Separation of the Art from the Artist

It depends, but often no. I never have been a big Polanksi or Woody Allen fan so those aren't really cognitive dissonance for me. I loved, LOVED the Cosby Show as a kid and watched reruns happily as an adult but when the scope of his predatory behavior became known I had to stop.

There are also a few musicians I enjoy who I learned are sort of crazy or assholes in real life, but I can still listen to their music and enjoy it. They're nutbars, but they're not hurting or abusing people.

I guess the line for me is creep versus predator?

I may not quite be understanding your distinction clearly, but for me it's almost the reverse. Which is, I can more easily set aside my feelings about people who have done specific horrible acts (domestic abuse, sexual assault, murder) than people who have a worldview that I find repugnant. Sometimes those things conveniently align (so someone who beats up his girlfriend is also more broadly and consistently misogynistic in the view of society), but when they don't I think I'd have a harder time being a fan of the creep who believes something creepy than even the sociopath who hurts people because it serves their needs.

I'm in a similar place as you on this topic. I was thinking about a Cosby stand up routine the other day that I used to think was hilarious, but I can no longer enjoy. 40+ women and he seems less like a guy who made some creepy choices once or twice and more like a monster. On the other hand, Woody married his step daughter, yeah kinda creepy, but they've been together for decades and seem happy and I like some of his stuff just fine. Polanski is harder for me to dismiss but he has made some films I really enjoy, setting aside his one (that we know of) major victimization. As said above it has nearly no bearing on how much I enjoy his films. If he'd done it several times since the one time I think I'd have a harder time enjoying his stuff.

So for me, creep vs. serial predator. 

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I grew up in a fairly conservative Christian milieu with a major emphasis on "culture wars" and arguing about "worldviews" and looking for secret messages and meanings in art. It was very overheated and from my teens I realized that it was kind of silly. But one of its side effects was that I had to get very good at separating what I was watching/listening to/reading from whatever personal failings of the artist I was supposed to be condemning it for if I was going to keep enjoying it. Now that I've grown out of that culture wars nonsense, I find that I'm still pretty good at enjoying a particular object without letting the failings of its maker seep in.

Kind of similar to what @patrickbatman said here, I find I’m more willing to overlook a musician’s failings than those in other media because music is so much more important to me – by the time I find out that a musician is an irredeemable piece of shit, it’s often too late for me to fall out of love with their music. I suppose it depends on whether I know ahead of time that a musician is an awful person – it’s much easier to hand wave it away if you’re already on the person’s side, whereas if I go into something with a negative perception of the artist to begin with I’m probably going to be less likely to listen to it objectively (even if I make this call subconsciously)

With film, particularly if the asshole is on screen (as is the case with a lot of Woody Allen films, or anything Cosby-related, or the works of Mel Gibson, etc) I have a harder time separating art from artist because the artist is explicitly there. I can still watch Chinatown and think it's an incredible movie, even though I knew about Polanski's history before ever seeing it because HE isn't in it reminding me of his crime

With musicians, particularly those from the '70s, I kind of go in with the baseline assumption that they were/are horrible people and treat it more like a pleasant surprise if I somehow find out anything positive about them in their personal lives

Depends entirely on what they did. I'll never have anything to do with Polanski, Allen, Cosby, or Nate Parker again, for example.

I hate to say it, but for me it probably comes down to if I have to "see" the artist in the art. An actor I have to watch, or something where the subject matter is related to the crime, I will have trouble separating. But if I can reasonably listen to a song, read a book, etc...I can probably separate.

The other day (before this thread was created) out of nowhere I started singing to myself "Dad is great! He gives us chocolate cake!" and then like a second passed and I remembered who that was from, and then I thought about what he did either right before or right after that wholesome fun for the family bit, and any leftover amusement simply crumbled like ash in a stiff breeze.  

He was, but from his own description and testimony he still raped her. She was too drunk to consent (or even speak clearly or walk).

I know what you mean about reading about it. Empathy hug.

Thanks.

I just realized I haven't even vaguely hinted at what I uh, vaguely hinted at there to anyone in, oh I don't know about 7 or 8 years. I didn't even hesitate. This tells me I must feel pretty comfortable with you bunch of maniacs. 

It's a good question, and one I wouldn't normally stray into because I dislike pissing people off. Assuming this is a free-zone, here's my piece.

Nearly everyone's an arsehole sometimes, though some are worse than others. Artists seem exceptionally prone to being viscount dillhorns. I love Bob Dylan, but I've seen "Don't Look Back" and holy christ he was a cornfuck. But "It's Alright Ma" and "Visions of Johanna" are great songs. The art transcends the artist. It comes from somewhere better than their acts, and I appreciate it as such.

I have read Celine without apology. It's funny in places and well-written, though his anti-semitism is fucked. I have enjoyed Cosby's routine on tonsils and still think it's well done even if the man is a sack of fetid goat shit.

As to Nate Parker, I don't know enough about it. I'm a lawyer, and I believe in the presumption of innocence generally. I fight on the side of the state to try to ensure the guilty are punished. It seems to me the answer is not to throw away the presumption of innocence, but to throw away ridiculous old notions such as people who don't report immediately are lying, or that people who continue to see their abusers are lying. The fear of those lies are why Ghomeshi went free--complainants covered that stuff up out of shame. So the answer is to get rid of that shame, not to presume that every person accused of violence, sexual or otherwise, is guilty.

So, back to Nate Parker, maybe he's an arsehole. I don't know. It gives me pause when I hear that a rape survivor who worked on his film read the whole 700 page transcript and says she doesn't have a clue what actually happened, so I don't see why I should have an opinion, not having done that level of research.

Anyway, this is a vote for art over artist, convoluted though it may be. And please, I mean no offence to any survivors.

ETA: if a person is shitty enough, I generally won't support them with money. I wouldn't pay to see Dawes, for example, knowing their bass player is a fuckerwagon (even if I loved their sweet Laurel Canyon sound, which I don't). I do pay to see Dylan, though--his transgressions are slighter and his gifts more pronounced.

Wait, what did the Dawes bassist do? What's a fuckerwagon?