*There will be some issues that people disagree with me on. We've all got our own opinions and that's fine. I'm not interested in discussing individual cases, I'm interested in how other people approach reconciling their own personal relationship with photography and other artwork against their own moral code.* *For those pointing out that the JK Rowling tweets are not comparable to Polanski's crimes etc. - That's the point. Where do we draw the line?*

@parap7697

3 жыл бұрын

Jamie Windsor I think it’s really hard to separate art from artist, especially when we live in the same age as the artist and information about them is so readily available. For instance, I’m really disturbed that Last Tango in Paris is shown in many film courses as a tribute to erotic art house film, when the main actress, Maria Schneider, 19 at the time, was molested and sexually assaulted (calling it “a bit raped” herself) on screen. How can I watch that film and humiliate her in her trauma? And how can I respect the director when during an interview not long ago said he knew he had hurt her, but did not regret doing so, “for the sake of art.” It’s not like it’s a work from 1750 that you can be like: “Well, that’s just the way things were back then.”

@nishantsharma9657

3 жыл бұрын

The artist is a channel or a medium through which art comes into the world. The art does come through the artist but it's not his to say in the sense that it seperate itself from the artist when it comes into the world. An artist do provide a framework of perception but what one see through that framework is his persona and perception.

@kbqvist

3 жыл бұрын

I think I try not to force one point of view to be the truth. Sometimes, I believe, it can be better to sort of accept a paradox, and allow it to exist. But maybe I should add that 40 years ago I did not think like this :-)

@jimbojimbobson2261

3 жыл бұрын

Just as a pro photographer's camera or a pro tennis player's racket should be an extension of their body, an artist's art is an extension of their mind and soul. The idea of yin and yang is generally how I think of it. There is always good in the bad, and why shouldn't we enjoy the good. The person who got me into photography was a close friend of mine and a teacher. It turned out (allegedly) that he was using his position as the school photographer to edit photos of his students faces onto child porn. It was really difficult for me to reconcile this man's demons with what I knew of him and I still haven't really accepted it. Sometimes it's hard to motivate myself to take photos, when all I can think of is that I'm taking photos becuase of him. But life isn't always black and white. While Rowling made transphobic comments, she also used her platform to advocate gay rights. While my friends (allegedly) committed heinous acts, he got me and many others into photography and brought a lot of good to our lives. The most important thing is always yourself. If you can't enjoy the art becuase of the artist, so be it. If you can't help but enjoy it, despite the artist, so be it. Go with your gut and don't overthink it. Perhaps the Peter McKinnon idea of "done is better than perfect", which you (and I for that matter) disagree with, is the solution.

@vKomrade

3 жыл бұрын

Pretty easy for me for the majority of things I consume, i have absolutely zero interest in the person who created it. Morality is subjective anyways.

My own experience throws light on this question for me. My grandmother, who grew up in a white farming family in Arkansas, looked after me for a great part of my childhood. She, and my grandfather, were loving and caring, and gave me a basis for being able to love others in my later life. But after they bothdied, and I was going through their papers, I found a box of 8x10 B&W prints. These were ordered so that they began with distant views, in which I could make out a procession with cars in a landscape, which gave a time, the early 1920's, and a place, the Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs. As I leafed through the prints and the photographer got closer and closer to the procession, it was possible to make out figures dressed in white among the cars. Closer yet, and you could see that they wore white pointed hoods. After some study I learned that when my grandparents moved to Colorado, in the early 20s, the Ku Klux Klan had moved west as well, and it experienced a flowering in that new environment. These were carefully arranged photos my grandparents had kept for more than fifty years. But that whole background was unknown to me as a child and young man, and seemed to have nothing to do with my experience of my grandparents. It was a shock I had never expected. I discovered those photos 25 years ago, and I've been thinking about them ever since. My judgment is this: we are all of us composed of a whole cast of personalities, some given to us at birth, others acquired in the patchwork world we grow into. Some of these personalities harmonise with each other, but others are at odds. This is just a given in our twisting and woven human lives. The knowledge that my loving grandparents were very likely supporters of the KKK at one time does not fit easily with the rest of what I know of them. But once I came to know that not only they, but everyone else on this earth is a jostling company of different persons in single bodies, I learned finally to be at peace with both my love for them, and my total rejection of the hatefulness they seemed to entertain as well. I think in substance that the question you pose is has no different answer. It is a shock to learn that the Nicholas Nixon we can celebrate as a feminist artist also harbours the Nicholas Nixon we deplore as a sexual exploiter. Was it Solzhenitsyn who wrote that the line between good and evil runs through every human heart? I'd say: relax and enjoy the photographs, but never let that enjoyment be mistaken for approval of the man's sexual predation.

@turangizbili8395

3 жыл бұрын

While Rowlings transphobic statements are disappointing and ugly, she nowhere near rapists or sexual criminals. I am sorry, but they're not in the same pot.

@naylar300

3 жыл бұрын

This is the best comment I've read since a while. Thank you for sharing your story, I agree with you about the complexities and different sides of human beings.

@futureexperience

3 жыл бұрын

Wow, that is a very heavy reckoning to deal with. How has the rest of your family dealt with that realization or are keeping it to yourself?

@michaelcarrithers6811

3 жыл бұрын

@@futureexperience I've shared it with my family. I think it's something that needs sharing. I've even used it in teaching university students. It's one of the greatest challenges, and greatest lessons, I've ever had to deal with ... so in that sense, it's been a gift.

@michaelcarrithers6811

3 жыл бұрын

@@naylar300 Thank you. I explain below that I think it's the sort of thing that needs to be shared.

Nicely handled, beautifully edited, written and thoughtful considerate. Hope many people see and appreciate this work and your channel.

@drooghead

3 жыл бұрын

Seconded. I always refer these videos to my son who is studying art and design.

@jamiewindsor

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you.

@laughinggravy6617

3 жыл бұрын

couldnt agree more.

@photomamp

3 жыл бұрын

Absolutely agree!

@Hvrafnur

3 жыл бұрын

Couldn’t say it better myself. Great work here Jamie. Love your edits, and videos that my you think, not only consume.

One thing is for sure: Jamie Windsor´s essays are a visual and thought-provoking experience.

What bothers me most about this is the "should we" as if some peoples judgment should rule for everyone. Its that type of thinking that makes people think they can shut down other people just because they disagree with their Art

@VeryImportantPepe

3 жыл бұрын

Groupthink. For me, I say Jamie Windsor can suck my bawls, and that's that.

@TheArtkaw

3 жыл бұрын

Some of these people are literal rapists who were never held accountable... Polanski, Richardson, Nixon...

@pvandck

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheArtkaw The woman who was under-age when she had sex with Polanski has defended him many times. She doesn't consider she was raped, but she was under-age. She says he shouldn't be persecuted.

Quentin Tarantino's comment about the 13 year old girl is really unbelievable. I will never look at him the same now.

@skopasandchampagne

3 жыл бұрын

same here.

@Biring1

3 жыл бұрын

Are you shocked Tarantino is a weird creep? I was surprised he wasn`t brought down with his good friend Harvey Weinstein.

@HenryAni

3 жыл бұрын

@@Biring1 I am not someone who follows celebrity news. I know some of their works but never been interested in looking into their lives. Most of the things he mentioned are new to me.

@DanielMores

3 жыл бұрын

I just wanted to post the comment. Tarantino just dropped from hero to zero in a matter of seconds. As a dad I find myself incredibly sensitive when it comes to children and at 13, boy or girl, you are still a child. Anyone who preys on kids is a maladjusted freak in my eyes and must be kept away from society. There just is no excuse.

@HenryAni

3 жыл бұрын

@@DanielMores These are really sick people. Most of them still roam the streets because of their class and status. Nothing a good lawyer couldn't fix. It's really scary for a parent like myself.

“Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.” - Marcus Aurelius

so much food for thought here. i appreciate the thought of not reacting aggressively to how others choose to deal with their relationship to art by bad people

One question remains for me to ask here: Why do we expect that an artist must be morally correct in all aspects of life without blame? He or she is only an artist who is particularly talented in this one of his or her special fields. This does not mean that he or she has moral integrity. Can, should or must we first demand a character reference before we consider the person's art to be good? Well, now there were two questions. Finally, here is a statement: I am afraid of the rising cancel-culture, as it develops into a new censorship culture that frightens me.

@Arboh

Жыл бұрын

idk but one thing is to not tell someone that his wallet dropped and other thing is to sexually abuse a 13 yo girl, I don't think we mean to expect an artist to be 100% morally correct, but there are things that just can't be forgiven

@omp199

Жыл бұрын

@@Arboh Your attitude is the problem. You genuinely seem to believe that Lion Trace is saying that we should forgive artists their moral transgressions. They are not saying that at all. The whole point is that the art and the behaviour are entirely separate things. Appreciating the art does not imply forgiving the moral transgressions. They belong to entirely separate domains of judgement.

Personally, any deep emotional connections made to art prior to learning something repulsive about its creator are hard to sever. I tend to accept the possible persistence of those attachments for myself, while refusing to form new relationships with the artist's work. And I definitely no longer advocate for either the art or the artist, publicly or privately. Hard to know what the appropriate societal response should be. I don't think denying the work or its historical significance is truly productive. Rather, I suspect we should embrace candor and include as objective as possible discussion of the artist's misdeeds and the ways in which those actions-once brought to light-affect perception of both the work, its creator and the cultural reasons they were able to achieve such prominence. Broader (rather than narrower) comprehension of such unfortunate situations seem to be more effective at safeguarding society against their recurrences.

Interesting, as ever and thought provoking... As WS once wrote 'The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.'

@antdenzic7977

3 жыл бұрын

Are you talking about William Shatner?

I don't think this tension between art and the artist can ever truly be resolved precisely because the arguments pull us so powerfully in different directions at the same time. every single one of us is imperfect to some degree and in that sense we are aware of the contradictions inherent in condemnation of behaviours and attitudes in others when we are hardly paragons of virtue. On the other hand there are some behaviours and attitudes that are so reprehensible that they will forever cloud our judgement of some artists. Our attitude in each case is subjective and yet also has wider social impacts, as the cumulative effect of our support or condemnation contributes to how an artist is viewed. In the end I think we are uncomfortably held forever in the tension between art and the artist and this is necessarily so.

I guess there is something to "never meet your heroes, they will disappoint you". I personally have a hard time separating the art from the artist. If the artist is awful to someone, I just don't connect with their art. It's like you said, tainted. There are books I can't read, even if I loved them previously, there is music I can't listen to, there are photos that make me wonder if the person in the picture has suffered to have that image taken, and so on. The art is part of the artist, and if the artist went "bad"... Yeah.

@jamiewindsor

3 жыл бұрын

The internet is a big factor here. No-one knew that William Golding tried to rape a 15-year-old when they read Lord of the Flies, and so we read it in blissful ignorance. But now all the celebrities have Twitter and news travels fast. People are no longer an enigma, but instead fallible, flawed human beings. I never want to meet my heroes for this reason. I think the fake people in my head probably have intrinsic value for me. They help shape my aspirations and give me motivation. When I ask in my head "What would XXXXXX do?", I am asking the one-dimensional character I have created, not the real person. Maybe we need to change the way we view artists/creators.

@beateadriana

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamiewindsor Oh the internet is the biggest factor here. I used to read books in blissful ignorance, then I started to connect with some authors on Goodreads, and that blissful bubble burst quickly. Same with a lot of Hollywood directors/producers/actors. It's never been about anyone having a different view of the world to mine. I guess it comes down to if someone crosses my moral boundaries; i.e. rape, pedophilia, incest, any type of abuse or superiority (race, lgbt, etc), and if they're awful to people for no reason other than just because they can. I guess in the end, it comes down to our own morals and where we draw the line.

@ezra8776

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamiewindsor dont rape anyone,Jamie

@stulora3172

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamiewindsor exactly this. The concept of the "fake artist" is one I guess I also use. It's probably exactly the post-structuralism (I learned that today) you are describing. And no, that doesn't mean I close my eyes to the committed crime or the suffering of their victims. That just happens in another setting, so to speak. In a different part of my brain.

@citrusandseasalt

3 жыл бұрын

Jamie Windsor or... we can just acknowledge that everything that exists in our meticulously contrived societies was created by people who may or may not have acted on their worse impulses. And that each and every one of us benefits from the fact that our worst impulses are ours to know alone and not for the world to share in. I think compassion goes a long way in dealing with this. We can have compassion for the victim and for the perpetrator and in doing so we recognize that various forms of suffering lead people to inflict more suffering on each other.

Glad You're still here Jamie!

I believe your question is merited. Myself, I tend to separate the actions and practices of a person from their creative work. Not always easy but it is a choice I've always striven to hold constant. It is how I hope others will respond to my creative work despite differences in religious or political views.

"Having done great art does not give you free range to do bad things without consequences." No, it doesn't. But the consequences are decided by the law, as far as the artist having done something illegal. I feel that you confused artists having something criminal, with artists having opinions "we don't like". I wish we would differ more between the two. Essentially what we are doing, when we don't differ, is to say that someone having an opinion, which we don't like, is as bad as having done something criminal. How is that for having a dialogue? Also, about separating the art from the artists. I'm a Jew who enjoys Wagner's music. I wish that he would have been enlightened, rather than finding his opinions in the most base thoughts of other humans, but his music is still greatly composed. I chose to view it like this: a person can give charity, for then one day do something criminal. Should we then tell people to return the charity he has given, because we now found out that he's not a good person? Obviously not, let the positive outcome of the positive things he did do stay for the good of us all, even if he still needs to take the consequences of his bad actions.

@luisganilho224

3 жыл бұрын

wise words

@pvandck

3 жыл бұрын

Also, doing bad things doesn't prevent someone from being a great artist. Many great artists, right across the spectrum of the arts, were and are awful human beings.

I wanted to thank you for this video. I’ve been struggling with this question myself. I still haven’t decided how I feel about this but your video definitely helps. Welcome back!

Great video. This is also something I struggle with, and I’m glad you also pointed out the selfishness of having to struggle with this to begin with...and questioning where to draw the boundaries. One thing I’d like to add is, why we even have defined these works as important? Most “important” works are defined so from the white, western, perspective. And there is no denying their influence, but to “remove” or, rather, move on from these works wouldn’t leave us devoid of great art, but give us opportunity to support and learn from non-westernized, or marginalized, great works that were often censored or ignored throughout history at the cost of celebrating these problematic and harmful authors...

I like how you propose a conversation, giving your own thoughts about it but keeping an open mind. This is for sure a hard topic and I don't think we'll ever get into a solid answer, but it sure is a healthy discussion, more so to us artists out there.

Brilliant video. I've been having this argument with people for decades. For me, it all comes down to something Chomsky said about common sense as defined by Descartes - "People are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions." He also went on to say (and I'm paraphrasing), "If we truly care about justice and human rights, we have to hold ourselves and our allies to the same moral and legal account as our adversaries."

That's a big yikes from that Quentin Tarantino quote

This is a classic example of overthinking.

@seanmacleod470

3 жыл бұрын

Well, thinking if thinking about a serious issue in a sensible way is overthinking, so be it.

Sadly we are at a point where it seems hard to have two ideas in our heads at the same time. Nicholas Nixon's photographic work is worthy of distinction. His criminal actions should be punished. They are not mutually exclusive. Humans are complex. If we require perfection from our artists as people we could be in for a long wait. Let's change the context. What if someone discovered a cure for cancer and that person was proved to be a peadophile? Would we ban the cure? Is it possible that we can live with the idea that that person did something which benefitted millions but their bad actions have landed them in prison? Learning to live with the contradictions and flaws of the human condition is something we have explored for millenia, it's called art.

@coolcat23

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly. The "either you reject the art or you approve of the artist"-view is based on a false dichotomy to begin with. By accepting the cure for cancer, I'm not saying that the person who created it is a great guy. Perhaps by paying for the cure, I can enable the person who created the cure to seek help and become a force against paedophilia themselves?

The academic approach to some of your videos makes me want to go back to university and discuss interesting topics all day. (Even though most lectures and seminars at my university left too little room for genuine discussion.) I really, really appreciate that you venture to discuss complex issues on a platform like KZread - even though it’s poorly suited for an exhaustive discussion. But at least a ~10 minute video can spark debate and give some pointers. That’s awesome. And by the way: I really, really, really like the graphic design in your videos. The amount of effort you must put in to achieving subtle effects is amazing.

First time I've ever commented on a video, really well put together. I think about this quite a lot, discovering Terry Richardson's work got me into photography and I see elements of what I liked about his photography in my own, which I take pride in, yet when people ask who initially inspired me to do portrait photography I'm hesitant to say his name

Obviously act professional and within law, but NO ONE is safe from being a sinner in someone's perspective.

@ekevanderzee9538

3 жыл бұрын

Not to mwntion that laws and norms change. Slavery anyone?

@maksphoto78

3 жыл бұрын

@@ekevanderzee9538 Perspective changes as well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa

@jamiewindsor

3 жыл бұрын

I think we need to carefully balance what is understandable given the culture someone grew up in, and what directly affects people now. While everyone has their own views and beliefs, there are some things that negatively impact groups of people and help underpin a culture that allows for more serious attacks against marginalised groups. It's a difficult balance and sometimes those things are at odds with each other. Personally, I think the most effective solution to overcoming problematic stuff is to simply make better stuff.

@taz24787

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamiewindsor I think the best solution is to dialogue with an open mind in a non-offensive and mature manner. But this is many times hard to achieve and even so, you can't go through life asking everyone before taking every step. That just leaves us with respect (professionalism, laws) and calibration.

@JBGuarino43

3 жыл бұрын

Truth❣️

I think you can't help what you're interested in. And nobody dies pure.

These videos Jamie are absolutely phenomenal! Not only is the content in them rich with information and content and all easy to comprehend, but the edit itself just looks so great, you should be soooooo proud, this is so crazy good!

“The excellent Spotlight has been nominated. Yeah. The Catholic Church are furious about the film as it exposes that 5 percent of all their priests have repeatedly molested children and been allowed to continue to work without punishment. Roman Polanski called it ‘the best date movie ever.” - Ricky Gervais

Thanks for putting this insightful video together, Jamie! I often struggle with this exact issue, still exploring my own answer to it...

I love mostly the fact that u go more artistic with all ur videos than just technically about photography,and inform,entertain and share knowledge with people in 10 minutes with somehing that u spent weeks of building it ..thank u for that. ... well done mate!keep on ....

Your work is simply beautiful. I’m so happy to see you going from photography to art essays. Your voice and opinions are on point. Can’t wait for more!

I do believe it’s different from art to art. J.K. Rowling hasn’t raped the work she puts out but I photographer might’ve done so with the subject of their work. I also don’t think that a deed or a thought is absolutely defining of a person. And furthermore looking at historical persons we need to remind ourself that it is impossible to see their views outside of their own historical content they lived in.

@Just_Ve

3 жыл бұрын

But her hate and discrimination are embedded in her work. She can't just turn off her bad side, write a book, and then go back to be a shitty person she is.

@GoncaloMartins

3 жыл бұрын

I think that’s a very naive and oversimplification of a very complex issue. Words from people who hold power (in particular) have wider consequences, while I agree that J.K.R hasn’t herself raped anyone that’s not to say that her words have not gone on to enable/spur/support crimes against transgender people which can include rape, torture, abuse, discrimination etc For example: Hitler himself didn’t kill jewish people but his words went on to inspire the murder of millions of jews and still inspires hate crimes today. The example is extreme but it highlights the issue perfectly, words have power and particularly when they come from people who already have power and influence. Whether you raped someone directly or enabled and encouraged transphobia in society which then leads to rape of trans people - both are bad acts and physical distance between you and the victims doesn’t absolve you from your participation.

@larsjnsn

3 жыл бұрын

@JustVape Br I wouldn’t agree with that since I don’t believe her to be defined by the comments she is being criticised for.

@larsjnsn

3 жыл бұрын

@goncalo martins I don’t accept how you attack me instead of arguing the subject itself. Furthermore I believe there is no link to be made between an historical figure like Hitler and an author with difficult or hurtful views. Your argument is flawed on such a level that I don’t see a use in discussing against it. And please think before you attack another person.

@CaiRobinson

3 жыл бұрын

I mean, if we say that what JK Rowling said is at the same level as those photographers/directors I feel like we are dismissing those victims pretty hard. She said some very incorrect things. And many people have come out and corrected her.

If the man is truly guilty, prosecute him. If it is an unsubstantiated accusation it is no more than elevated gossip.

@Plemay

3 жыл бұрын

That's putting a lot of faith in a deeply flawed system. When a rape leaves no violence, there is no way of proving there was one. Literally no way. So all violence-less rapes should just be treated as gossip?

@zoltankaparthy9095

3 жыл бұрын

@@Plemay Reread what I wrote.

@Plemay

3 жыл бұрын

​@@zoltankaparthy9095 how do you know if one is truly guilty if there is no way of proving there was an assault? How do you differentiate a "unsubstantiated accusation" from "an accusation where no physical traces has been left"? I read you very well, you just take a lot of shortcuts.

It is so refreshing to hear someone admit that he doesn’t know the answer to a complicated question.

The work that goes into these videos; not just the editing, but the research, the writing, the presentation. I’m happy I found this channel. Thanks, Jamie - and everyone supporting him on Patreon ;)

Well, if we decide to treat actors and musicians like this, so should we do photographers.

Always wanted to see someone address this topic in the photo community. I'm equally surprise and happy to see you tackle it. Love, love, love the nuanced take here.

I don’t know how pong it takes to put these together, the animations and beautiful transitions, but I fully appreciate it and draw inspiration from it.

I am also conflicted on this topic. Thanks for sharing. It's good to see people asking questions and admitting that not everything comes with an easy answer.

For the “alleged” I would disagree with condemning them. Alleged means NOT YET determined to be guilty or innocent of an accusation. It may be beneficial for us to not INSTANTLY ASSUME GUILT and condemn another human being with hasty judgment as many an innocent person has been alleged of crimes and found innocent with due process.

Frankly, your "I don't know" stance looks a bit like a safe option - not taking a side, while making a video that will provoke reactions. About the matter, I think it is a bit USA/Western world thing. In reality, most of the modern societies have already decided what stance we should have about it. There is a justice system to handle all of that, it is not up to the court of public opinion to handle someones crimes. We are not hanging people or killing them on the spot for their crimes in civilized world because we believe (almost) everyone should be given a chance to atone for their sins, join back the society and keep living their life, and that includes earning money, making art included. If we all agree that people who have served time should be integrated back in the society, and allowed to live their life freely if they make no transgressions in the future, it should be no different with artists. The problem about Polanski is that he didn't serve time. He should have been in jail for a time, and then go back to making movies. And I would have no problem in enjoying his art. Should we ask who made our burger in restaurant before we start to eat? Who is fixing our cars? Who is our mailman? When we call electrician do we check about his morality first? Are all the artists super humans, semi gods that should be held to a higher standards compared to ordinary people? All around us are people that have done something bad at some point in their life. Some were punished for that, some got away. It is irrational to boycott good art because of artists transgressions. Bad people can make beautiful things, and if someone did a bad thing and served time, more the reason for us to learn to forgive. Also, this is the area of political polarization in the west right now and everything gets politicized, including artists and their opinions. It is really REALLY wrong that JKRs opinion gets in the same video with child rapists, and it shows how fare things have gone. And it kind tells a lot about your political leanings even if you say "I don't know". You actually think you know, that is why you have decided JKR should be in the video. (and I say that as a moderate lefty btw) Having supposedly "Hateful" "Right wing" "Anti-trans" opinion is for some people obviously similar to raping and abuse. It seems there is a tremendous pressure right now on the people to accept where this dictated line between "right" and "wrong" is, to choose their side and to hate everything that someone points to them as "immoral" or wrong. Some artists are lefties, some are on the right, some will have edgy opinions. They are just people as everyone else.

@wildcat64100

3 жыл бұрын

You encapsulated how I feel about the subject in a concise and logical way . I was struggling to pin my thoughts down, but you’ve done the job masterfully.

@DushanSvilokos

3 жыл бұрын

@@wildcat64100 Thank you William!

@Islander185

3 жыл бұрын

Very well said. I stopped watching when JKR was brought up.

@daniel.maitheny

3 жыл бұрын

I really like how you see things

@samcan9997

3 жыл бұрын

is it also not a good point to bring JKR up? more to show how little things can be put up against much 'worse' things and treated in similar ways after all its not like you can fix whats been done and its not like people also dont make up false accusations because there jealous of others success. heres also a weird thing for you how many adults do you think have been imprisoned for having child pornography on there computer? and how many of those do you think it could be a child in the same house that downloaded it, after all its generally treated as wrong and weird to be with someone out of your age group and as such it makes sence that a child would search for similar aged content to learn

So sensibly put. For me the approach is ultimately wholistic. In many cases I've come across artists and their work from several angles, whether it be a movie (which I later realized who it was directed by) or a Photographer's work, or even a Comedian's name, and then an exploration into his work. Regardless of the path to awareness, I have come to peace with myself by following more or less the following: - Examine the work itself, learn from it (removing the author from the work ONLY when judging the piece itself). - Learn about the author, their motivation, their angels and demons - Support good causes, and do not enable a culture of reward (or overlooking) bad behavior. This allows me to appreciate controversial photographer's work, and learn good practices to avoid becoming controversial. It also allows me to focus on the work itself, and feel what was conveyed through it. And it also gives me a realistic look at the person behind the work. The flawed woman behind Harry Potter. The racist writer behind Tom Sawyer. The self-centered director that threw his career away. It doesn't always provide me with the rosy view of things as my mind would like them to be, but instead I gain a deeper, more contextual appreciation of the work. Hope this helps. :)

I love this channel. I like how you put more complex subjects and support them with the right images. I think with this art-artist division that it is not mentioned that in a certain way all works have something collective, one associates the work with a single name, but there are always more people behind each work who make it great. The abuse is also in a certain way collective, usually those most affected are close people and they share that secret with a few, perhaps as we now live in such a hyper-connected era and privacy is increasingly scarce, this "collectivity of abuse" it is more difficult to maintain it over time.

I'm amazed once again about how you bring up and underscore these really important videos by viewing all these different angles. This is a truly difficult theme and I don't know the answer for myself, but I'm probably not able to, for example, put the hp books down - t they defined a whole big part of my fantasy world since I've been literally grown up year after year with them, starting at 11. And so do other people with other art. Do I judge jkr as a person - no, cause I don't know her. Do I excuse her views - no, cause I don't share them. But it's still self centred, my decision to do so - and I too have opinions and views others don't have, like our share as everyone. And we probably don't want anyone to know. But it is immensely important to be aware of what you do and talk, especially as a person of public interest. I'm probably tangling up things, trying to explain myself in English here, but I think it's an important enough theme to try. Keep up your great work!

An after effects class by you on skillshare would be dreamy

At some point, this became the best photography channel on KZread

Wow, what an essay - great one Jamie!

What a thought provoking well narrated video once again Jamie. Your work stands out among your contemporaries. I personally discredit an Artists work once the truth comes out as moral standing of an individual is important to me rather than enjoying consuming their work.

When an artist is trained in any discipline they acquire a set of skills that they exercise when they create in the discipline. This is a narrow set of skills and does not represent the entire gestalt of the artist's character. I revere certain music composers, performers, and teachers who have contributed significantly to the musical discipline and influenced both their own and the next generation of musicians. I do this because of my theoretical understanding of their contribution(s). I deliberately keep my attention on just the music when I exercise my analyses. The gray area that troubles me is when artists imbue extra-musical concepts into their work. This area is especially problematic in songs. If the lyrics (or the accompanying music video these days) projects cultural values with which I disagree, I generally choose to dislike the tune and if too many of his/her output displays this issue I dislike the artist. Early era rap and hiphop was rife with misogyny and encouraged violence. I therefore rejected all of hiphop. As the years piled on, I became aware of new lyrical trends in hiphop. I was able to analyze the newer music and reach some positive opinions. This allowed me to reach back to the early years. I have been able to learn of the extremely repressive culture in which early rap and hiphop evolved. Today I can praise a tune (even a song) for tis musical value but reject the artist's social views. Think back to many generations ago and choose a photographer who you think represented the "average" values of his/her current culture. Let's try the 40s-50s. I consider the writers and other artists to have lived in a very sexist and white-dominated culture here in the USA (GB as well?). I'm willing to bet that many, if not most, artists exhibited many of the sexual and racial values of their time. Since I am a fierce proponent of sexual and racial equality, should I reject any artist from what was then a "normal" culture? Should I single out only those artists who exhibited what would have been viewed as socially deviant? If I do this have I just cast aside my carefully created set of analytical parameters designed to judge only the art and not the artist? How can I objectively reach an understanding of the evolution of music during this time period and its musical impact upon later generations? How can I reach an understanding of my creative needs and my place in the world of art if I do not view all of history? My decision is simple: I consider just the tune. If the tune's construction is compromised by extra-musical poisons, I squirm over my illogical choices of what I like and do not like (shame on me). I am a musician and a college teacher with a PhD in Music Theory. I fully am aware that I am a person who does not represent the average person. Nonetheless, this is my two cents. Thanks for a great video!

@aaronthibodeaux3558

3 жыл бұрын

TreyD Music & Media very thought provoking perspective--thanks for sharing

@Treydmusicmedia

3 жыл бұрын

@@aaronthibodeaux3558 Thank you, Aaron! I felt quite nervous writing such a long-winded reply. This topic is eating up the college circles at the moment, so it is in my thoughts a great deal.

I love these video essays very well done.

Damn, I’m lost for words. This is a very good social commentary and you know it’s good when both sides of the coin weigh so heavy closely to each other.

2 points: It's important to distinguish between allegations and things that a person has actually been convicted of, or at least for which there is overwhelming evidence of. Unfounded allegations have destroyed people's lives and reputations. Second, although I am not overly familiar with J.K. Rowling's views, from what I can tell she is vilified simply because she disagrees with the "politically correct" position on transgender issues. To me that is unacceptable.

@Hunders1984

3 жыл бұрын

Yes it was a bit disappointing to see her included in this video as if she has done something wrong, which she hasn't. She simply thinks that male and female are specific things (which they are).

@oscargarcia8204

3 жыл бұрын

the "politically correct position" is just to don's spear hate over an oppressed collective when she is one of the most influential writers of this century. If she speaks hate, hundreds of thousands of people would listen to her hate

@Sasha-dn6mz

3 жыл бұрын

Hunders No. That is not “simply” what she thinks, at all. I recommend you look into the issue in greater depth.

@tonypaulprince

3 жыл бұрын

www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

@Sasha-dn6mz

3 жыл бұрын

Tony Prince Right. As you can see, she says a lot more in this article than “”male and female are specific things.” Thanks.

Imagine a firefighter who saved quite a few fellow human beings during his career. Imagine that by the end of his professional career he becomes an alcoholic who kicks the ass of his small kids with a leather belt. Do all the lives that he saved become doubtful? Will the relatives of the saved ones stop being grateful to the firefighter? You must separate the art from the artist just like you have to separate the father from the firefighter. Because if you don't, you will probably become a very bitter person with much less beauty in your world.

@christopherlane5910

3 жыл бұрын

This analogy doesn't work because the abuse is not essential to the firefighter fighting fires. Photographers creating art by abusing their models, directors abusing their actors etc. is an abuse of a working relationship, it's also undermining the creative work of the people they're working with/abusing. A better analogy would be a firefighter who has a team that is the best at putting out fires, perhaps they've even won awards, but he/she is abusing his team who are deeply unhappy. In this case he'd be stopped from doing his job, if not prosecuted, despite being the best. There's plenty other firefighters out there... there's plenty other artists out there.

@Johny1

3 жыл бұрын

@@christopherlane5910 this comes down to your understanding and defenition of art. But also if the art is spreading the hateful message an author has commited. Art is imho to be interpreted. The artist does not matter after a work of art is created. Im not viewing tarantino for his worldview, im watching tarantino to be entertained and apreciate that artistry. As long as pushing his worldview is not the maingoal for his art i dont care. Like its different listening to a nazi band singing about that shit or listening to a classical artist where its not about being a nazi its about the craft. And in those cases the art has segnificant distance to the artist itself that it does not matter what the worldview of the artist is - its meaning is to be interpreted by the viewers alone. And if you stop supporting a movie because the star abused their power, the other artists working hard on that movie suffer financially too - its easy to forget that with collaborative work. Plus i dont support boycotting some1 bc of alligations. There is always a chance those are wrong and even if they were true it has to be proven, its innocent until proven guilty for a reason. (Not talking about the examples in the video, just in general)

@ivormorgan9030

3 жыл бұрын

Amon Goth would occasionally spare the life of a Jewish prisoner because he was feeling benevolent. Does that undermine his slaughter of tens of thousands?

@Just_Ve

3 жыл бұрын

He was doing his job saving those lives, but that does not give him any free pass to be abusive and assault his own family, so yes, no matter how good he did in the past it will be doubtful. You cant separate the art from the artist, Hitler was a painter, all his work was done while he was keeping doing his atrocities and maturing his racist and xenophobic ideas, would you hang one of his paints in your leaving room??? What if you find out that that paint hanging in your office that you like so much was painted by a rapist or a pedophile??? would you keep that on your wall???

@Just_Ve

3 жыл бұрын

@@Johny1 art is not subjective.

One of the true achievements of ethics is its capability to make us wonder wether something is right or wrong. By asking yourself these questions you are making world a better place, you may not know if something is deeply right or deeply wrong, but you'll ask and think about it.

I was just thinking about how we at the very least need to be viewing these artworks with a filter. And then I thought: "why not a physical filter?" At museums and galleries, we hang a piece of coloured/tinted glass in front of these pieces to remind people of the kind of person these artists are.

Imagine that today, for the first time you see a film which blows you away - the plot was entirely engaging, the characters fully formed, the cinematography magical and carried a message which resonated with your soul. One year from today you learn that the film was directed by a man who has been charged with some hideous crime. Does that change the film ? Tomorrow, you watch another film which is very mediocre but, one year later, you learn that it was made by a victim of a hideous crime - does that information make the film better ? Unless you are willing to separate the art from the artist, you can never form any opinion about any art because you always have to reserve judgement until you know everything about the artist. We are all flawed and some tortured souls have produced some beautiful things which have uplifted our spirits. Liking a piece of art is not the same as forgiving the artist for their transgressions. Future knowledge of the artist may colour our judgement of them ... but it should not detract from the value of the art.

@coolcat23

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed. It is simply not true that by appreciating art, we are "supporting the artist". Surely deceased artists like Wagner don't benefit from me liking their art and even if an artist is alive by appreciating their art, I'm not approving of everything the artist does. The "either you reject the art or you approve of the artist" view is based on a false dichotomy.

I'm as lost as you. My consciousness tell me we should stop consuming their art, but it's not easy when you spend a big part of your life being inspired or amazed by their works, when every piece of art which shaped your artistic view have been made by these people. The issue goes deeper than just consuming their art, it become about who you are as an artist or as person. When your morality come from moraly reprehensible poeple, what does it mean about you? I think that's partly why we struggle so much with this.

@sandeephmaher

3 жыл бұрын

Is the fondness of the art coming from a abuser of humanity a difficult choice? Really? Is art and it's appreciation a priority over say human-ness? For me it's humanity which scores over art. Just my view....

@spoonietimelordy

3 жыл бұрын

@@sandeephmaher obviously, I'm not saying the opposite. I'm just explaining why in my opinion so many poeple struggle with it and prefer to dissociative the art from the artist, because it's easier on a personal level. If you don't stuggle with this good for you, but it's not the case of everyone

Thank you for this essay, I wish I had written it myself. Bravo. "Lost" is a good way to paraphrase such dilemmas.

Your essays are marvelous!😍 I'd love to see something similar about what is private and what is not (in any artform)

it is easy, just equate the issue with that of scientists and inventors who do bad things. Are we supposed to get rid of most of our culture because it was made by imperfect humans? Nobody should do bad things and the individuals should be prosecuted by the law, sure; nothing to do with their value as artists and the value of their art.

Jamie, I love your videos. I really do. But I think you are completely wrong about JK Rowling. She is clearly not trans-phobic (afraid of trans people). Anyways, everyone is imperfect. There are plenty of artists who have done plenty of awful things that you don't know about. Does their art somehow become less valuable because you have learned something bad that they have done?

@jamiewindsor

3 жыл бұрын

I am giving examples of my own personal moral quandaries fall into this topic. I'm not telling anyone how to feel about Rowling.

@tatripp

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamiewindsor Fair enough. Great video though. Seriously, your videos are the only videos that make me think about photography in a different way. You have changed my perspective do many times. Keep up the good work.

@ihateunicorns867

3 жыл бұрын

Why not listen to what trans people have to say on the issue. This is a good, reasoned and fair video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/aHWqxdJmlZfIf9Y.html

@tatripp

3 жыл бұрын

@@ihateunicorns867 I watched a big chunk of the video (it's pretty long). I understand that they are upset. It's still not fair to accuse JK Rowling of being afraid of trans people because she is critical about their view. It's a cheap tactic to avoid the argument.

@pookiepooh

11 ай бұрын

@@ihateunicorns867weirdos. No wonder they’re losing.

I missed your videos so much, you're a light in the middle of all this madness.

This is a tough one. The way I’ve found myself dealing with this problem is: - I can’t deny that artists going bad taints their work for me. - I will still consume their work to some degree, but less frequently and with less enjoyment. - On the one hand, I’m strictly against cancel culture, on the other hand, there have been certain artifacts that I really want gone from the public space. In the end, I may be about as conflicted as you are and I think your closing words about not judging people who deal with it differently are crucial. On an individual level, I think everyone needs to make their own decision. When it comes to public display of works, it gets more difficult, because in that case, few people are making decisions that affect many.

There's a difference between transgressing contemporary social mores and criminal conviction. From the Renaissance onwards many of our great artists have been narcissists, letches, bullies (sexual and otherwise) and murderers. A much greater number held views that would be considered abhorrent today. Unless you're going for a Year Zero approach to the creative arts - in which case the new artist better be morally impeccable - we are compelled to draw our own lines.

When we call someone a BAD person, can we separate truth from allegation? If you're going to call out artists for their own opinion, or look at the things they make, and say you're sickened by them and because we don't like it, then they are a BAD person, then you have no business making, curating, or representing art. Art is freedom of expression and should not be censored. Artists are literally just people saying what's on their mind. I understand when you say it's hard to separate the art from the artist, I have this too. However, an action is different then an opinion. I don't think someone should be labeled as a BAD person for a widely accepted opinion. If you think they are naive that's one thing, but to label someone a BAD person, Based on what? Your standards? To hell with your standards. Or what? Everyone who thinks differently, is a moral monster and should be labeled as BAD? Not saying you labeled them as BAD PEOPLE, just that some people will see something an artist has done, not like it, and criminalize them, based on their own standards. And in case you think I have a bias towards any of these artists you presented, I straight up couldn't care less about these movies or books, and I find no personal joy in their photographs. I'm simply saying An opinion should be treated differently to an action. But I guess that's something our countries don't agree on.

I find it helpful to think about the people that bad artists have harmed and how they would react to the art. Imagine a person you truly care about was harmed. In many cases there wouldn't even be the question to consume the art anymore. Distancing the art from the artist can be a display of your own privilege.

This is amazing. You're a true inspiration, thank you such much for doing this in such a delicate and thoughtful way.

Ah, Jamie, that's a somewhat treacherous subject. Let me ask you: How much art and culture will be left in our civilization if once we finished being politically correct, overly vigilant, have claimed the the moral high ground for ourselves and have thrown out everything, because this person or that person or someone else with a different cultural or religious background or moral code didn't like the artist for whatever (perceived?) transgression he or she may or may not have committed - or simply because the times and views have changed? Based on these standards we'd have to throw out the works and achievements of George Washington, John Locke, Isaac Newton, Thomas Hobbes, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and pretty much everyone else's contributions to our civilization since we came down from the trees. What should we do about Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton or Donald Trump, for that matter? Should we judge and condemn only some but not others? Without noticing it, we wouldn't be much different from - say - the Taliban, the IS fanatics or the Nazis of the Third Reich, to name only a few outstanding recent examples of rather self-righteous cultural vigilantism gone out of control. History has taught us ample times where cultural mob law leads. Should we limit ourselves in future to accept politically correct art from flawless artists acceptable to "everyone and his dog" only? (Mars would become the cultural hub of our solar system in no time!) Cultural achievements and works of art should stand and be judged on their own and not by their creator's character flaws. We have our respective justice systems to deal with those in an unbiased manner, according to the law and under consideration of the circuumstances at any given time and the severity of the transgression. Let them be the judges, and let them hand out the judgement over the person in question. It shouldn't keep us from admiring great works of art and to learn from them. On the subject of supporting this or that artist by admiring and/or buying their work: Keep in mind that you are supporting art and variety in art more than the artist. On the subject of your perception of taintedness of works of art based on their creator's character you should explore its origins. Quite an enlightening journey, I can assure you. It will put things into perspective, as it did for me.

@GreenMorningDragonProductions

3 жыл бұрын

Your thoughtful reply is excellent, but I fear wasted, as a response to what can at best be called a pop morality hit piece.

@rickymcc9072

3 жыл бұрын

Well said, totally agree. Life and morality can be murky and confusing. Best to compartmentalise IMO. My 'head in sand' approach allows me freedom to judge an individuals' beliefs, art, actions, life, comments etc in isolation. I choose when, where and how to link any of these elements as I think fit. Thus with the right of being delightfully inconsistent (aka human) I can remain largely untroubled by viewing a Dhali, enjoying a good JKR read, listening to Wagner or appreciating the merits of a fine historical building built partly on the proceeds of slavery etc etc. Whilst on my hobby horse, let's not forget that history is written by the victor. Ditto celebratory structures, ultimately created by (for) the surviving victor/victory. Surely we should seek to understand others, learn from history, become better individuals and not try to suppress anything that we, or somebody else, feels is somehow tainted.?

For a start - has the tog been tried and convicted ? These are allegations - not facts...

@iNerdier

3 жыл бұрын

Precisely. It’s one thing to accuse and another thing to have facts. And even if you have facts the work is not the author, nor is a person incapable of change. What is the ultimate logic here, that artists who do things you don’t like should have their work burned and never be allowed to work again?

Beautiful, thought provoking video Jamie. My mom used to tell me that she wouldn't listen to certain musical artists because by supporting their music she was green-lighting their lifestyles. And I remember thinking how stupid that was. I can enjoy someone's music and not really care about who they are as a person...or can I??? Now that I'm an adult, I find that my attitude towards artists can be greatly impacted by whether or not I "like" them--even if I don't come right out and say that's what's behind it. An artist who I've come to respect or admire might get more plays from me and conversely from artists who I've found to be mean, insensitive, or cruel. Even businesses who have publicly supported something I patently disagree with, like homophobic views or dishonest business practices, will stop getting my business as a result. So even though I consciously will say the artist is divorced from the art, if I'm honest with myself, I know that isn't really true. What is correct and proper here? I can't say...but I think this is the core element behind our current "cancel culture", and I really hate that about society right now. Very thought provoking... thank you for making me look closer at myself and the world around me.

I'm never gonna watch any of your videos without giving a like first. You always deserve it. Great work.

Dear Jamie, I really like your videos. In this case I would say: A well constructed and thought-provoking essay let down by the misplaced references to JK Rowling. Whereas most of the artists you cite are accused/guilty of crimes, JK Rowling has done no more than express a point of view which, however well researched and carefully worded, has upset some people who are ready to take offence. That said, please do keep the videos coming!

@AveryW.64

3 жыл бұрын

I personally feel Rowling can still be put in with this group even though it's a different shade of problematic. The issue is not who should we hunt down and lock up for their crimes, but what artists have done things in their personal lives that have tainted the way we view art that is meaningful to us and how are consumption of that art carries additional weight by either signal boosting the artist or putting money in their pocket, and how we choose to respond to that. A photographer that puts out purportedly feminist art who commits misogynistic acts can color their art just the same as when Rowling (who has a massive range of influence) creates empowering art that helped shape a generation's formative years suddenly starts invalidating an already vulnerable and oppressed group. All of them are doing harm at varying scales, but question of our consumption of their work is still the same.

@AeromaticXD

3 жыл бұрын

Rowling’s views are harmful to Trans Acceptance...

@pookiepooh

11 ай бұрын

@@AeromaticXDSo what?

@AeromaticXD

10 ай бұрын

@@pookiepooh she’s a massive transphobe - a Bigot!

I understand you don't want to litigate individual artists but I don't think J. K. Rowling should be roped in with these others. I was kind of surprised that you did so. Most of the others have been convicted or fairly credibly accused of serious crimes (I admit to not knowing some of the names). Rowlings expressed an opinion, not a very popular opinion, but not in a hateful or abusive way. I looked for evidence of just how unpopular Rowlings' opinion actually is and found this. It isn't a perfect surrogate for Rowlings' twitter posts but it roughly represents acceptance of transgenderism in today's UK: "A recent YouGov poll for PinkNews showed that by 50% to 27% Britons believe that people should be allowed to self-identify as a gender different to the one they were assigned at birth. While still a commanding lead, this figure is a slight decline since 2019 (56% to 23%)." yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights So half of Great Britain would probably disagree with Rowlings and a quarter might support her and a further quarter have mixed or complicated feelings or don't want to answer. Should the half of Great Britain that isn't entirely on board with transgenderism be lumped with criminals? Speaking your mind on social issues isn't necessarily a terrible thing. "I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives." -- J. K. Rowling She might be dead wrong but we all take that risk every time we open our mouths.

@craigpelton6134

3 жыл бұрын

I agree that Rowling should not be roped in with the others. However, I don't think Rowling's opinion is one against the acceptance of transgenderism, it is simply the acknowledgement that sex is still a biological reality and that that biological reality has a meaningful influence on the lives of the majority of people. The two claims - biological sex is real and transgenderism is real - are not mutually exclusive; in fact, the existence of gender-dysphoria rests upon the existence of sex (i.e. one's gender identity is not aligned with their sex). I don't think its an accurate portrayal to lump her in with the "half of Britain not on board with transgenderism". However, I may have misread/misinterpreted your comment.

@JohannesLabusch

3 жыл бұрын

The title of the video used the expression "go bad" and go bad she did. This does not amount to comparing her bigotry to rape. But she abused a position of significant power, and a very specific kind of power: Influence over developing minds. For many kids, her hateful bullshit about trans people may have been the first statement about the subject they ever heard. Coming from someone they admire!

@mithileshlokhande

3 жыл бұрын

JK Rowling doesn't belong in this video for the "being bad" part she can be included for the separation of art from the artist as much as any other name out there... If stating a personal opinion right or wrong gets you in the same list as these other individuals I think it says more about the public than JK ROWLING.. I mean a hundred years ago people were put in jail for saying the earth was a sphere which a hurt a lot of people's feelings and religious beliefs so are we the same society for boycotting her work.

@JohannesLabusch

3 жыл бұрын

@@mithileshlokhande Could you maybe think about what you just wrote for another minute? Maybe it'll make you delete this.

@mithileshlokhande

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohannesLabusch no I have thought about this for a long time and personally I don't think I should delete this comment 😁 but you're welcome to have your own opinion.

Those photos by Nicholas Nixon are really beautiful. I hadn't heard of him until this video. I looked up the specifics of what he's accused of, and while he seems crass and very gross, I don't think he's done anything that's unforgivable. To me, that's the line when it comes to separating the art from the artist. If the artist has done something I think is unforgivable (murder, rape, child molestation, etc), then I can't enjoy their art. However, for smaller things I'm willing to look the other way. That's not to say smaller "bad things" don't matter - sometimes these things can still taint the enjoyment of what's produced - but all of us are flawed, and good things can come from bad people.

The pen blending with the grim reaper was awesome

Jk rowling didnt abuse anyone she just had a opinion but the others mentioned i would avoid their work, and that tarentino clip ive never heard before and turns my stomach.

Well I would say that your video premise is wrong! You can separate art from artist because you do it always anyway! I mean how do you know if every person you admire the work are actually good people and do not hold bad opinions or do wrong things? Ignorance seems to be the common point of your premise! You are ok with the art as long as you do not know anything damaging about the artist. If you don’t know the artist, who they are, what their opinions you cant judge them on a moral ground and therefore you can still enjoy their work! So yes we can separate art from artist we do it all the time! The question becomes can you appreciate the art after you know something wrong about the artist? Well if culturally we go forward with a moral stance on this, what is going to happen is the artists are going to try to keep themselves off the public eye! Because ignorance is the basis of the trust we need to appreciate the art! So we will appreciate the art of people that do wrong and have bad opinions! This is actually extremely dangerous, because it could end up in a moral purge and the scrutiny of every aspect of someone personal life! Because ignorance is the base of the trust in the artist, and we do not want to support “bad” persons trough their art, we could go and destroy the notions of privacy, individual self-determination and freedom just so we can appreciate art without guilt! And my second critique of the video is that you happily aggregate actual criminals like Bill Cosby and Polanski, people who have allegedly committed crimes (sexual assault) and someone who is accused of wrong think and opinions JK Rowling. Are they the same for you? Can we appreciate the art of someone who has different opinions? Political stances? Different moral grounds? Are we going, for example, to ostracize every artist who is religious? Because we all know that religion is very negative towards women, gays, trans etc! Can you support let’s say a practicing Muslim artist? A catholic one? If they fellow their religions they will certainly have some of the same opinions about trans people than JK Rowling. So the real question is not: can we separate art from the artist? It is: can we produce art that breaks from moral codes? Does art have to be criticized and judge by morality? My opinion is yes art has that transgression aspect to it, it is a factor of inovation! And we can appreciate art away from the artist… we do it all the time!

Absolutely one of your best videos. Shared it with my non photographer friends. This should be required watching for all humans. Thank you.

i really loved the "one take" editing in this

I took a course in aesthetic in university. The professor showed us some paintings and everybody agreed they were pretty good. Then he told us that the author was a monkey. Of course this demolished the value of the work in our opinion. But, after all, what matters is the work. Think about Banksy, Daft Punk, Salinger... Shakespeare, Dante or Homer. We barely know them, and it may be for the best. If consuming Polanski's art while he's alive give him money, I'd like him to use it for defending himself in court.

@anomalousresult

3 жыл бұрын

The defence was over, he'd pled guilty and fled before sentencing.

Allegation is not conviction! Stop canceling people because of someone's words! Innocent until proven guilty.

@raymorgan4337

3 жыл бұрын

Yes: This is an important element that is missing from the video. As far as I know only Polanski James been convicted of a crime. Rowling has committed no crime - and actually has a lot of support, including members of the scientific community. Jamie is right to raise the question and admits he struggles with the answer. That is inevitable: we all make subjective choices according to our morality or ethical beliefs. Clearly I believe Polanski is a rapist - yet Chinatown is a brilliant movie and deals with this question.

I can't separate art from artist, but the reasons I appreciate an artwork at the time I view it don't change after I might find out something bad about the artist. So that artwork stands on its own merits, albeit with a tinge of sadness from now on. However the same is not true, for me, about artwork created afterwards or even created earlier if I hadn't seen it yet. Your warning about 'staying clean' is spot on, because a reputation will follow you for ever - perhaps fading with time, but never going away. But anyway, hopefully we all want to be a good human for its own sake.

Very nicely put together. Such thought, consideration and struggle clearly went into this. Great job

5:47: (paraphrasing) "sending the message that a bad person will be celebrated and admired as long as they make good enough films." 1. You neither need to celebrate nor admire a person just because they create good art. It is fine to admire the art as such. 2. Even if you admire someone's ability to create good art, that does not imply that you admire all facets of their personality. 5:36 "directly and indirectly complicit": No, absolutely not. We are not enabling someone to do bad things, we are (at most) enabling them to do more art. Also, one is not disabling someone to do bad things by not appreciating their art. We might be elevating an artist's status but we are not responsible for them to be given the wrong sort of power and then being allowed to abuse that power. Your view seems to make it impossible to even appreciate a person's good sides, if the person has one or more bad sides. Obviously the correct approach must not be to condemn the entire person but to work with them on their bad sides. 7:55 "I also feel strongly about how much work we need to do in society to combat rape culture and sexual abuse." Absolutely no problem with this statement. Where you are going wrong is by believing that such work need to be done by boycotting art. There are much more effective ways of doing that work. It is OK if you personally cannot separate the art from the artist but please don't try to insinuate that everyone should have that problem and that they are lying to themselves out of convenience if they don't have that problem.

@SelphieFairy

3 жыл бұрын

It's not that simple. I think it's easy to assume these things are all mutually exclusive, but in reality they all feed into and affect one another. An abusive person in a position of power uses their position of power to enable more abuse and shut down dissent. Supporting their work and continuing to put them in those position gives them ability to influence things and opportunities for more abuse. And I don't know if you've ever been around famous or popular people, but these people easily become enabled, surrounded by constant praise, adoration and yes men. It's very easy for people to become entitled and big-headed if they aren't careful. I absolutely it helps enable bad people to do bad things -- albeit indirectly.

@christopherlane5910

3 жыл бұрын

"We are not enabling someone to do bad things, we are (at most) enabling them to do more art." - If that person is a Director and they're abusing their actors then enabling them to do more art is enabling them to continue their abuse. So we absolutely would be "indirectly complicit". "We might be elevating an artist's status but we are not responsible for them to be given the wrong sort of power " - Status is power. There is not 'wrong' or 'right' types of power. Power is power, it's how you wield it that dictates it's moral/ethical potency. "Your view seems to make it impossible to even appreciate a person's good sides, if the person has one or more bad sides. Obviously the correct approach must not be to condemn the entire person but to work with them on their bad sides." - I completely believe in the idea of rehabilitation, I sincerely believe that 99% of people given the correct framework and tools to evaluate themselve and the relationships around them are capable of reconciling their 'bad' sides. However, good and bad are subjective and your assertion is far from obvious, rather it's patently ignoring the nuances of the discussion. Does working to help an abusive artist overcome their abusive tendancies somehow validate the work they created by abusing people? I would argue no. "Where you are going wrong is by believing that such work need to be done by boycotting art." - To be fair Jamie hasn't equivocally stated his strance on this, moreso he's carefully framed subject for discussion, therefore he can't be right or wrong. "It is OK if you personally cannot separate the art from the artist" - The question isn't whether or not ONE can seperate art from artist, but whether or not it is entirely possible at all to seperate the art from the artist, the answer to this is not binary, in my opinion it's down to the artist, the art and the indiscretion. "but please don't try to insinuate that everyone should have that problem and that they are lying to themselves out of convenience if they don't have that problem." - I watched this film carefully, twice. I don't agree with everything that Jamie has said but I can say for sure that there was no insinuation whatsoever that "everyone should have that problem and that they are lying to themselves out of convenience if they don't have that problem." To do so would be to defeat the the entire purpose of the film which is to open up discission and explore ideas relating to it.

@christopherlane5910

3 жыл бұрын

@@SelphieFairy Well said.

@SelphieFairy

3 жыл бұрын

@@christopherlane5910 Thank you. (:

@coolcat23

3 жыл бұрын

@@SelphieFairy I didn't say things were "simple". Of course I see the indirect effects you are describing. However, isn't there a point at which one's indirect influence becomes so indirect that one cannot speak of a responsibility anymore? Are you responsible for any miscarriages of justice just because you have a job, earn money, and your taxes are used to support the correct and incorrect sentences? Unless you are withholding your taxes, you are supporting every bad action that the government performs. So how can it be moral to pay one's taxes? Paying taxes is not directly problematic because you are not authorising anyone to do bad things with your taxes. Of course you probably want to take some political action to ensure that taxes are well spent just like we all should want to make sure that power isn't abused, in art or anywhere else, but you don't need to accept blame for something you are not responsible for. Your position taken to the extreme means that there should be no bakers because surely they have provided sustenance to a lot of criminals.

Kinda how I feel about Jason Lanier. As a Sony shooter, I always watched his videos but once he was accused of sexual misconduct it became hard to sit and watch his videos now.

So much work goes into your videos, it is a pure joy, what ever the topic. As someone with a degree in media studies I love your approach alot and i feel like back at university sometimes (regardless of whether it is a philosophical or technical topic you work with). you are really using yt differently than 99% of the other photographers here. much appreciate your work.

A stunning, distressing and incredibly thought provoking discussion. Wow, thank you for opening this for contemplation.

I think it's unfortunate that you included Rowling in this. Her views are widely held by many, including such radical feminists as Germaine Greer, who has been 'no platformed'. See also my comments below: only Polanksi has been convicted of a crime. Our legal system is predicated on the principle of innocent until proved guilty. However, it's a thoughtful and honest essay and thanks for being willing to tackle it.

@anonymous36247

3 жыл бұрын

Hate to play gatekeeper buuuut: Trans exclusive radical feminists are not feminists. To dehumanize one group and alienate a class of marginalized people to secure special rights for your own class is more akin to fascism.

@pookiepooh

11 ай бұрын

@@anonymous36247put down the crack pipe please

J.K Rowling isnt saiyng anything bad about trans people, shes standing for biological female, so i dont think she "deserves" to be an example in your video essay

One of your best videos yet. Amazing. Good structure and extremely interesting.

Really love your content, it's so fullfilling compare to the other stuff on youtube I watched the last couple of years. Keep on doing that!

"He who is without sin . . . ." For the universe of the fine and lively arts, the issues presented may be distilled to the cultural evolution or history (!) of normative behaviors, expectations, and values x audience's, artist's, and related surface and underworld business inclinations and gravitation. Rather than try to establish rules of employment for the making of art or its evaluation, we might more spaciously recognize the many layers of aesthetic, business, cultural, political, psychological, and social motivation involved in leading to careers and, eventually, to pasts, never mind the interventions of curators, editors, and producers and their complex positions. By way of normative change, some (to many) who lit out for the art centers of the world with "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" in mind -- or power and profit (from "the gate" -- price of admission or access to the experience of the art -- or back in the shadows of the parking lot where other exchanges take place) - the feel for license and tacit approval or tolerance has changed. Some naughty and some not have been caught in the shift. From the personal perspective, perhaps, refusal -- the things we won't do -- may establish the contours of our own art and the character of our experience in its pursuit. There was a time not so long ago when the term "transgressive" was cool (establishment busting, groundbreaking, hip) as was "heroin chic". What's cool now? What matters? Are we going to go overboard with the New Puritanism? Or some new excess involving villainy and sadism? Still Photography more ties reflection to representation -- show the ugly reality? Record the pretty while the world swirls on? -- but if equipped anew with each our own blank storyboard, it's going to be inclination and intuition x character x experience that sets what we're going to make appear.

Seing how far cancel culture took things, the answer is clear...

I think that an important part of photography is how its contextualized. And when work is clearly done by an artist, then the life of the artist adds to that context, good bad or other

This is a masterpiece. Thank you

Being offended by what rowling said is deliberately looking for offence. Nothing she said was untrue or deliberately hurtful. Especially when she has been a rights activist for so long. Additionally...if you want to stop watching the artist etc...you would need to throw your television away and never consume anything from the arts or media again. Even your toothbrush could have been designed by a sexist, racist, misogynist etc.

Lol JK isn’t transphobic for saying men can’t have periods....

Always great content. Thanks Jamie

Absolutely perfect, thank you Jamie. excellent job.