Consumer ethics and buying art

[jd callow]

There can be a distinction on many levels between the artist and the work.

If the artist is a bad person (your choice as to what kind of bad) and the intent of their work is in character and the viewer's response (me) is in-kind I would not support or purchase the work. As often as not the person and the intent of their work is significantly different and once the work leaves the context of its birth the meaning of the art can become further removed form the badness of the creator.

My point of reference is always going to be at least somewhat removed from the person who made the work and therefore my interpretation and the value I place on the work may be further distanced from what I find disagreeable in the artist.

If kept strictly in context there is also the possibility and likelihood that the wrongness in the person and their work will act as a counterpoint at some level to what makes them so wrong.

I've met more than a few jerk artists, who create nice work. These are people who are not immoral, evil or destined to try and rule the world or some slice of it; they are simply jerks. If I really liked or wanted their work, I'd pass and possibly see that they knew I had passed and why.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I imagine its fairly obvious the difference in responses you are finding. This is a discussion about a concept/idea. The prior discussion you are referencing was much more pointed and specific. They will obviously conjur up different responses.

Not necessarily -

It says a lot about how much we as humans CLAIM to be driven by principles (don't buy Exxon oil, they caused the Valdez spill) and in actuality, give our deep-held principles a pass when inconvenient/necessary (I've got about five miles worth of gas left in the car, I'm at an Exxon station, and the next gas station is 20 miles away). That seems to be the driving factor to me behind the dichotomy I've seen in responses - well, in this case, the familiarity people have with certain artists allows them to say, "I'd buy their work because it's fabulous, even if they are a jerk", perhaps because they've not had the same experience. Like shopping at Macy's I suppose - I can say I will keep shopping at Macy's because I haven't had a bad experience there yet, even though someone I know may have been run over roughshod more than once.

 

[BradS]

I think that there is also an opportunity to distinguish between a person who is bad and a person whose viewpoint, although perfectly valid, I do not share. (I recognize that a broad section of the population of this country is completely unable to make any such distinction).

 

[jstraw]

Indeed. Stalinist or fascist art at this point tells us something about history and is likely to contradict it's original intention by way of irony in its new context, or it might reveal something about other art of the same period that couldn't easily be seen in its own day.

On the other hand, I don't think I'd purchase a racist work by a living neofascist artist.

I wouldn't buy a watercolor of a landscape from someone I knew to be a living neofascist.

 

[Craig]

I wouldn't buy a watercolor of a landscape from someone I knew to be a living neofascist.

How about dead? I once saw an exhibition of some of Hitler's watercolours, and I thought he was actually a pretty good artist.

If I didn't know who the artist was and just looked at the painting, I would have been happy to hang one of them on my wall.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

How about dead? I once saw an exhibition of some of Hitler's watercolours, and I thought he was actually a pretty good artist.

If I didn't know who the artist was and just looked at the painting, I would have been happy to hang one of them on my wall.

That reminds me of the impression I had from Bruno Ganz's personification in The Downfall. Almost everything looked normal about him, except for the fact that he's Hitler.

The director had received a lot of criticisms for supposedly "humanizing" Hitler, but I think it was in fact rendering the character as even more powerful: there is not such a large gap between the people we consider best and worst, and it's hypocritical to demonize the perpetrators of horrors because it's refusing to acknowledge the lack of essential differences between ourselves and them.

Applied to the context of artists and their productions, I think the first question one must ask oneself when rejecting an artist's production on ethical grounds is whether they themselves really abide by the principles they uphold.

 

[rhphoto]

How about dead? I once saw an exhibition of some of Hitler's watercolours, and I thought he was actually a pretty good artist.

I think it's like, the 13th law of entropy that all conversations about ethics will at some point include Hitler.

Anyway, I'm quite sure I will never be able to afford a posthumous work by some infamous artist. I just like to put my money where I think it will do some good. I won't buy art (photographs, paintings, poetry books, movies, music) from an artist that I personally think is despicable. Like Kenny G.

 

[DBP]

I will not buy anything from a business that where the owner or an employee has been unpleasant to me. This has cost one photographer a sale, last year, at an art show. This has also resulted in a slowly growing list of large companies with which I will not deal.

For individual artists it has not been a question, as there are none I can afford whose work I like, but positions, I don't.

 

[jstraw]

"...there is not such a large gap between the people we consider best and worst and it's hypocritical to demonize the perpetrators of horrors because it's refusing to acknowledge the lack of essential differences between ourselves and them."

I do not concur with either point...even a little bit. I think the differences between Pol Pot and Gandhi are obvious. I also think that the difference between a person having normal, violent or anti-social fantasies and a person acting upon them is an enormous distinction.

Applied to the context of artists and their productions, I think the first question one must ask oneself when rejecting an artist's production on ethical grounds is whether they themselves really abide by the principles they uphold.

If someone is sufficiently reprehensible in their expressed views, I may be disinclined to support their livelihood.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I do not concur with either point...even a little bit. I think the differences between Pol Pot and Gandhi are obvious. I also think that the difference between a person having normal, violent or anti-social fantasies and a person acting upon them is an enormous distinction.

Of course they're not the same, because they did rather different things. What I mean is that they both come from the same humanity; it's not like they're from different species.

The Holocaust trials were full of "ordinary" people who were following orders; the Bosnian war brought former neighbours throat to throat; and the Germans are the cousins of the French, even though they kept butchering each other for centuries.

War, economy, politics, exacerbate to impossible proportions characters, but we can't delude ourselves in thinking we're immune to committing errors, sometimes major ones, simply because we're on the "right" side.

 

[davetravis]

I'm Paying for the Creativity

For me, two categories.
Art to display for the now, and vault art to buy as an investment. $$$
Buy the famous, for whatever reason, they tend to appreciate over time.
For the now, I enjoy meeting the artist, and never ask about his/her politics, morals, or if they abused their children.
If we knew the history about all creative people, would we still collect their creations?
DT

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

For the now, I enjoy meeting the artist, and never ask about his/her politics, morals, or if they abused their children.
If we knew the history about all creative people, would we still collect their creations?
DT

I agree, but sometimes you don't have to ask - it gets put in your face either by the artist themselves, or the media (Bob Shell comes to mind as an example).

 

[Alex Hawley]

I could give a personal example of a living artist whose work I admire(d), but whose personal demeanor has subsequently demonstrated their own low character. This has soured me on ever buying their work again, as I don't think it in my best interests to reward that behavior.

Scott, as you said, purchasing art is entirely discretionary. If you find a person disgusting, for whatever the reason, no one compels you to buy from that person. You simply don't buy.

If someone is sufficiently reprehensible in their expressed views, I may be disinclined to support their livelihood.

Ditto to that. Everyone has their opinions, likes, and dislikes. In my case, I find Michael Moore totally disgusting, in both his personality, ethics, and the junk he calls movies. Others think he is a great oracle of truth. I don't support his livelihood; others do. I go to Clint Eastwood movies. Others do not. Both Moore and Eastwood make more money in a day than I do in nearly a lifetime. However, neither is a BAD person IMO.

I once saw an exhibition of some of Hitler's watercolours, and I thought he was actually a pretty good artist.

Now this guy was truly bad by all reasonable standards. The fact that he was an artist of some wee merit should not justify in any way patronage of his art. But, as PT Barnum would say, there's one born every minute, and their money I will take.

As you said Scott, purchasing art is entirely discretionary.

 

[jstraw]

Of course they're not the same, because they did rather different things. What I mean is that they both come from the same humanity; it's not like they're from different species.

The Holocaust trials were full of "ordinary" people who were following orders; the Bosnian war brought former neighbours throat to throat; and the Germans are the cousins of the French, even though they kept butchering each other for centuries.

War, economy, politics, exacerbate to impossible proportions characters, but we can't delude ourselves in thinking we're immune to committing errors, sometimes major ones, simply because we're on the "right" side.

I agree with all of that. I know about the banality of evil. But I do think there are enormous differences between the best of us and the worst of us and I think there's nothing hypocritical about demonizing the perpetrators of horrors. Just because all peoples will commit horrors, not all people will.

I make no claims for my own character. I've never been tested. But there are heroes and there are villains in this world and there will always be, as far as I can tell. I believe there are indeed, essential differences between heroes and villains. I don't use the terms "us" or "them" to describe either.

 

[firecracker]

I don't know who originally said, but I remember Bruce Springsteen said once in an interview: "Trust the art, not the artist", and that has always been part of my practice. People change and so do their beliefs, their ways of thinking, and their behaviors in a long run. And if you get into the debate for the justification of other people's political agendas, well, you really have to wait until they are dead, at least.

I don't personally collect any art (the stuff sold in galleries) created by someone else because once I start there's no end. Instead I spend the sum of money on what I need to create for my own ego.

 

[firecracker]

How about dead? I once saw an exhibition of some of Hitler's watercolours, and I thought he was actually a pretty good artist.

I saw Hideki Tojo's handwriting stuff in a show a while ago, which impressed my friend but not me. He is still very admired by some people in Japan despite what he had done, and that's pretty scary.

And speaking of which, around this time of the year, in Japan, there are so many TV programs and news articles about the WWII, the stuff "we've never been told before", and in my emotional level, I can't bear to watch the inerviews that feature some surviving Kamikaze suicide fighters talking about their dead mates in the war. They were on the mission to hit the targets and supposedly to die in honor and that was 62 years ago, but how are they still around today?

 

[bjorke]

At what point do you say that an artist's personal beliefs/behavior/etc become sufficiently obnoxious that you refuse to buy their artwork?

Most of the time, actually.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

There are many areas where reasonable people can disagree, and so I'd happily buy from someone who disagreed with me on something important, if I thought that it was a reasonable disagreement. However, there are plenty of decent people producing good artistic work. I buy from them, to the extent that I can.

 

[Scott Peters]

If an artists personal beliefs/behaviour/etc. are obnoxious to me I will most often refuse to buy their artwork. I like to buy art from artists that I like, personally. If at all possible, I prefer to meet the artist in person. Often, I learn things that make the art more 'valuable' to me on a personal level (and usually on a positive note, but sometime not). I think the key for me is the 'obnoxious' part.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I don't know who originally said, but I remember Bruce Springsteen said once in an interview: "Trust the art, not the artist", and that has always been part of my practice. People change and so do their beliefs, their ways of thinking, and their behaviors in a long run. And if you get into the debate for the justification of other people's political agendas, well, you really have to wait until they are dead, at least.

I agree wholeheartedly.

If the work contains elements that contradict your values or belief system then you are probably going to dismiss it as something you would not want to have on the wall. But if the artist creates something that you find beautiful, then it really should not matter if their politics are different from yours or they are obnoxious on a personal level.

Most everyone who ever knew Jackson Pollack would probably agree that they couldn't stand to be around the SOB for more then a few minutes. (Unless he was buying the next round.) But his personal failings did not influence collectors and fellow artists who at the time saw beauty and genius in his work.

Maybe we look to often at the agenda behind the art first rather then to work itself.

 

[Terence]

If you don't think you should not own the work of people you find reprehensible, the logical end would be to search out such information on every artist you intend to buy from. Is it any better, philosophically speaking, if you own the art of someone reprehensible but didn't realize they were reprehensible? They're still a reprehensible person.

It would seem to me it's either an all or nothing proposition. You're either doing it, or you're not.

This is not to say I know where I stand on the issue . . . just playing devil's advocate. It's the damned Jesuit training.

As for Frank Lloyd Wright . . . he was a savvy businessman/salesman more than he was an artist, and far more than he was an architect. The furniture was just his savvy expansion into new markets.

I like the look of much of his stuff, but having been a structural engineer involved in the rehab of one of his houses, I can honestly say he was a terrible architect in the professional sense. His selection of contractors only made the horrible detailing even worse.

 

[jd callow]

I like the look of much of his stuff, but having been a structural engineer involved in the rehab of one of his houses, I can honestly say he was a terrible architect in the professional sense. His selection of contractors only made the horrible detailing even worse.

I had a room mate who worked on an FLW restoration. He said much tha same thing with regard to quality of materials and build.

 

[Terence]

I had a room mate who worked on an FLW restoration. He said much tha same thing with regard to quality of materials and build.

FLW's mark-up on the contractor's work as, shall we say, excessive. Even by the industry's standards. Spacing of floor joists, etc did not even meet the standards of the day. This played a large part in why many of his houses and buildings are currently being rehabbed, despite what most homeowners would consider exceptional maintenance over the years. The place I worked on was literally falling apart at the seams. When I was on the design side (engineer, not architect), I would have been (and would still be) ashamed to have my name associated with the construction I saw.

The only exception I saw was the millwork. The built-in book cases were absolutely beautiful. Easily Greene & Greene or Stickley quality.

 

[laverdure]

FLW: throw-away houses for a throw-away society. I've been in a few of his buildings and never understood the attraction. I'm for old vernacular architecture myself. Built for living in. All the bad ones have already fallen down for the most part.

As for caring about the respective odiousness of the architects whose buildings we spend time in, I can't say as it bothers me at all. If I find their theories odious and ridiculous and they built according to their theories, I hate their buildings, but I could care less what they did in their personal lives. Then again, if their theories had much influence on the general trends in architecture, I do find myself resenting them. If such a thing existed, I would have a hard time resigning myself to live in a good Le Corbusier, for instance.

I just don't find simple bad manners to be enough to write an artist off. Unless again, as I said, I know them too well personally. What's the point of making that kind of moral stand? But it's true I'd have a hard time handing money to a salesman who sneered at me. Was that last bit the point we're supposed to be focusing on?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Laverdure-

your point was what I was noticing and hoping people would comment on more. As I said in an earlier posting, I've found that when I state the problem in the abstract hypothetical, most people say, no, I would never buy art from someone who was rude to me, expressed beliefs I don't wish to support, etc. But when you take it down to a specific example, I've had people say, "Oh, I know so-and-so is a royal ass, and he's rude to me and to people I know, but I still like his work so I'll keep on buying it".

I'm just interested in how people explain the relativistic approach they take to this situation, and why is it that they seem to exempt art from the same standard they would apply to any other discretionary purchase.