Don't get me wrong, I've heard many sides of the coin. One agreeing with me by stating that their work outlives the creator, and the other disagreeing by stating that it's best to remember them by who they were than by who they became.

Concerning the latter, in the penultimate volume of Battle Royale, Shuuya Nanahara explains how the whole game is done as a more mature way of childhood acceptance: when they were children they would always show off to gain attention, be it by jumping, singing, or even lifting the teacher's skirt (hence why I didn't say talent). Of course this led to the whole “it's all fun and games until someone got hurt” scenario. Shuuya applies this philosophy to their current predicament because only 4 kids, himself included, are left, and rather than see all the teenagers who had to kill one another as cold blooded murderers, he would prefer to “honour their memories” because it wasn't their fault: it was the “kill or be killed” game's fault. To him, he just wants to remember the best of them because to him that's who they were. That's who they wanted to be if they had the choice.



I bring this up because of the fact I just don't know if I should feel this way about John Lasseter, to the point I can't even look at any of the Toy Story movies anymore if not any other movie he's directed. To me, Pixar wouldn't exist at ALL without him just as Queen nor Linkin Park would exist without their main frontmen. It would have a hint of it, maybe, but why even call them that? Don't get me wrong: I'm “one of those people” who still likes John Kricfalusi until they find a way to incarcerate him (Only then will I feel 100% depressed rather than just a quarter) seeing as I'm sure the MeToo movement is the reason we feel this way about him rather than because of an unauthorised biography detailing everything he did back in 2013 we didn't even know existed (and probably still don't). At least HIS memory is worth honouring.

But John Lassetter was a borderline role model if he had a co-partnership with Disney. I mean yes, what he did was wrong, but given how obscenely subjective this whole thing has been (to the point one of my heroes, Gilliam, calls it hive mentality while actor, Paul Haggis, flat out sues someone for false accusations of misconduct) it's like I said: Pixar's memory isnt even worth honouring if they can't sort this out. To me it's like a boat of cards who may as well go down with its captain if you remove him from the wrong spot: it simply gets on my nerves that deeply.

I don't know, it's just something that crossed my mind (or whatever keeps me out of 4chan, I guess.)

Hmmm, I'm not sure JL is so bad. Not cool behaviour but hardly anything to demonise him or his former studios work about, he's no Harvey Weinstein or Ian Watkins. It's also worth bearing in mind that action has been taken regarding his actions. He took a sabbatical and later stepped down from his position, more likely made to.

I thought ‘The Pianist’ was a great film, despite Roman Polanski's sordid past. H.P. Lovecraft was a racist, but that doesn't make him any less of a visionary. Many deeply troubled people have created great art, and I honestly can't understand how or why anyone would let that prevent them from enjoying and studying their work.

As for Lassetter specifically, a bunch of vague innuendo about mildly inappropriate office antics from anonymous accusers… doesn't even raise an eyebrow for me. Sorry. Seen this movie before. Future generations will look back at the current moral panic we're living through as something akin to the Salem Witch Trials or McCarthyism.

Hey Jaymon- just a tip but It'd be a good idea to write a bit about what the fellow is meant to have done so we have context.

————

When you can, always try to separate the creator from the creation.
I'm pretty sure that EVERYONE who has ever created anything has done something unsavoury that people would disagree with on some level-
Now that doesn't justify people doing awful things, but it also means that it's nonsense to wall ourselves from enjoying work because of how we feel about the creator.

People might argue that they only do that when accusations are out there and public… But that means that they don't really care about what creators have done, what they really care about is the controversy. It makes them feel righteous… It's superficial.
If they really, really cared then they'd investigate the creators of whatever they were into and make sure they conformed to their values. Which is generally impractical and more than a little Stalinist.

We should TRY to separate the work from the creator. You can't always do that: maybe you know them, you were hurt by them or knew someone who was and the connection is too great. Or maybe buying their CD or book or whatever puts money in their pocket and you don't want to support them.

I'll try to be more specific and bring up examples (although they sort of make me feel uncomfortable given what John Lasseter has done according to the testimony https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-john-lasseter-skydance-controversy-20190111-story.html)

Yeah, I myself am not one to talk when it comes to judging people for what they've done versus who they are (I myself, in terms of art, have drawn stuff of disgusting, violent, and animalistic taste which I even think Shaddai Prejean was influenced by yet stood by Robert Crumb's same principles when it comes to this at the time even if I didn't do it again anyway
)

but speaking from experience: since I can't relate with professionals who work in a professional environment in any way enough to judge them if they not only did what I did in 2013 but ten times worse yet still want to pretend like it never happened although the kind of art they did was not only out of revenge (regardless of they fact I didnt do anything to them) but to personally attack me, that's when it seems that they must be on something if they still assume I'm interested in their show in any way whatsoever. (though they actually were: on meth, according to what they told me, but I'm not an expert on what it can do to your brain and avoid people on it at all costs if it's supposed to be illegal)

So you're right about me knowing them and being hurt by them (though I wouldn't say I knew them in a friendly way after what they did) but it's still irksome that messed up people can create great art that's not worth looking at because of the kind of person they are while likeable people can create over-the-top art that's not worth looking at because people fear it can inspire the wrong kind of things. Maybe that's why I respect Kricfalusi more than Lassetter: although what he did was wrong, it's not like he ever did it again after that decade https://news.avclub.com/ren-stimpy-creator-john-kricfalusi-accused-of-sexuall-1824193943 (or once I read this book I'll understand better because it's all messy at the moment https://www.amazon.com/Sick-Little-Monkeys-Unauthorized-Stimpy/dp/1593932340 )

@Genejoke Yeah, probably.

@El Cid I also liked The Pianist, though it was brutal when I first saw it (and Adrien Brody deserved that Oscar: playiing the piano that well must have required a strict practice schedule. I would know XP)

The topic of the creator and the creation pops up more and more. Netflix (I think) has taken off the Michael Jackson episode of the Simpsons after allegations made in some recent documentary.
And I imagine that some people wouldn't even listen to his music because of it.


More and more I really think you need to look at them as two separate things.

The Simpson's episode hit way too close to home and in light of the documentary is absolutely creepy to watch.

Now the thing is, there's the artist's work , her public persona and a twisted private life. Some of this goes beyond the artist being difficult to get along with and into the truly twisted and tortured soul category.

That's how I can still appreciate the art. That these beautiful things were still created despite how awful the artist was. And maybe glimpse how the artist tried to transcend or deny her demons.

People are greedy, barbarous, cruel and selfish. Why should artists be any different. They are pure while we stumble around in the cesspool? I don't think so. They're every bit as awful as anyone else.

The Michael Jackson thing involves mental leaps and imagination to make the episode evil since the star had nothing to do with it, not even allowing himself to appear in caricature form, simply providing a voice to a pre-written script. It's a beautiful illustration of how moronic this trend has become.

I cannot comment on the truth of the allegations in the documentary but we have to remember what it is: an entertainment product, not a legal one. There's no burden of proof and no incentive for truth. The main incentive is sensation and subscription sales.

——————-

This has probably always been the case, but there is a tendency to make the artist's story sell the work rather than the work standing on its own. Of course art would always sell from the reputation of the artist (Picasso would sell any old shit with his signature), but that's different.
A great example is seen in the mawkish intros in those music competition shows like America's Got Talent where some child cries about their mother, gets the audience sympathy and people vote for their music.

I think both trends are bad: the work being brought down by the reputation of the artist or the world being sold because of the story of the artist.

Sadly I have far too vivid an imagination.

As for artist's tragic stories selling their art: Van Gogh.

His brother popularized the tortured soul of his brother to sell his garish paintings. (Way too cynical I saw the exhibit at the National Gallery and cried because you could feel it. When assigned to do copies of famous art I chose Van Gogh because it spoke to me. I also cried in the Dr Who episode where the Doctor brought Vincent to the then current exhibit and spoke to the art critic)

That's one of the problems with going to art museums for me. I follow the brush strokes and feel the effort of the artist. Art is not the final result for me so much as the process. And during that process it's the work, not the artist.

So separate the two. The art reflects the artist but it isn't the artist. It's a process of creation that we should be considering. Not the artist.

But that's me and my vivid imagination. I once yelled at someone talking about Wyeth because how could they understand if they'd never drawn or painted anything. Someone had pissed me off because they couldn't understand dry brushing.

I'd imagine it would be easier to separate some artists from their art than others. The Lasseter stuff doesn't sound nearly as heinous as some other people's scandals.

Watching a movie is probably easier to separate than a specific actor, comedian or singer.

But funnily enough, the only example that comes to my mind is the director of Jeepers Creepers and its sequels - I actually had a bit of a quandary over whether to watch the sequel after learning the guy had been a convicted child molester.

I really like Jeepers Creepers - and I decided that I COULD still watch that movie - I can still enjoy it, and my DVD is from a pawnshop - but I also decided NOT to see the sequel in theaters. I didn't want to contribute to the guy financially. So I never did see Jeepers Creepers 3. Not the end of the world.

Weirdly enough, I don't think I've seen a Kevin Spacey movie or Bill Cosby performance since their scandals. Not a moral choice; I just haven't been interested to see them. I thought House of Cards sucked, so I'd already quit that show previously. haha.

I can definitely agree that the form of art can make a big difference. Roman Polanski films are still watchable for me, and things produced by Harvey Weinstein, not an issue as I largely assume he is more a money man than having any artistic input to the film's. John lasseter, I'm completely unphased by that for reasons previously stated. However, with music it's a different story. I find it hard to listen to songs by the lostprophets since the singer was convicted of all manner of creepy stuff involving minors. Michael Jackson, well I'm definitely of the mind there was some kind of dodgy goings on but now I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth.

I think the danger here is that we during these strange times seem to demand all performers, actors and artists to be completely free of sin for their entire lives.

If we start digging among us comic creators HERE I'm sure we will find all kinds of juicy dirt. ( Did you shoplift when you were ten years old? WHAT?? I'm UN-subscribing from your comic!! )

I can understand that people are appalled by stuff certain artists do, I'm not condoning it at all. But i think it is important to separate the man from the work.

Prototype wrote:
I think the danger here is that we during these strange times seem to demand all performers, actors and artists to be completely free of sin for their entire lives.

Exactly!
Or it's a game of “pick which sin is acceptable for me to still enjoy their work.”

-Was the creator a racist?
-Ah, but did they live in a time when that was the norm and their attitudes were in line with the rest of their society?
-Hmmm… provisional pass but they really should have been an exceptional crusader against it in order to be acceptable. We will now always look down on them and it will shed a pall on their work.

-Did they have an affair and were they mean to their wife?
-OK, that's it. Their wife is obviously the REAL hero in the story of their life and we sill now stop talking about their creations and talk about the wife instead. Poor lady, cheated on by that mean old fellow 150 years go…

We rally have to start separating the art and the artist more than we do. It's geting worse these days.