wealth are fickle, something about luck. Ultimately, the debate is about that.
This comment was brought to your attention by a barely countable collection of sensors, transistors, power and communications network connections and electro-optical components. Was machine learning involved? I have no idea, probably, but I didn't invoke it deliberately at my keyboard.
I'm trying to be forthright in my comments about the dead. It's tricky to get them right. If Art is by definition a human creation, then it will always be flawed.
It might have been more artistic to write this set of comments on a piece of paper, by hand, with pencil or pen and ink, but then almost no one would see it, which might have even been better. Hard to know what exactly to wish for.
If we look at art, without knowing anything about the artist - their background, personal history, character, experiences.. would you see their art (acting skills, dance techniques, brush strokes, carving, vocal tones, comprehension) - worthy of being admired in the moment you hear, touch or set your eyes on it?
How does their personal history detract from the art itself?
Art is personal .. subjective.
Rolf Harris, back in the day, use to create pictures on his TV programme (on the BBC) which were .. Art.
Finding out what type of person he really was, outside of his art work, is disturbing.
Can there be two sides to everyone- a Jekyll and Hyde so to speak… (beauty and the beast) ..?
There many great artist who were tortured souls - yet their art become collector’s items after their death.
I am making no sense in my reply here Poorna, yet I thank you for writing a post that has opened many possibilities to consider.. 🙂.
Art is communication. If someone is communicating harmful things through their art we have every right to judge it. Art is a medium for education we must challenge it.
If an artist is problematic but it doesn't reflect in their art directly. Then the line is a lot more blurred. I don't know much about Bridget but she apears to rest on a blurred line. Diddy not so much.
Couldn’t disagree more tbh 😂 this implies that art is something to conquer, to add up, to organise, to adhere to order. Art speaks to a part of ourselves that seeks something bigger, while at the same time desiring to be known. It doesn’t always need a purpose or a reason or analysis and to be honest, I feel really sorry for anyone with this view that we’ve somehow completed art when the beauty is in the unknown and the chaos of it, the constant unfolding.
Judgement is a tricky game.
Bardot grew up in occupied France during WWII, like many of the Silent Generation. She came of age during the reconstruction of Europe.
As a child of Silent Generation parents, I had a 'too close for comfort' view of their foibles. What person can we point to who has not caused harm over the course of their life? Do we need to play a ranking game before we allow their works into the public sphere? How do we decide where to draw the line? Civil infractions but not criminal ones?
If I might be so cantankerous, perhaps the debate over their body of work is justified, perhaps it is the most important part. Are we allowed to marvel at the cleverness of Watson and his team, and be further awed by the many contributions which were made by unnamed, even disavowed persons? What is wrong with recognizing the beauty of the discovery, the power of the performance by the many talented and flawed humans who give a little glimmer of light to the world.
But beyond their work, do we also say, shut up and sing? Do we police the platform they naturally acquire by means of their accomplishments? Sure.
And my own experience has taught me that if Watson didn't manage to sort out the riddle of DNA's structure, someone else would have done so later. If Bardot didn't manage to mesmerize in "And God Created Woman" another talented Silent Generation artist probably would have, in a different screen play.
They would have skeletons, too, probably, certainly a list of sins, if you so believe. But judgement is tricky, something about casting stones. Fame, fortune, and wealth are fickle, something about luck. Ultimately, the debate is about that.
This comment was brought to your attention by a barely countable collection of sensors, transistors, power and communications network connections and electro-optical components. Was machine learning involved? I have no idea, probably, but I didn't invoke it deliberately at my keyboard.
I'm trying to be forthright in my comments about the dead. It's tricky to get them right. If Art is by definition a human creation, then it will always be flawed.
It might have been more artistic to write this set of comments on a piece of paper, by hand, with pencil or pen and ink, but then almost no one would see it, which might have even been better. Hard to know what exactly to wish for.
A great thought provoking post Poorna.🙂
Art and personal judgement of the art…🤔🙂.
If we look at art, without knowing anything about the artist - their background, personal history, character, experiences.. would you see their art (acting skills, dance techniques, brush strokes, carving, vocal tones, comprehension) - worthy of being admired in the moment you hear, touch or set your eyes on it?
How does their personal history detract from the art itself?
Art is personal .. subjective.
Rolf Harris, back in the day, use to create pictures on his TV programme (on the BBC) which were .. Art.
Finding out what type of person he really was, outside of his art work, is disturbing.
Can there be two sides to everyone- a Jekyll and Hyde so to speak… (beauty and the beast) ..?
There many great artist who were tortured souls - yet their art become collector’s items after their death.
I am making no sense in my reply here Poorna, yet I thank you for writing a post that has opened many possibilities to consider.. 🙂.
Love the questions raised here!
Art is communication. If someone is communicating harmful things through their art we have every right to judge it. Art is a medium for education we must challenge it.
If an artist is problematic but it doesn't reflect in their art directly. Then the line is a lot more blurred. I don't know much about Bridget but she apears to rest on a blurred line. Diddy not so much.
Couldn’t disagree more tbh 😂 this implies that art is something to conquer, to add up, to organise, to adhere to order. Art speaks to a part of ourselves that seeks something bigger, while at the same time desiring to be known. It doesn’t always need a purpose or a reason or analysis and to be honest, I feel really sorry for anyone with this view that we’ve somehow completed art when the beauty is in the unknown and the chaos of it, the constant unfolding.