I need all the help I can get so I consume the all the knowledge I can. But there is a line where I just won’t cross and can’t bring myself to study them but they have to do something extremely bad like John Kricfalusi bad. But disagreements or rude personality isn’t enough to not try to improve myself.
Whether or not I like their style, and can appreciate their technique. Their history IS important, because both the good and evil sides have an influence on their overall work. Both are important if you really want to understand "Art" and how that artwork reflects the "human experience" from every aspect of every type of artist.
the quality of content should be the only thing to concern about when you want to learn a craft. bringing in the term parents might bring in a emotional aspect to it and you dont want bad parents but its nothing you should take to literal. the only concern which might come up is if you want to support that bad personal financially by buying theire artbooks or courses etc. thats something you might curve around by going to into librarys etc but beside of that...i would focus on the craft itself and if it helps to grow your skill.
i think its a bad mistake to think we have the authority to censor old books according to contemporary beliefs, just imagine if the catholic church had destroyed all art depicting nudity for example, what a tragedy it would be for future generations. we dont know how our thinking might change in future. so just leave it as is. its a snapshot on time thats all.
Interesting discussion. It seems as though people who are not able to separate the art and the artist should not learn from them, but those who do shouldn't be labeled as an advocate for their crimes. In a few years the people who learn from them and make their own art will be the new teachers who will not have the crimes of their art teachers. Therefore we shouldn't censor if we are able to look at it objectively and talk about it in a civil manner.
I like the idea of updating the Loomis book with information about racist stereotypes and how to caricature other races in non racist ways. Instead of leaving it and saying nothing you can make it a learning opportunity to expand on the material taught.
@@bethsleepien9817 I think people can think for themselves when seeing or reading something morally obtuse. It gives us the opportunity to exercise our minds and reason why this and that is wrong.
I think it's unfortunate that Stan brushed off Marshall's comment around 44:00 "to WHOM". I think that's the key to the whole thing. It's easy to forgive sins that never hurt you and expect everyone to do the same. I think Marshall's nuanced take on counting your options and making informed decisions was really excellent.
Yes, and on 42:10 Stan so easily says that he can separate Loomis' teachings from the racist stereotypes that occured in his books which immediately brings up the question: could he have done the same if he was black. It's always easy to brush problematic things off and look the other way when it's not you who gets stereotyped.
Yes, empathy is the core issue. The less empathy you have for people who are discriminated against and harmed, the less you will be bothered by a creator's dark side. If a master artist were to do or say harmful things against his wife or child, it might not be so easy to just blow it off and study his "skill."
@@ravenburneskushner1825 lol you people really really are spiteful people I'm an Asian, and I find it's ok to study Lumis. The 2 people already said it's up to you to decide to study or not from a person who was not decent human. the people like You, who only care about how to be on the Moral High Ground to jack off the idea you are SEEN as GOOD person, and not about how to make humanity as a whole become better. This is why all the violence happen, people put up some ideal, Jews Christian Muslim Black White Yellow... to make themselves looks good in their make-believe god's eye and commit atrocities while smiling and thinking they are some heroes and stupid shit. "Yes, empathy is the core issue. The less empathy you have for people who are discriminated against and harmed, the less you will be bothered by a creator's dark side. If a master artist were to do or say harmful things against his wife or child, it might not be so easy to just blow it off and study his "skill." You dare to pretend to be wise while personally attack Stan in a conversation of 2 them just want to share the experience and thought in a civilize way, have you look it at yourself lately !? You think you are black and now you have the voice of all minority !? If you don't want to learn from Lumis, power to you that is your choice. You DO NOT has the RIGHTS to dehumanized people who learn from him. And stop treat us like we are little puppy who can't make our decision. You think people when learning just learn all what they have read or listened to ? No. As Human being we have the power to choose and select what we appreciate. Even if what we want might be mixed in with toxic stuffs. That what makes human strong, the freedom and the Courage to make decision. Next time, when you try to act like a Saint, maybe look at yourself 1st. Before thinking the world are all about you
@@杜忠孝-k3b The irony of typing up this rant about only caring about the "pretending to be wise" or whatever, while ignoring everything that was written and constructing a whole army of strawmen to wage war against so you can look smart and win an argument that didn't exist in the first place. lol
This is hands down the greatest conversation in regards to this matter. Nuance, referencing, examples, logic, critical thinking, openness, objectivity and curiosity to strive for rationale. Commendable and very impressive (unlike many of our media commentators). Excellent guys I passed this on to many, even my non art interested friends.
I find myself singing things I think now a days after starting to listen to this podcast😂 Sing, sing a song Make it simple to last Your whole life long Don't worry that it's not Good enough for anyone Else to hear Just sing, sing a song -The Carpenters
Really great conversation as always! I think, for me, a big key to answering this question is: do I *have* to answer this question? Or is there an equally skilled, maybe lesser known, artist who I can learn just as much from and isn't as problematic? Am I willing to do the extra work to find those people who can be great art parents and I feel no moral ambiguity in supporting their work, living or dead? Yes you could study Hitler for public speaking, but you don't HAVE to; there are countless incredible public speakers that you could turn to instead, and the same is true of artists, especially with the internet.
Agree with this and they didn't really mention this idea of choice. I think about this a lot. Especially now since we have a wide range of perspectives to learn and hear from.
excellent point! Similar to Lovecraft. Lots of creatives are inspired by him and he was outrageously racist. Might be better to look at other creatives who only took the "unknown eldritch horror" part who aren't coming from a racist place. Stranger Things is a good example.
@@BurdHQ But Stranger Things had to come from a tradition that was largely affected by Lovecraft. You can't get away from the fact that some artists that were awful people were also FOUNDATIONAL to their fields and genres. Can you really just "not read Lovecraft" and understand the world of fiction? Not fully. In the same way, with Hitler, if you ignore his public speaking, you may also miss the points where others were inspired by the way he spoke, or re-used his rhetoric. Would the world of public speaking be the same without Hitler? No, it wouldn't. So you have to understand his place to get the whole picture.
Art doesn't work that way. If you have a sensitive eye you can't replace the work of one artist with another, unless they're producing work that is extremely generic and lacking any sort of personal flair.
Many of mankinds' greatest artists were fundamentally broken people, whose broken factor gave them a particular vision that through art they were capable of turn into something that really connected with audiences and in some cases left an indellible mark in History itself. I find the Michael Jackson example a non-issue. Every single achievement of his career was through sheer hard work and incredible raw talent (not every musician is born with that kind of talent nor will be ever be able to generate that kind of impact in their respective fields). The Michael Jackson example, when brought up by an average Joe who doesn't have any talent and want the moral upper hand (and ignores, for example, that abuse is a cycle and abused people tend to repeat their abuse cycles, listen to Tool's "Prison Sex" for further illumination on the subject) that it seems to be so important on Twitter nowadays, *is still an average Joe* . Whereas certainly someone inspired to sing and dance and to aspire to that level of craftsmanship won't automatically submit to abhorrent practices. Anybody looking to have the upper moral hand deserves to have their opinion automatically dismissed (I don't care the opinion of somebody who is an ignorant, let alone self-righteous to boot). Facts. Steve Jobs? Anybody unable to separate the person from the icon should automatically stop using smartphones of any kind (I'd love to see them TRY to quit tweeting). And yet, some part of their lives were indelebly influenced by him or one of his creations. Of course Elizabeth Holmes took all of the wrong things about Jobs (And many believed her, even ignoring her father was Enron's head honcho). Some nations, perhaps the ultimate form of art, were already created by rapists, slavers, racists. And yet... People is free to choose whether consume (or not) the art of certain controversial artists. People (especially mediocre people) is not allowed to tell others what they should (or should not) choose. Great topic, great conversation to follow. As usual, Marshall shines in his eloquence and expression- Congrats Stan for the coming baby!!! I've just bought both of Proko's courses last month. Thank you for this. Keep Draftsmanning!!!
Hi Marshall, hi Stan. Thank you for this thought provoking conversation. I admire you ability to structure this type of difficult questions. One of those which seem overwhelming, as if there's too much on one's plate.
Well... That got deep and I now realize that my earlier comment was not, at all, thoughtful... It was a surface observation made before I watched the podcast. As a white man, who grew up poor in rural Georgia, I thought I was a very decent person. When I was 26 years old I feel in love with an African American woman, we got married, had three children together, and she passed from complications of lupus shortly before our 10th anniversary. Over the course of those ten years, and even the six years since, I have had the wonderful honor to realize where I was indeed, less than decent. I feel that I have been able, however, to maintain the positive aspects of my previous self, while shedding some of the negative. I believe the art and artist can be separated, and learned from, given that the art, and the way in which it was created wasn't or isn't "bad".
Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Fidel Castro and FDR are Public Speaking 101, I mean not profoundly but their skill is part of what I teach when I work with HS students and young adults, it is the understanding of such power and skill what must be part of education and the building of a critical mind. Oh and Andrew Loomis is a fundamental block, you can edit away, but I think you can focus on Creative Illustration and balance it out with Michael Hampton. I suppose that we can call them Master Craftsmen or ancient distant teacher... But that's why a teacher is not supposed to be a friend, is a craftsman teaching a craft or subject not how to live.
Caravaggio had a reputation of being a "bad guy". A couple of years ago I read 'The Man who became Caravaggio' by Peter Robb. The book used public documents to analyze his life. Robb writes "I read the record differently and see him (Caravaggio) largely as a victim of powerful interests he'd offended." Maybe before one chooses someone to emulate, you might question the facts put forward about that artist. What did the biographer have to gain by writing about your potential artist parent? What was the biographers agenda? A lot of times the agenda is not altruistic. That book I mentioned is a good read. How can you not learn from an artist, if you look at their work?
Thank you for bringing up the example from "Fun with the Pencil". I read that book after Marshall recommended it during the first episodes. The book was inspiring and encouraging, particularly after years thinking that I can't draw. As a history major and a teacher, I wasn't surprised by the racial stereotypes. As a Puerto Rican, I found them offensive but I can barely imagine how an African American, a Chinese, a Japanese or a Native American would have felt, particularly in the United States. At the moment I just completed the excersice. I did feel guilty just by thinking that a friend may look at my sketchbook and think that that is the way I see people from other ethnic backgrounds. I also tried something else after the exercise was done. I looked at photo references of asian and black people and I tried to apply what I learned from Andrew Loomis to make new representations without reproducing the stereotypes. I found this very productive. First, because now I was solving a puzzle with the skills that I was acquiring. Second, because I was comparing Loomis portrayal with other artists. I became not only aware of the stereotypes, but also of how other artist use form, line quality and simplification to solve the same problems. Thank you and I love you guys
This was my reaction as well. I cringed when I saw the images, but I could also take into account that this book is very much a product of its time. That's not a justification, mind you, but rather an observation that allowed me to better process the information and learn from the book. I very much agree with the approach you took: taking the skills you learned and applying them in a much more constructive and respectful manner than what was in the book.
One of the best responses I've seen here so far! You take the flawed example, understand where it is coming from and still learn from it, and then use that knowledge/skill to go beyond the objectionable part to create something new. Brilliant.
By superseding the artist that you're learning from, you propel the craft even further than others now can stand on and reach even higher heights. That's taking a weakness and turning it into a strength.
i find the andrew loomis part very interesting , i think the keyword is ignore instead of separation in this case, cause if your goal is really is to learn from the art, you have to do just that, if you focus so much on the separation part then it loses the whole point of focusing on what you need, seems counter intuitive to put so much work to just separate instead of just flipping to the next page and ignoring it
Before watching I think this is the wrong question. The right question (and perhaps the more difficult one) is; can you accept that bad people can sometimes do good things? To separate the art from the artist is to lie to yourself. To run from the complexity of the real world and retreat to a simplistic view in which good only comes from good and bad only comes from bad. Judge each characteristic of a person on it's own merit and combine when evaluating the whole.
That is exactly what the expression means and you either know it and have deliberately taken it to mean the exact opposite so you could then attack it, or you haven't watched the podcast.
@@SpaghettiToaster because this podcast is where the expression originated obviously. Tell me, how do you mentally seperate something from someone while accepting that thing as a part of them? You may take the phrase to mean something totally different. But the words do not imply anything similar to what I suggested we ask instead.
I don’t think Stan was wrong but I think he misunderstands the point. If being aware of someone’s wrong doings makes you feel SO bad that you’re unable to study from them anymore then you aren’t REALLY separating art from the artist, you’re separating yourself and your own responsibility which is counterproductive to what you say is right. This is admitting that you’re only able to remain behind this line by putting blinders on. If ignorance is where you’re most comfortable, I won’t stop you, but I doubt this is helpful to the commenter who has already understood the nature of the artist she admires. Okay, so, am I saying you can never learn from abhorrent people? Like Stan said, you probably have done this at one point or another, maybe without realising this. People are flawed, and it is both creatively and personally stagnating to look for a moral purity in reality where you’ll never find it. However, I do believe that being critical of the things you consume is possible, IF you believe in educating yourself instead of being comfortable wearing blinders. To me, this “line” (while subjective) depends on how intrinsic the problematic elements are to the art. Like Michael said, flowers are not likely to contain any propaganda lol. For instance, if you could remove the racist elements from this book, and have the content remain exactly the same, then as long as you UNDERSTAND where the artist went wrong then you’re not ignoring the harm they did. On the other hand, if you remove the racist elements and the book you’re left with has changed in a DRASTIC way, well, unless you’re studying it from that perspective then that has to be where I would draw the line. I do think these things are fine for educational purposes. Going into some of the later points in the video, some people aren’t happy with just this, and wouldn’t want to support abusive people. Hiring Kevin Spacey isn’t “separating art from the artist” it’s directly supporting an abuser and giving him more money and fame so that he’s able to get away with hurting more people. Personally I don’t think this has much stake in the topic because we ARE talking about SEPERATING the artist and learning from them, not supporting them. I just wanted to correct the idea that this was a successful example of the topic. This is just my perspective on the matter. I am of the belief that it’s okay to admit bad things happened, that bad things exist and that the artists you admire have done these bad things. It shouldn’t have to reflect on you as a person, but if you’re worried about that then it’s not enough to be apathetic about the harm. You have to be against it. P.s. Plants do not have feelings, and you need to eat food for your own survival. Just saying.
The thing about "it was accepted in the time" or "it was the morality of the time" is that there were plenty of people at those times who said these things were bad. There were plenty of people against slavery in Jefferson's time. There were plenty of people who saw racism and considered it bad. So "it was like that then" is not an excuse.
Absolutely an important point. I know a grandmother who was over 60 years old who learned and supported trans people with grace and gentleness even if she struggled a bit. The ability to keep an open mind and support others is key. "Product of their time" just means they failed being a decent person.
I mostly agree, but some good-natured people fall into the culture they're a part of ignorantly. Osamu Tezuka was largely anti-racist, but he depicted black people in a racist caricatured way because it was the way most cartoonists did, and he was somewhat ignorant, I believe, of the connotations and such.
@@jimbo5266 True, and if you are not exposed to anything else it's easy to not think about it. People are layered and complicated. I think we do need to hold people accountable even if they acted through ignorance, but I also dont think holding people accountable means condemning them outright as evil people and discounting the positive things they did.
I see speciesism and consider it bad. Being an abolitionist back then is like being vegan today. The same bad atguments that were used for slavery (normal, natural,necessary) are still being used today, and are still logical fallacys. And if you think paying for animal death and enslavement is ok, im up to arguing the morality of it. But quick comment before you reply: what is the morally relevant trait that an animal posseses/lacks that a human lacks/has that would justify this difference in treatment.
Great episode. You guys did this topic justice. I forgot about the Loomis pictures. I still read the book because the information is good. I'm always reminded of what my mom says about a lot of these issues and figures in the past, they were a product of their time. So with some artist, I give them the benefit of that especially if they don't exhibit harsher issues in their personal life. Some people have no excuse, but I try to see them for the time they lived in as well. I have Kevin Spacey's masterclass and watched before the allegations came out. It's one of the best acting classes online, but it's so hard to watch now. But I still use some of his advice from the notes I've taken. Spacey is not a product of his time, he did bad things.
a really great discussion. We talked about this in one of my art classes and in my opinion context is really important in this. Morality chanced and some old (dead) artists - or people in general- did things that were okay back then and aren't today. Talking about the art piece and the artist are equally important topics. Learning from an artist doesn't mean only picking the good things but also reflect(!!) everything, including the "bad/problematic" stuff. Every person did something bad in their life, some more, some less but we can't learn only from the good people or the good things they did. Only focusing on the good means erasing the bad and that is equally bad.
This was a great conversation, thanks for having it. I have been asking myself the same kind of thing for a long time now, and I still don't really have any good answers about where the line is, but I think it's a question we have to keep asking, rather than come up with one final answer which later becomes out-dated.
In regard to the past history I have to say that we learn from the best or worst part of it . Them leave it alone. Look forward or live the moment. Right now so much chaos so much unknown. To much judgment to much judges. To much hate. to much rage. I'm looking for learn more and mind my own life. Nobody have the control on another person life. Take care the things you can have control of. Our own self.
I was VERY pleased to hear this brought up and discussed, especially in the current climate we're seeing around the world. There were nuances I disagreed with, but I'm generally thankfully for what both Marshall and Stan proposed. I'm proud of Marshall mentioning the accidental recommendation of a problematic book, and this is definitely the kinds of discussions we need more of. Personally, I do think you should learn about the artists' you study, so that you can know if there's something to avoid *while* studying. (And certainly, each person should respect their own threshold there.)
I think a main distinction to be made here is between how we may PERSONALLY feel able to compartmentalize our subjective appreciation of art/achievements from the creator, VS how we manage our ethical responsibility to our CULTURE, in terms of what we want to show tolerance for and further distribute to others -- like cultural memes. 27:30 👈🏼 Stan seems most focused on the individual level. 👉🏼 43:00 An important 1/2 of the consideration, for sure. But what You "might" have enough contextual education or experience or critical thinking or moral conscience to navigate around in a nuanced healthy way to preserve your own empathy and integrity..... you cannot expect everyone around you in society to filter through as well. exercising
The Main Problem I have with separating the art from the artist or rather the lack thereof is collateral damage. Eg. a Figurehead did something bad. Boycotting all their work also means boycotting all of the hard work from everyone else who did nothing wrong, but worked under that person.
I like the way this issue gets so much worthwhile material for discussion from our collective fuzzy definitions of "good person", "great person", "sin", etc. EG- Jobs may or may not have been a "good person", he is frequently put forward as a "great person" but the reality may be that he simply "obtained fame and success in business", both pursuits which may be actually hampered by being a person of any more substantial quality. Statistically, emotive rhetoric wins in public debate far more frequently than arguments presenting accuracy, ethical quality or sound reasoning. Artists of any prowess or lasting appeal are almost definitively exceptional, and therefore unconventional, people. Perhaps interacting factors like these inevitably produce a glut of crazy, problematic and ethically compromised famous people in a culture? I also like the way Stan throws a lot of weird energy at Marshall early on and Marshall just deals with it like a pro (both essential and entertaining contributions!), I am myself without sin of course 😇
One of the best Draftsmen episodes yet. I really enjoyed the subject, something very important to talk about these days to help us evolve our perception of the world around us. Also, congratulations on the baby girl, Stan! :)
Marshall’s recommendation, the book A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn is an amazing book. It should be reading material for everyone. We’re missing too much history in our American education. This book does a lot to repair that.
There's a video of someone visiting a historical archive to see Hitler's buildingscape paintings. And I remember him being overtly critical and analytical of his work. Saying random things like how there are no people in one painting which reflected his evil mind, or something like that. It was as if he was trying to justify that a bad person couldn't possibly be a talented or even a capable painter. It opened my eyes that people- are all three dimensional, and you can't just put an overall "Bad" label on someone. Even Hitler himself.
Yes, and people seem to forget that they *want* a tyrannical dictator who will fulfill their "righteousness". It used to be the norm to have these types of conquering dictators.
Sandra S I think this is why any type of extremist cultural bias has to die, as we lean so much towards righteousness, who will control how right or how wrong stuff is? Only civil and respectful debate between opposing parts could get the ball rolling towards real progress, the bad side is that to get both extremes of a spectrum to agree to talk, is absolutely difficult.
It really does come down to a matter of knowledge and sensitivity. I wouldn't want to learn from any person who makes my stomach turn. Like, I wouldn't wear a murderer's sweater, even though it wouldn't mean anything if I did, but it would make me feel sick anyway. Some people are more affected by negativity than others. So yeah, individually; "it depends". But carrying this conversation into a societal/cultural context, that's more complicated, and does rely more on whether or not morality is absolute, as Marshall asks.
9:50 I'm ALL ABOUT THIS dialectic! This way of discussion to examine beliefs and explore possible understandings and justifications for better decision making. You guys come close to exemplifying the principles of "Street Epistemology" -- if you look that up on UA-cam. I think Marshall in particular would dig it.
Yes you can, because you don't know the lives of all the artists you already like, so you are probably liking the art of a psychopath. You don't know the person, you know the art of that person. In the end, artists are only human, like us. The posibility of doing the most horrendous things is in all of us.
@@vebzia If they're stigmatize and can't deal with it. It's their fault. For not having the backbone to correct them. Being discrimanated and having to correct to them is a self-fulfilling adventure on a one-on-one basis. Self-righteous pricks like you who are angry in behalf of so and so and collectivize to sterilize the World for snowflakes are the ones who we should more worry about.
I'm halfway through this episode, and even though your perspectives may have changed in the rest of the episode or you may have addressed this, I wanted to give my two cents because Marshall asked to know our opinions. I think that if you can simply ignore art (or stop learning from it) simply because the artist himself may be questionable, then that itself is a privileged agency, because you can afford to do that. Consider this: My country has been wrecked by Colonialism, especially on religious grounds (including the Mughal period), so I should "theoretically" disregard everything from artists that may have been okay with, supported it, or were in any way involved with it. And yet I don't have the luxury to even do that, because there may be no alternatives for me. True, I could learn the arts of my indigenous people (which I still am), but there's no denying that the skills needed for me to be employable were built upon by people I shouldn't be okay with. I need to recognize where it comes from, respect it for what it is, while simultaneously disavowing the person. It's at this point I have to be a bit more nuanced than just "getting into the oppressed mindset", etc. Rather than merely separating the Art from the Artist, I need to separate Craftsmanship from Morality. Thankfully, though, over the last few years I've managed to build a very coherent moral system to be able to argue from and also hold myself to the standards of, which is why it not only because okay but almost a necessity for me to learn from my so called "oppressors". Because, ultimately, you can't escape the fact that, as an artist, you must grow. You cannot afford to deprive yourself of that, especially if you have bills to pay and a family to take care of. And the means of doing something is not the same the ends of what you mean to do.
I've been thinking thoroughly about this theme on the course of quarantine. But everytime I analyze this topic, a series of inquiries pop up in my mind: What shall we do with contemporary artists that are still alive, who are known not only for their work, but also because of the atrocities they've done (like Woody Allen, Carl Andre...)? Should we stop consuming and spreading their artworks? Should we advocate for making them go to jail? Should we acknowledge they've done awful things but still consume their work, knowing we are financially contributing to their existence and their creative process? If we choose to "cancel" them, aren't we negating some of the most raw, violent and corrupted side of humankind and the different ways this "dark" side may or may not influence directly their work? And if we opt for not caring, aren't we damaging, somehow, their victims? What do y'all think?
When trying to copy or get inspired by an artist, most often you are going to try to emulate them. Trying to be like them at different level. So unless you can separate the artist from the art and use good judgement, it could lead you in trouble.
Great conversation. I love stuff like this. For my personal study, I study from everyone that I can. I think it's "nice" to know the artist's life a bit, but in no way do I feel its necessary to learn their style, skills, or talents. Huge fan of MJ, Roman Polanski, Winsor McCay, etc but I focus on their skills and why they are a master of their craft. My art parents (right now) are Alex Toth, Bill Sienkiewicz and Jean Giraud, Austin Briggs, all guys who master pen and ink techniques, that's why I study them.
Please dont put Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski in the same sentence... Please Watch "Square One" on Amazon Prime or UA-cam, Watch "Lies Of Leaving Neverland", read all the transcripts and court documents, please read the FBI files available for a 10 year period investigation, please read the hundreds of credible testimonies, please do your research before publicly condemn a black man exonerated in a court of law 14 TIMES ! There is not ONE piece of credible evidence against Michael Jackson, on the other hand, there is HUNDREDS of evidences showing him as the victim of extorsions and false accusations even after his death. You dont need to separate the Art from the Artist when the Artist is the Victim... Also, if you really are interested in studying the Greats, and why they are master of their Crafts, I made a documentary on my youtube channel exactly on this subject and about MJ's influences (Fred Astaire, West Side Story, Romero, Disney, etc) with english subtitles... Hope you will like it. Thanks
I’ll be honest it’s hard to sometimes separate the artist from the art. Especially in the case if you follow the artist more so for their outlook on art and life rather than the art and skills themselves. It becomes a bit of a minefield. But! I think it’s also a great learning experience that artists are just people and all of us have done good and bad. It’s bad to idolize someone and put them on a pedestal. Especially us artists are very guilty of doing that! In this case I think it can be viewed on an individual basis. Think of the artist as your friend, is the act they are guilty of so despicable to you that you would stop associating yourself with them. Or are you willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for them to change and right their wrongs? I think it sort of comes down to that.
I started working through the Loomis Figure Drawing book a little while ago. The book definitely dates itself right off the bat. The page containing the "ideal female proportions" depicts a woman in heals
I'm coming back to this episode after ending a very long and abusive relationship with someone else who is arguably talented and skilled as an artist regardless of how despicable they are to the people closest to them in private. Thank you for covering this topic. For a while after cutting ties, I've been unable to enjoy art or music because of the thought, "but I don't know who is behind this. What if they're secretly evil just like this person was? Should I be giving this artist my time and admiration?" I've come to a similar conclusion to others, of "use what is useful" but not support someone's financial success (if they're still alive) or positive reputation when pulling from their skillset to learn if they are unscrupulous in their personal life. Use what's in the public domain, and don't pay for anything that would put money in their pocket to support their nasty lifestyle. Convert their evil into good until they are no more than a mere obscure background source to a skill or technique. And as far as entertainment goes, I think it's a good thing that I've finally gained the wherewithall to research the artists/creators behind some of my favorite media instead of mindlessly consuming something just because it sounds or looks good. So basically, it's more about separating the art from the artist when learning, and it's more about NOT attributing moral goodness to an artist just because they've created something skillful. *Edit: I'm also starting to look up *similar* artists to the problematic ones with what I'm looking for, and I'm seeing more and more that the person who gets the credit for making something popular is rarely the best or the original.
If I choose someone's art to study from I'll just ignore the human whoever it is, there's a quality to be learnt in their work and I'll focus on that. Unless the bad traits of this person are noticeable in his art, in which case I don't see how I could keep admiring the work.
I think it all comes down to the individual wanting to study if you can bring yourself to study them do it and if you can’t than don’t. We shouldn’t judge anyone for what they decide to do because at the end of the day it’s their art journey to take.
Also I don’t know the daily lives, acts, or personalities of 95% of the artist I love. It’s impossible to keep track so just study the art and the things you can take away from it not the person.
Cultural context too me is very important. I am more tolerant of ignorance in people that didn't know any better because of their cultural climate. But if the artist behavior/opinions can't be explained/understood by historical context, it makes it more difficult. The work would have to be exceptional and offer something that I can't find from another source. I feel differently about contemporary artist. If a contemporary artist is the kind of person whose company would repel me, that seeps into my perception and my interest in their work. Maybe it's because we now have more access to our fellow artist via social media and the line of communication is wide open. In a way it feels like there's less separation between the art and the artist. To me it's harder to pay attention to one and ignore the other
refering to the chat around 49:00 , one way of looking at "society doing wrong" some times I feel like we have to go through certain things as humanity (the industrial revolution for example) to reach the next stepping stone in the direction of morality. But! that doesn't excuse the fact that we as a whole have put off fixing the problems we've created from that time. we are lucky to get to a point where these are our problems, yes, but that doesnt take away from the responsibility we have to fix them. that goes for racism as well. we need to move in the direction of what is right. maybe we cant undo what happened yesterday but we can fix things today.
Respect to you, Marshall, for constantly learning and revising your viewpoints and techniques. When people are oppressed, they typically don’t have space, voice and in some instances even language to express their oppression, which includes their representation by the dominant culture. Consequently, members of the dominant culture never learn or don’t care about the representation of oppressed people, because they may not even understand that they’re oppressed (cognitive dissonance) or a lack of caring (ie they’re racists). You can love the technique of Norman Rockwell, but understand that BIPOC folk will rarely see themselves in his work. And if they do, it’ll likely be in a servile manner, unless we point out Ruby Bridges or Do Unto Others, which strikes me as exceptions in his body of work. That doesn’t mean that I can’t learn Rockwellian techniques and craft people into that style of art, who better represent non-dominant cultures. My goal is to someday replicate renaissance style public art with black people in the narratives. Lofty as that is. Cheers!
I dont know my flipside to this is that people create ridiculous expectations of their favorite artist and if their favorite artist doesnt meet the imaginary criteria that person has created for them the artist is suddenly a bad person and a "never meet your heroes". I don't really care for the idealization people have created for artists similar to celebrities where they have to be infallible beings who are constantly emanating generosity and kindness 25 hours a day. In those cases those people DEFINITELY cannot separate the art from the artist due to their weird sense of entitlement of how an artist exists as a person in their mind. Thats a great way to be completely incapable of separating the art from the artist. It can definitely be quite a challenge to separate depending on the situation. There are people who are really great at art who also happen to be incredibly terrible people to be around. There are people who relish in the fact that they are so good at what they do they know people will look at their work or want to learn from them regardless of how disgusting they act.
Sister Wendy enlightened me when she said the artist's work is a prayer, the human is so imperfect. T S Elliot...antisemitic- but brilliant poems. One of the synchronizes also fascist, Dali supporter of Stalin.
Holy smokes! Great conversation! Take a look at Gauguin and his painting of Polynesian women. Gauguin is an amazing painter and figurative work. HOWEVER, knowing his story, relationship with underage women, and even how he represented those women in his painting, I have a hard time appreciating his work.
I admire Whoopi Goldberg's approach of identifying the skills and consequences in context. That's an approach that helps people to learn that cultures operate systematically to normalize awful oppressions. Societies only grow better when people learn to question what they accept as okay.
A lot of this, sadly, sounded like justification for why studying from someone awful is okay. You can separate the artist from their craft all you want, but you are still supporting the continuation of that person's lifestyle by continuing to hire them. You are still supporting that person's legacy by recommending their books. You are still holding them on a pedestal, trying to ignore the bad things, because you like some of their work. I find it hard to believe that these racist/misogynistic/absolute garbage people are the one and only true and best source of education now and forevermore. Just because someone did something well among the first people, it does not mean they did it best, or that they can never be surpassed. Art, like everything else, is always changing and evolving. There will always be newer, better sources to study from.
In the end it all comes down to two things, don't put those indivuals you are learning from in a pedestal. And the second one it's seeing them if It makes you too uncomfortable as a table of instructions, dehumanazing them.
It is not a joke Proko, people that study public speaking and politics do study Mussolini and Hittler speach model. Understanding how they did that is MORE , way more important than to study fluffy cute speech models. If you do not study evil, you are just an easy pray for it.
In my opinion, if you're a buissnesss owner like Steve jobs who has perfectionist tendencies that's not necessarily a bad thing, that just means he cares about separating himself from the competition and building a great product. There is an argument to be made for greatness and suffering and how those two things tend to be molded together. Van gogh, tesla, elon musk. Even in the case of individuals like any person who has become exceptional in their chosen field. Michael jordan for example, some saw him as a Bully at the time but all of his teammates see what he was trying to do at the time looking back so. I don't think we should just judge people from the past because they didn't have values that even some people today don't have. We're all human I guess. Sorry for the long essay, probably got another essay i need to be getting to but this one I'm more passionate about 😂😬
Man, I'm very appreciative of Marshall's willingness to be open minded and self aware. I've seen a lot of biases that hurt people that are brushed aside simply because "it's the norm". It doesn't change the fact that it hurt people. What I'm really surprised with is that neither of them asked what if the person is still active in the industry? What about the problem with giving support to bad people, who do more harm than good? If they're your plumber, you're paying them! If you know they're a bad person, hire a plumber who isn't a bad person. What happens when the bad person has their own company with a wider reach? When you learn and buy art books or give them attention, it's telling them and everyone else you can be a bad person and still climb to the top. Whatever "bad" means to you
There's a popular illustrator, who has a UA-cam channel, was doing paid classes and sells reference photos and turned out to be a "sexual predator". I think it's worth mentioning that studying art from bad people in the way that doesn't influence you or that artist might (or might not?) be ok, but imo definitely no if you can still give them financial profit by watching their videos or buying other resources from them.
I'm not so sure the Michael Jackson example quite hits home. I could be wrong here ... but I feel like with him, the public viewed him as guilty from the rumor mill much more so that guilty in a court of law. It became a joke. I'm probably misremembering things ... but that's how it hist me. And also that his personal demons, whatever they were, obviously affected the way he viewed himself, and how he was driven to change his appearance. But as I write this, I recognize this is a bit ticky tacky, because the overall discussion was awesome.
I think so. I think we as artists can be grateful for the contributions to art. Francis Bacon's paintings have fascinated me and speak from a dark place. We get a glimpse into that world but we can also take a step back and look at the art objectively.
I think an important distinction to make is also what the artist in question has to gain from your 'learning' from them. Do they gain monetarily and thereby basically get a pass to continue doing what they did because your actions continue to support them, even if you don't agree with them? When Marshall mentioned that John Huston said that he could not associate with George C Scott as a person but would cast him in a role; that's again problematic, because you're saying you will continue to give the person in question work, visibility and opportunities so there's no real world consequences for their actions; especially (and I don't know enough about George C Scott to say if this is true in his case) actions that have caused great harm/trauma/manipulated others. So its important to also make that distinction. As for separating the art from the artist, it is possible, but I think if you are going ahead and using their work as references to advance your skill, also definitely put in the effort to read, educate and understand the context of their wrongdoings; especially if those have contributed in ANY way to their art; as with Paul Gauguin or Woody Allen. Be very informed and aware of those actions of theirs and THEN look at their CRAFT/ skills and learn from that. That CONTEXT of knowing about the person behind the artwork can also tell us a lot about the Artwork and it's important to not simply brush it aside.
Yes! Knowing about the creator is important! Because we're all flawed and don't know anything and you won't necessarily know when you pick up something bad. Stan's hesitation about whether he picked up bad things from "good" artwork, and Marshall not realizing Loomis' racism at first, because sometimes you know, sometimes you just don't know! Until someone else points it out to you. I think storytelling is quite complicated in regards to this. It's probably why so much old comedy now is just... not great
@@BurdHQ absolutely. And sometimes we don't only pick up the good and subconsciously also pick up the problematic when studying others work. So go ahead and learn from the 'useful' things in their skill/ craft but definitely be aware of their context, ideas and actions as people and artists too.
Humans are typically terrible 😂 so I just not surprised when I see stuff. (Never thought about if I could learn from hilter lol) As I have grown up, most history classes have taught me that, I should just take what I can out of it. Most times in history would be hostile to me for being dark skin but I can still enjoy a time period. I love the game red dead redemption 2 but I wouldn't go back to that time for obvious reasons 😂. I think there is a thing of being too sensitive, you won't learn anything if you can't take anything. HOWEVER I would also like to say, they are people who go the opposite route, they are so anti offensive that they will parade horrible things and justify it as " helping people get thicker skin ". I think many cultures as well as my own need to learn about one another in order to really understand how to communicate. I don't think many put in enough time to do so. Just going over to my friends house of different ethnicities is a weird experience, then you add on beliefs, political leanings, family history, common culture, and etc. We are complex creatures and we have to see others through that lens.
Yeah it's weird, considering how your darker skin and stylishly structured face is attractive to me and many others. I'm just someone who loves the history behind cultures (even if it's terrible, tragic, brutal and cold) and as a result it gives me multiple perspectives and more to learn from. People are both beautiful and ugly little creatures. I both love and hate us. History is the reason for that relationship.
@@KitKatWiffleBallBat I am flattered. I don't think I've ever been told I have a stylish structured face. Believe or not. I don't hear compliments too much. The tragic elements can really add to a period too like the 3 kingdoms era or the Sengoku jidai
Unfortunately people are so polarized now that civil discourse almost doesn't exist. Social media and news outlets on both sides sow division instead of what you are encouraging.
Super interesting and helpful podcast. Thanks for thoughtful questions, comments, insights. I especially love the 'exploring options' idea - '"Let's consider this from this angle so you can show me how I might need to change." - something like that - awesome attitude! "What criteria do you use to decide whether or not you will learn from an artist or not?" It's intuitive and subjective, taking into account a lot of context. I believe we're all flawed and imperfect, and unless we're totally depraved, capable of good as well. Is there intentionality to overcome my bad qualities? Or am I a stone-hearted unchanging person, with no intention of changing? It would be a hard search to find a good human who is also a teacher I can learn from. (BTW - why not use the word mentor?) And it goes for many strata of life. The flawed politician, the flawed husband, father, mother, sister, brother, best friend, employer. We take the good with the bad until we can't. Some line is crossed, or I feel vulnerable, unsafe, ethically compromised. But I also look for redemption, injecting grace, hoping for change and be a catalyst for transformation. Thanks for thought provoking.
i think, for me at least, the most important thing is - is my relationship or my interaction with the artists going to enable or facilitate them to do bad. Im happy to learn from artists i disagree with peronally until the process is unpleasant or the subject matter personally distasteful... but if that artist is alive and my process of learning is perhaps going support either financially or through propogation whatever wrong this person is doing or has done... then ive got to draw the line and make sure the learning is a passive process and I think its important to highlight the failings of that artist or whoever in discussion of their work for the same reason as word of mouth has value to them. Ive quit driving lessons cos my instructor would happily go on racist rants... was surprised when marshal mentioned hiring a racist plumber at the end then given his earlier comments - i know his point is you can learn about pipes... but thats not a person id support regardless. a plumbers less important than somoene with a platform though so maybe its not worth the effort.
My standards for learning from an artist in order of importance are 1-Their Skills, if they have what I’m looking to learn, for example storytelling, composition, rendering, gesture, dynamism etc. 2- Their personal life, if they are good, is awesome, but if they are not, it pisses me, but is not an impediment for learning what I need from them I don’t think I have a line, I think I have an spectrum of how awkward and uncomfortable it is to learn from someone, and it gets worse and worse depending on what “sins” they have committed, it would not be the same to learn from someone who is mean and selfish as it is from some mass murderer, serial killer or molester. I found myself in a similar predicament when I started learning songwriting and guitar, Lennon is a great song writer but a really awful person in a lot of aspects, but i still took what was helpful for me. Hayao Miyazaki from studio Ghibli could be another example. He is so strict, and centered in the craft, that a lot of times is perceived as mean, selfish person devoid of empathy towards his teammates, in this point I personally agree that one must be fierce and dedicated, but also be emphatic, and there is where I would not Follow Miyazaki. Miyazaki also has an interesting perspective, in the documentary “kingdom of dreams and madness” he says that “everything you do has a negative effect, I make animations that may inspire people to do incredible good, but you can say that they are wasting time watching that they could use for something more useful” he also has a movie “the wind rises” were a plane designer struggles with designing planes, his passion, when confronted that at the time (early 20th century) the only way he could work was by designing war planes in japan at the time. To conclude, I think this a matter that we must always talk about, because is of extreme relativity, and if we stop talking and discussing, we have the risk of plateauing in a frame of thought that in a matter of time, can turn into something awfully horrible.
I agree with Miyazaki about everything having a negative affect. But also no-one making art before I was born was making it for the moral standards of now.
@@lulamidgeable that's true, moral standards change constantly through out history, in a hundred years as Stan and Marshall said, we will probably be seen as dispicable in a lot of aspects
This was a very interesting podcast. I think that we all employ situational ethics in where if it comes to our personal benefit. But what if we turn the bad into good? What if we study evil in order to be a better person? When we know better, do we always do better? Do the lines blur for the better or do we completely disregard because we feel a pious, altruistic idea of who we think we are or want to be? I believe that we need to recognize the bad in order to appreciate the good, whether it is in others or ourselves. But in the end, this self realization takes a great deal of honesty in order for the lesson to be learned. Just my opinion, a female with two different ethnic origins.
I know we live in times where being offended tries to justify the erasing of what we don't like (particularly in the USA) but given the past history I don't believe in any kind of censure at all, neither in judging with recent criterias our ancestors nor being responsible for them. Everyone has its flaws and sometimes Beauty emerges from the most tremendous horror. This is not black and white, good and bad, but two faces of the same coin. Personnaly I think we should learn from everything and everyone, then apply our knowledge to conduct our lives and our Art as we want. That's where resides Liberty. The suffering is universal, every race or religion is mocked over the world. I hope we don't take ourselves too seriously. Learn from what you want, from the art which truly speaks to you, and leave the rest but at least let people make their own choices, because the opinion of others (minority or majority) shoudn't define what you want to bring to the world before dying.
I think both sides are valid. And I think there is nothing wrong with both. I have my deal breakers, but generally, if I want to study someone I would without much thinking about the artist. I want to give a context related to future discussion: The relationship between the art and the artist. Because, the discussion here is not about the artist per se, but his work and how the work must be viewed when you know the artist, as a person, had very dark sides. For me, my view is that the art is separated from the artist like a child must not be criticized because of their bad mother. But if the "stink" of the artist is very heavy in the art for some people and it brings them dysphoria, is also ok and must not be taken of hyperbolics. There is disagree is when the art is cancelled because of the artist, THIS for me IS a hyperbole. The art must not get into shadows, it must be appreciated in its own context, either if I want to enjoy it, or study it. Also! Continue your podcast, the views are low but I am one of the loyals here, I find the content very interesting and it satisfies a bit of my need for an art discussion as a lone artist in a small country far far away from you!
This episode was amazing!!! thank you really! I respect you both a lot I just love listen to you hehe Congrats Stan And Melissa For the baby! (i will NOT forgive you for not telling Marshall tho LOL)
I'm on my 3rd read of The People's History of the United States. It is an excellent examination of the US and how its formation influences the nation to this day. And the impact that has had on US citizens. I believe that it should be required reading in high school history.
Once my friends and I went to a meditation hall inauguration ceremony where they called two volunteers(A man and A woman) on to the stage and asked them to write on a note whatever that comes to their mind first. The guy wrote the name of the guru(Artist), and the woman wrote love(Art).
I think you should be able to separate art from artist when it comes to learning technique, & even personal enjoyment (to the extent possible). A problem with "cancel culture" & black-&-white thinking is that it takes the worst thing a person has done & paints their whole life & work with that brush. Take Michael Jackson, & for argument's sake let's assume he had relationships with the 2 boys in the documentary. He's also raised MILLIONS for charity. His music has brightened the lives of literally billions who've heard it in the last 40 years. He ushered in new eras in pop music & choreography/ dancing, the video age, etc. Take Picasso, & for argument's sake let's assume he was an awful misogynist who broke women's hearts (& possibly more). He's also created work that advanced modern art & became prized by millions of people. I'm not trying to play a game of moral equivalence or justification. I'm just saying that people's legacies aren't black-&-white. Would any of us like to be judged by the worst thing we ever did - or ANY single thing we've done that we're not proud of? Maybe it was selling drugs or having an ab0rtion or harboring resentments that could get you cancelled if you voiced them on Twitter. Maybe it was tracing or 'closely referencing' another artist's work & posting without giving credit. Perhaps you were unfaithful to your spouse. You might've been at fault in a car crash. Maybe in college you pressured a partner a bit too hard for a hookup, or you took advantage of a partner who was, in hindsight, too intoxicated to consent. Is that your legacy? In no way am I defending those behaviors, I'm just saying that people aren't perfect. Even a nun or a Buddhist monk likely has regrets. We're all on journeys, both professionally & personally. Our character, like our art, is [hopefully] on a path of progress. We should be willing to grant ourselves & other artists grace & forgiveness. If we can't, if we get caught in the toxic trap of judgment, then we're poorer for that. We should be able to learn from & appreciate the best work of those who've come before us. Progress depends on that. Virtually every philosophy has some version of the axiom, "take what benefits you & leave the rest."
Michael Jackson has nothing to do with this conversation... I understand where you're coming from with the "for the argument's sake" But please Watch "Square One" on Amazon Prime or UA-cam, Watch "Lies Of Leaving Neverland", read all the transcripts and court documents, please read the FBI files available for a 10 year period investigation, please read the hundreds of credible testimonies, please do your research before publicly condemn a black man exonerated in a court of law 14 TIMES ! There is not ONE piece of credible evidence against Michael Jackson, on the other hand, there is HUNDREDS of evidences showing him as the victim of extorsions and false accusations even after his death. You dont need to separate the Art from the Artist when the Artist is the Victim... and you don't need to bring Michael Jackson in this conversation. Thanks
@@YoannBomal_Dessin She brought it up cause the podcast did and he attempted to show him in a positive light regardless of what he had been accused of . So I don’t get what you’re trying to say here in saying he shouldn’t bring him up. You legit just missed the whole point they were bringing up.
I think you study the work but you should also understand the context in which the work was created. If some one is bad you don't put the blinders on to their deeds just so you can study the work. I feel if your studying Hitler's skills as a orator you need to understand why he was who he was. Putting blinders on is how we end up with putting historical figures on pedestal when they are not necessarily deserving of such adoration.
i dunno man, i think is a problem for people who fancy themselves ethical paragons and have the moral authority to dictate to other people whose art is ok for public consumption and whose art shall be verboten.
Stan is right. Everything is relative. We all are capable of good and evil, categories which are sliding scales based on a society's values. Here's the United States CV: genocide, slavery, nuclear war, corporate greed. We all contribute to this legacy by going to work everyday. It doesn't mean we are evil, or that the US is "evil." Same goes for people and their art. "Evil" is a human condition, not a personal one or a national one or an artistic one.
Outstanding discussion! I applaud you both such a vital discussion of the role of art culturally. Yes. I question Eric Fischl these days, can the Art World power corrupt....
Also I think the main thing of this convo should really focus on ignorance vs hateful. EDIT: Hui Qing Ang made a great point below and I would change it to ignorance vs hateful vs willful ignorance.
ignorance vs hateful vs wilful ignorance. I've met people who just wouldn't be genuinely open to discussion about how their actions may hurt others, and wilfully bulldoze onwards. Just think the distinction might be useful because most people think they're not in the hateful category, but may be doing the same damage anyway.
What criteria do you use to decide whether you will learn from an artist or not?
I need all the help I can get so I consume the all the knowledge I can. But there is a line where I just won’t cross and can’t bring myself to study them but they have to do something extremely bad like John Kricfalusi bad. But disagreements or rude personality isn’t enough to not try to improve myself.
Anatomy and style.
Whether or not I like their style, and can appreciate their technique.
Their history IS important, because both the good and evil sides have an influence on their overall work. Both are important if you really want to understand "Art" and how that artwork reflects the "human experience" from every aspect of every type of artist.
Make podcast on colour
the quality of content should be the only thing to concern about when you want to learn a craft. bringing in the term parents might bring in a emotional aspect to it and you dont want bad parents but its nothing you should take to literal. the only concern which might come up is if you want to support that bad personal financially by buying theire artbooks or courses etc. thats something you might curve around by going to into librarys etc but beside of that...i would focus on the craft itself and if it helps to grow your skill.
i think its a bad mistake to think we have the authority to censor old books according to contemporary beliefs, just imagine if the catholic church had destroyed all art depicting nudity for example, what a tragedy it would be for future generations. we dont know how our thinking might change in future. so just leave it as is. its a snapshot on time thats all.
Catholics have done that to greek sculptures. We don't need to imagine it
Interesting discussion. It seems as though people who are not able to separate the art and the artist should not learn from them, but those who do shouldn't be labeled as an advocate for their crimes. In a few years the people who learn from them and make their own art will be the new teachers who will not have the crimes of their art teachers. Therefore we shouldn't censor if we are able to look at it objectively and talk about it in a civil manner.
i totally agree with you, context is king in this type of awkward and delicate matter
I love how its all connected. Philosophy, art, science, math, etc. This is big think stuff.
I like the idea of updating the Loomis book with information about racist stereotypes and how to caricature other races in non racist ways. Instead of leaving it and saying nothing you can make it a learning opportunity to expand on the material taught.
@@bethsleepien9817 I think people can think for themselves when seeing or reading something morally obtuse. It gives us the opportunity to exercise our minds and reason why this and that is wrong.
Marshall is a godsend. His insights are just mind-boggling.
These two offered us a discussion better than most of news channel nowdays does haha.
Congrats Stan and Melissa on the pregnancy
I think it's unfortunate that Stan brushed off Marshall's comment around 44:00 "to WHOM". I think that's the key to the whole thing. It's easy to forgive sins that never hurt you and expect everyone to do the same. I think Marshall's nuanced take on counting your options and making informed decisions was really excellent.
Yes, and on 42:10 Stan so easily says that he can separate Loomis' teachings from the racist stereotypes that occured in his books which immediately brings up the question: could he have done the same if he was black. It's always easy to brush problematic things off and look the other way when it's not you who gets stereotyped.
Yes, I agree. And, further, if Marshall weren't on this show, I doubt I would listen. His balance, maturity, and compassion are much appreciated.
Yes, empathy is the core issue. The less empathy you have for people who are discriminated against and harmed, the less you will be bothered by a creator's dark side. If a master artist were to do or say harmful things against his wife or child, it might not be so easy to just blow it off and study his "skill."
@@ravenburneskushner1825 lol you people really really are spiteful people
I'm an Asian, and I find it's ok to study Lumis.
The 2 people already said it's up to you to decide to study or not from a person who was not decent human.
the people like You, who only care about how to be on the Moral High Ground to jack off the idea you are SEEN as GOOD person, and not about how to make humanity as a whole become better.
This is why all the violence happen, people put up some ideal, Jews Christian Muslim Black White Yellow... to make themselves looks good in their make-believe god's eye and commit atrocities while smiling and thinking they are some heroes and stupid shit.
"Yes, empathy is the core issue. The less empathy you have for people who are discriminated against and harmed, the less you will be bothered by a creator's dark side. If a master artist were to do or say harmful things against his wife or child, it might not be so easy to just blow it off and study his "skill."
You dare to pretend to be wise while personally attack Stan in a conversation of 2 them just want to share the experience and thought in a civilize way, have you look it at yourself lately !?
You think you are black and now you have the voice of all minority !?
If you don't want to learn from Lumis, power to you that is your choice. You DO NOT has the RIGHTS to dehumanized people who learn from him. And stop treat us like we are little puppy who can't make our decision. You think people when learning just learn all what they have read or listened to ? No. As Human being we have the power to choose and select what we appreciate. Even if what we want might be mixed in with toxic stuffs. That what makes human strong, the freedom and the Courage to make decision.
Next time, when you try to act like a Saint, maybe look at yourself 1st. Before thinking the world are all about you
@@杜忠孝-k3b The irony of typing up this rant about only caring about the "pretending to be wise" or whatever, while ignoring everything that was written and constructing a whole army of strawmen to wage war against so you can look smart and win an argument that didn't exist in the first place. lol
This is hands down the greatest conversation in regards to this matter. Nuance, referencing, examples, logic, critical thinking, openness, objectivity and curiosity to strive for rationale. Commendable and very impressive (unlike many of our media commentators). Excellent guys I passed this on to many, even my non art interested friends.
We should make a album for Marshalls songs
Who decided Marshall is a draftsman , he is a music man😎
I find myself singing things I think now a days after starting to listen to this podcast😂
Sing, sing a song
Make it simple to last
Your whole life long
Don't worry that it's not
Good enough for anyone
Else to hear
Just sing, sing a song
-The Carpenters
its similar every time :)
Really great conversation as always!
I think, for me, a big key to answering this question is: do I *have* to answer this question? Or is there an equally skilled, maybe lesser known, artist who I can learn just as much from and isn't as problematic? Am I willing to do the extra work to find those people who can be great art parents and I feel no moral ambiguity in supporting their work, living or dead? Yes you could study Hitler for public speaking, but you don't HAVE to; there are countless incredible public speakers that you could turn to instead, and the same is true of artists, especially with the internet.
Agree with this and they didn't really mention this idea of choice. I think about this a lot. Especially now since we have a wide range of perspectives to learn and hear from.
excellent point! Similar to Lovecraft. Lots of creatives are inspired by him and he was outrageously racist. Might be better to look at other creatives who only took the "unknown eldritch horror" part who aren't coming from a racist place. Stranger Things is a good example.
@@BurdHQ But Stranger Things had to come from a tradition that was largely affected by Lovecraft. You can't get away from the fact that some artists that were awful people were also FOUNDATIONAL to their fields and genres. Can you really just "not read Lovecraft" and understand the world of fiction? Not fully.
In the same way, with Hitler, if you ignore his public speaking, you may also miss the points where others were inspired by the way he spoke, or re-used his rhetoric. Would the world of public speaking be the same without Hitler? No, it wouldn't. So you have to understand his place to get the whole picture.
Art doesn't work that way. If you have a sensitive eye you can't replace the work of one artist with another, unless they're producing work that is extremely generic and lacking any sort of personal flair.
Many of mankinds' greatest artists were fundamentally broken people,
whose broken factor gave them a particular vision that through art
they were capable of turn into something that really connected with audiences and in some cases left an indellible mark in History itself.
I find the Michael Jackson example a non-issue.
Every single achievement of his career was through sheer hard work and incredible raw talent
(not every musician is born with that kind of talent nor will be ever be able to generate that kind of impact in their respective fields).
The Michael Jackson example, when brought up by an average Joe who doesn't have any talent
and want the moral upper hand (and ignores, for example, that abuse is a cycle and abused people tend to
repeat their abuse cycles, listen to Tool's "Prison Sex" for further illumination on the subject) that it seems to be
so important on Twitter nowadays, *is still an average Joe* .
Whereas certainly someone inspired to sing and dance and to aspire
to that level of craftsmanship won't automatically submit to abhorrent practices.
Anybody looking to have the upper moral hand deserves to have their opinion automatically dismissed
(I don't care the opinion of somebody who is an ignorant, let alone self-righteous to boot). Facts.
Steve Jobs? Anybody unable to separate the person from the icon should automatically stop using smartphones of any kind
(I'd love to see them TRY to quit tweeting). And yet, some part of their lives were indelebly influenced by him or one of his creations.
Of course Elizabeth Holmes took all of the wrong things about Jobs (And many believed her, even ignoring her father was Enron's head honcho).
Some nations, perhaps the ultimate form of art, were already created by rapists, slavers, racists. And yet...
People is free to choose whether consume (or not) the art of certain controversial artists.
People (especially mediocre people) is not allowed to tell others what they should (or should not) choose.
Great topic, great conversation to follow.
As usual, Marshall shines in his eloquence and expression-
Congrats Stan for the coming baby!!!
I've just bought both of Proko's courses last month.
Thank you for this. Keep Draftsmanning!!!
Oh you listen to Tool? No wonder
Hi Marshall, hi Stan. Thank you for this thought provoking conversation. I admire you ability to structure this type of difficult questions. One of those which seem overwhelming, as if there's too much on one's plate.
Well... That got deep and I now realize that my earlier comment was not, at all, thoughtful... It was a surface observation made before I watched the podcast.
As a white man, who grew up poor in rural Georgia, I thought I was a very decent person. When I was 26 years old I feel in love with an African American woman, we got married, had three children together, and she passed from complications of lupus shortly before our 10th anniversary. Over the course of those ten years, and even the six years since, I have had the wonderful honor to realize where I was indeed, less than decent. I feel that I have been able, however, to maintain the positive aspects of my previous self, while shedding some of the negative. I believe the art and artist can be separated, and learned from, given that the art, and the way in which it was created wasn't or isn't "bad".
Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Fidel Castro and FDR are Public Speaking 101, I mean not profoundly but their skill is part of what I teach when I work with HS students and young adults, it is the understanding of such power and skill what must be part of education and the building of a critical mind. Oh and Andrew Loomis is a fundamental block, you can edit away, but I think you can focus on Creative Illustration and balance it out with Michael Hampton. I suppose that we can call them Master Craftsmen or ancient distant teacher... But that's why a teacher is not supposed to be a friend, is a craftsman teaching a craft or subject not how to live.
Caravaggio had a reputation of being a "bad guy". A couple of years ago I read 'The Man who became Caravaggio' by Peter Robb. The book used public documents to analyze his life. Robb writes "I read the record differently and see him (Caravaggio) largely as a victim of powerful interests he'd offended." Maybe before one chooses someone to emulate, you might question the facts put forward about that artist. What did the biographer have to gain by writing about your potential artist parent? What was the biographers agenda? A lot of times the agenda is not altruistic. That book I mentioned is a good read.
How can you not learn from an artist, if you look at their work?
Thank you for bringing up the example from "Fun with the Pencil". I read that book after Marshall recommended it during the first episodes. The book was inspiring and encouraging, particularly after years thinking that I can't draw. As a history major and a teacher, I wasn't surprised by the racial stereotypes. As a Puerto Rican, I found them offensive but I can barely imagine how an African American, a Chinese, a Japanese or a Native American would have felt, particularly in the United States. At the moment I just completed the excersice. I did feel guilty just by thinking that a friend may look at my sketchbook and think that that is the way I see people from other ethnic backgrounds.
I also tried something else after the exercise was done. I looked at photo references of asian and black people and I tried to apply what I learned from Andrew Loomis to make new representations without reproducing the stereotypes. I found this very productive. First, because now I was solving a puzzle with the skills that I was acquiring. Second, because I was comparing Loomis portrayal with other artists. I became not only aware of the stereotypes, but also of how other artist use form, line quality and simplification to solve the same problems.
Thank you and I love you guys
Excellent! Great experiment.
This was my reaction as well. I cringed when I saw the images, but I could also take into account that this book is very much a product of its time. That's not a justification, mind you, but rather an observation that allowed me to better process the information and learn from the book.
I very much agree with the approach you took: taking the skills you learned and applying them in a much more constructive and respectful manner than what was in the book.
One of the best responses I've seen here so far! You take the flawed example, understand where it is coming from and still learn from it, and then use that knowledge/skill to go beyond the objectionable part to create something new. Brilliant.
By superseding the artist that you're learning from, you propel the craft even further than others now can stand on and reach even higher heights. That's taking a weakness and turning it into a strength.
i find the andrew loomis part very interesting , i think the keyword is ignore instead of separation in this case, cause if your goal is really is to learn from the art, you have to do just that, if you focus so much on the separation part then it loses the whole point of focusing on what you need, seems counter intuitive to put so much work to just separate instead of just flipping to the next page and ignoring it
The takeaway from this, for me, was realizing the benefit of being more open-minded.
Before watching I think this is the wrong question. The right question (and perhaps the more difficult one) is; can you accept that bad people can sometimes do good things? To separate the art from the artist is to lie to yourself. To run from the complexity of the real world and retreat to a simplistic view in which good only comes from good and bad only comes from bad.
Judge each characteristic of a person on it's own merit and combine when evaluating the whole.
That is exactly what the expression means and you either know it and have deliberately taken it to mean the exact opposite so you could then attack it, or you haven't watched the podcast.
@@SpaghettiToaster because this podcast is where the expression originated obviously. Tell me, how do you mentally seperate something from someone while accepting that thing as a part of them? You may take the phrase to mean something totally different. But the words do not imply anything similar to what I suggested we ask instead.
This. This exactly.
I don’t think Stan was wrong but I think he misunderstands the point. If being aware of someone’s wrong doings makes you feel SO bad that you’re unable to study from them anymore then you aren’t REALLY separating art from the artist, you’re separating yourself and your own responsibility which is counterproductive to what you say is right. This is admitting that you’re only able to remain behind this line by putting blinders on. If ignorance is where you’re most comfortable, I won’t stop you, but I doubt this is helpful to the commenter who has already understood the nature of the artist she admires.
Okay, so, am I saying you can never learn from abhorrent people? Like Stan said, you probably have done this at one point or another, maybe without realising this. People are flawed, and it is both creatively and personally stagnating to look for a moral purity in reality where you’ll never find it.
However, I do believe that being critical of the things you consume is possible, IF you believe in educating yourself instead of being comfortable wearing blinders.
To me, this “line” (while subjective) depends on how intrinsic the problematic elements are to the art. Like Michael said, flowers are not likely to contain any propaganda lol. For instance, if you could remove the racist elements from this book, and have the content remain exactly the same, then as long as you UNDERSTAND where the artist went wrong then you’re not ignoring the harm they did. On the other hand, if you remove the racist elements and the book you’re left with has changed in a DRASTIC way, well, unless you’re studying it from that perspective then that has to be where I would draw the line. I do think these things are fine for educational purposes.
Going into some of the later points in the video, some people aren’t happy with just this, and wouldn’t want to support abusive people. Hiring Kevin Spacey isn’t “separating art from the artist” it’s directly supporting an abuser and giving him more money and fame so that he’s able to get away with hurting more people. Personally I don’t think this has much stake in the topic because we ARE talking about SEPERATING the artist and learning from them, not supporting them. I just wanted to correct the idea that this was a successful example of the topic.
This is just my perspective on the matter. I am of the belief that it’s okay to admit bad things happened, that bad things exist and that the artists you admire have done these bad things. It shouldn’t have to reflect on you as a person, but if you’re worried about that then it’s not enough to be apathetic about the harm. You have to be against it.
P.s.
Plants do not have feelings, and you need to eat food for your own survival. Just saying.
Congratulations and best wishes for Stan and Melissa!
The thing about "it was accepted in the time" or "it was the morality of the time" is that there were plenty of people at those times who said these things were bad. There were plenty of people against slavery in Jefferson's time. There were plenty of people who saw racism and considered it bad. So "it was like that then" is not an excuse.
The same way that Liberals that think the things that are good now are evil later on.
Absolutely an important point. I know a grandmother who was over 60 years old who learned and supported trans people with grace and gentleness even if she struggled a bit. The ability to keep an open mind and support others is key. "Product of their time" just means they failed being a decent person.
I mostly agree, but some good-natured people fall into the culture they're a part of ignorantly. Osamu Tezuka was largely anti-racist, but he depicted black people in a racist caricatured way because it was the way most cartoonists did, and he was somewhat ignorant, I believe, of the connotations and such.
@@jimbo5266 True, and if you are not exposed to anything else it's easy to not think about it. People are layered and complicated. I think we do need to hold people accountable even if they acted through ignorance, but I also dont think holding people accountable means condemning them outright as evil people and discounting the positive things they did.
I see speciesism and consider it bad. Being an abolitionist back then is like being vegan today. The same bad atguments that were used for slavery (normal, natural,necessary) are still being used today, and are still logical fallacys. And if you think paying for animal death and enslavement is ok, im up to arguing the morality of it. But quick comment before you reply: what is the morally relevant trait that an animal posseses/lacks that a human lacks/has that would justify this difference in treatment.
Great episode. You guys did this topic justice. I forgot about the Loomis pictures. I still read the book because the information is good. I'm always reminded of what my mom says about a lot of these issues and figures in the past, they were a product of their time. So with some artist, I give them the benefit of that especially if they don't exhibit harsher issues in their personal life. Some people have no excuse, but I try to see them for the time they lived in as well. I have Kevin Spacey's masterclass and watched before the allegations came out. It's one of the best acting classes online, but it's so hard to watch now. But I still use some of his advice from the notes I've taken. Spacey is not a product of his time, he did bad things.
a really great discussion. We talked about this in one of my art classes and in my opinion context is really important in this. Morality chanced and some old (dead) artists - or people in general- did things that were okay back then and aren't today. Talking about the art piece and the artist are equally important topics. Learning from an artist doesn't mean only picking the good things but also reflect(!!) everything, including the "bad/problematic" stuff. Every person did something bad in their life, some more, some less but we can't learn only from the good people or the good things they did. Only focusing on the good means erasing the bad and that is equally bad.
i'm extremely happy that singing marshall has become a regular thing :)
This was a great conversation, thanks for having it. I have been asking myself the same kind of thing for a long time now, and I still don't really have any good answers about where the line is, but I think it's a question we have to keep asking, rather than come up with one final answer which later becomes out-dated.
In regard to the past history I have to say that we learn from the best or worst part of it . Them leave it alone. Look forward or live the moment. Right now so much chaos so much unknown. To much judgment to much judges. To much hate. to much rage. I'm looking for learn more and mind my own life. Nobody have the control on another person life. Take care the things you can have control of. Our own self.
I was VERY pleased to hear this brought up and discussed, especially in the current climate we're seeing around the world. There were nuances I disagreed with, but I'm generally thankfully for what both Marshall and Stan proposed. I'm proud of Marshall mentioning the accidental recommendation of a problematic book, and this is definitely the kinds of discussions we need more of.
Personally, I do think you should learn about the artists' you study, so that you can know if there's something to avoid *while* studying.
(And certainly, each person should respect their own threshold there.)
I think a main distinction to be made here is between how we may PERSONALLY feel able to compartmentalize our subjective appreciation of art/achievements from the creator,
VS how we manage our ethical responsibility to our CULTURE, in terms of what we want to show tolerance for and further distribute to others -- like cultural memes.
27:30 👈🏼 Stan seems most focused on the individual level. 👉🏼 43:00
An important 1/2 of the consideration, for sure.
But what You "might" have enough contextual education or experience or critical thinking or moral conscience to navigate around in a nuanced healthy way to preserve your own empathy and integrity..... you cannot expect everyone around you in society to filter through as well.
exercising
The Main Problem I have with separating the art from the artist or rather the lack thereof is collateral damage.
Eg. a Figurehead did something bad. Boycotting all their work also means boycotting all of the hard work from everyone else who did nothing wrong, but worked under that person.
I like the way this issue gets so much worthwhile material for discussion from our collective fuzzy definitions of "good person", "great person", "sin", etc. EG- Jobs may or may not have been a "good person", he is frequently put forward as a "great person" but the reality may be that he simply "obtained fame and success in business", both pursuits which may be actually hampered by being a person of any more substantial quality. Statistically, emotive rhetoric wins in public debate far more frequently than arguments presenting accuracy, ethical quality or sound reasoning. Artists of any prowess or lasting appeal are almost definitively exceptional, and therefore unconventional, people. Perhaps interacting factors like these inevitably produce a glut of crazy, problematic and ethically compromised famous people in a culture? I also like the way Stan throws a lot of weird energy at Marshall early on and Marshall just deals with it like a pro (both essential and entertaining contributions!), I am myself without sin of course 😇
One of the best Draftsmen episodes yet. I really enjoyed the subject, something very important to talk about these days to help us evolve our perception of the world around us.
Also, congratulations on the baby girl, Stan! :)
Marshall’s recommendation, the book A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn is an amazing book. It should be reading material for everyone. We’re missing too much history in our American education. This book does a lot to repair that.
There's a video of someone visiting a historical archive to see Hitler's buildingscape paintings. And I remember him being overtly critical and analytical of his work. Saying random things like how there are no people in one painting which reflected his evil mind, or something like that. It was as if he was trying to justify that a bad person couldn't possibly be a talented or even a capable painter.
It opened my eyes that people- are all three dimensional, and you can't just put an overall "Bad" label on someone. Even Hitler himself.
The world is just a huge greyscale.
Yes, and people seem to forget that they *want* a tyrannical dictator who will fulfill their "righteousness". It used to be the norm to have these types of conquering dictators.
Sandra S I think this is why any type of extremist cultural bias has to die, as we lean so much towards righteousness, who will control how right or how wrong stuff is? Only civil and respectful debate between opposing parts could get the ball rolling towards real progress, the bad side is that to get both extremes of a spectrum to agree to talk, is absolutely difficult.
But Hitler's drawings really weren't all that good.
SpaghettiToaster yeah, they were “technically” good, but nothing to be crazy about on the appealing side
It really does come down to a matter of knowledge and sensitivity. I wouldn't want to learn from any person who makes my stomach turn. Like, I wouldn't wear a murderer's sweater, even though it wouldn't mean anything if I did, but it would make me feel sick anyway. Some people are more affected by negativity than others.
So yeah, individually; "it depends". But carrying this conversation into a societal/cultural context, that's more complicated, and does rely more on whether or not morality is absolute, as Marshall asks.
9:50 I'm ALL ABOUT THIS dialectic!
This way of discussion to examine beliefs and explore possible understandings and justifications for better decision making.
You guys come close to exemplifying the principles of "Street Epistemology" -- if you look that up on UA-cam. I think Marshall in particular would dig it.
I've had struggles with this issue for some time, thank you for the thoughtful discussion.
Yes you can, because you don't know the lives of all the artists you already like, so you are probably liking the art of a psychopath. You don't know the person, you know the art of that person. In the end, artists are only human, like us. The posibility of doing the most horrendous things is in all of us.
Psychopaths aren't inherently evil... We should start doing a distinction between mentally ill people and "bad" people.
@@vebzia yeah, but you know what I meant
@@chaggy86 that doesn't mean you aren't contributing to the stigmatization of mental illness, lad
@@vebzia yeah, but you made that clear in the other response
@@vebzia If they're stigmatize and can't deal with it. It's their fault. For not having the backbone to correct them. Being discrimanated and having to correct to them is a self-fulfilling adventure on a one-on-one basis. Self-righteous pricks like you who are angry in behalf of so and so and collectivize to sterilize the World for snowflakes are the ones who we should more worry about.
I'm halfway through this episode, and even though your perspectives may have changed in the rest of the episode or you may have addressed this, I wanted to give my two cents because Marshall asked to know our opinions.
I think that if you can simply ignore art (or stop learning from it) simply because the artist himself may be questionable, then that itself is a privileged agency, because you can afford to do that. Consider this: My country has been wrecked by Colonialism, especially on religious grounds (including the Mughal period), so I should "theoretically" disregard everything from artists that may have been okay with, supported it, or were in any way involved with it.
And yet I don't have the luxury to even do that, because there may be no alternatives for me. True, I could learn the arts of my indigenous people (which I still am), but there's no denying that the skills needed for me to be employable were built upon by people I shouldn't be okay with. I need to recognize where it comes from, respect it for what it is, while simultaneously disavowing the person.
It's at this point I have to be a bit more nuanced than just "getting into the oppressed mindset", etc. Rather than merely separating the Art from the Artist, I need to separate Craftsmanship from Morality. Thankfully, though, over the last few years I've managed to build a very coherent moral system to be able to argue from and also hold myself to the standards of, which is why it not only because okay but almost a necessity for me to learn from my so called "oppressors".
Because, ultimately, you can't escape the fact that, as an artist, you must grow. You cannot afford to deprive yourself of that, especially if you have bills to pay and a family to take care of. And the means of doing something is not the same the ends of what you mean to do.
If people would just focus only on improving their skill and on getting better as an artist they wouldn't even think of this as a problem
👊🏼
I've been thinking thoroughly about this theme on the course of quarantine. But everytime I analyze this topic, a series of inquiries pop up in my mind:
What shall we do with contemporary artists that are still alive, who are known not only for their work, but also because of the atrocities they've done (like Woody Allen, Carl Andre...)?
Should we stop consuming and spreading their artworks? Should we advocate for making them go to jail? Should we acknowledge they've done awful things but still consume their work, knowing we are financially contributing to their existence and their creative process? If we choose to "cancel" them, aren't we negating some of the most raw, violent and corrupted side of humankind and the different ways this "dark" side may or may not influence directly their work? And if we opt for not caring, aren't we damaging, somehow, their victims?
What do y'all think?
Parents can be awful... but we still learn from them. **shrug** It doesn't mean that we HAVE to be just like them.
Thissss ❤
I'm so happy you mention Howard Zinn's work !
When trying to copy or get inspired by an artist, most often you are going to try to emulate them. Trying to be like them at different level. So unless you can separate the artist from the art and use good judgement, it could lead you in trouble.
Great conversation. I love stuff like this. For my personal study, I study from everyone that I can. I think it's "nice" to know the artist's life a bit, but in no way do I feel its necessary to learn their style, skills, or talents. Huge fan of MJ, Roman Polanski, Winsor McCay, etc but I focus on their skills and why they are a master of their craft. My art parents (right now) are Alex Toth, Bill Sienkiewicz and Jean Giraud, Austin Briggs, all guys who master pen and ink techniques, that's why I study them.
Please dont put Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski in the same sentence... Please Watch "Square One" on Amazon Prime or UA-cam, Watch "Lies Of Leaving Neverland", read all the transcripts and court documents, please read the FBI files available for a 10 year period investigation, please read the hundreds of credible testimonies, please do your research before publicly condemn a black man exonerated in a court of law 14 TIMES ! There is not ONE piece of credible evidence against Michael Jackson, on the other hand, there is HUNDREDS of evidences showing him as the victim of extorsions and false accusations even after his death. You dont need to separate the Art from the Artist when the Artist is the Victim...
Also, if you really are interested in studying the Greats, and why they are master of their Crafts, I made a documentary on my youtube channel exactly on this subject and about MJ's influences (Fred Astaire, West Side Story, Romero, Disney, etc) with english subtitles... Hope you will like it. Thanks
I’ll be honest it’s hard to sometimes separate the artist from the art. Especially in the case if you follow the artist more so for their outlook on art and life rather than the art and skills themselves. It becomes a bit of a minefield.
But! I think it’s also a great learning experience that artists are just people and all of us have done good and bad. It’s bad to idolize someone and put them on a pedestal. Especially us artists are very guilty of doing that!
In this case I think it can be viewed on an individual basis. Think of the artist as your friend, is the act they are guilty of so despicable to you that you would stop associating yourself with them. Or are you willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for them to change and right their wrongs? I think it sort of comes down to that.
Marshall needs to be doing voiceovers in addition to the art stuff. His voice is wonderful (and so is he).
Congrats Stan!
I started working through the Loomis Figure Drawing book a little while ago. The book definitely dates itself right off the bat. The page containing the "ideal female proportions" depicts a woman in heals
I'm coming back to this episode after ending a very long and abusive relationship with someone else who is arguably talented and skilled as an artist regardless of how despicable they are to the people closest to them in private.
Thank you for covering this topic. For a while after cutting ties, I've been unable to enjoy art or music because of the thought, "but I don't know who is behind this. What if they're secretly evil just like this person was? Should I be giving this artist my time and admiration?"
I've come to a similar conclusion to others, of "use what is useful" but not support someone's financial success (if they're still alive) or positive reputation when pulling from their skillset to learn if they are unscrupulous in their personal life. Use what's in the public domain, and don't pay for anything that would put money in their pocket to support their nasty lifestyle. Convert their evil into good until they are no more than a mere obscure background source to a skill or technique.
And as far as entertainment goes, I think it's a good thing that I've finally gained the wherewithall to research the artists/creators behind some of my favorite media instead of mindlessly consuming something just because it sounds or looks good.
So basically, it's more about separating the art from the artist when learning, and it's more about NOT attributing moral goodness to an artist just because they've created something skillful.
*Edit: I'm also starting to look up *similar* artists to the problematic ones with what I'm looking for, and I'm seeing more and more that the person who gets the credit for making something popular is rarely the best or the original.
If I choose someone's art to study from I'll just ignore the human whoever it is, there's a quality to be learnt in their work and I'll focus on that. Unless the bad traits of this person are noticeable in his art, in which case I don't see how I could keep admiring the work.
I think it all comes down to the individual wanting to study if you can bring yourself to study them do it and if you can’t than don’t. We shouldn’t judge anyone for what they decide to do because at the end of the day it’s their art journey to take.
Also I don’t know the daily lives, acts, or personalities of 95% of the artist I love. It’s impossible to keep track so just study the art and the things you can take away from it not the person.
Cultural context too me is very important. I am more tolerant of ignorance in people that didn't know any better because of their cultural climate. But if the artist behavior/opinions can't be explained/understood by historical context, it makes it more difficult. The work would have to be exceptional and offer something that I can't find from another source. I feel differently about contemporary artist. If a contemporary artist is the kind of person whose company would repel me, that seeps into my perception and my interest in their work. Maybe it's because we now have more access to
our fellow artist via social media and the line of communication is wide open. In a way it feels like there's less separation between the art and the artist. To me it's harder to pay attention to one and ignore the other
refering to the chat around 49:00 , one way of looking at "society doing wrong" some times I feel like we have to go through certain things as humanity (the industrial revolution for example) to reach the next stepping stone in the direction of morality. But! that doesn't excuse the fact that we as a whole have put off fixing the problems we've created from that time. we are lucky to get to a point where these are our problems, yes, but that doesnt take away from the responsibility we have to fix them. that goes for racism as well. we need to move in the direction of what is right. maybe we cant undo what happened yesterday but we can fix things today.
Respect to you, Marshall, for constantly learning and revising your viewpoints and techniques. When people are oppressed, they typically don’t have space, voice and in some instances even language to express their oppression, which includes their representation by the dominant culture. Consequently, members of the dominant culture never learn or don’t care about the representation of oppressed people, because they may not even understand that they’re oppressed (cognitive dissonance) or a lack of caring (ie they’re racists).
You can love the technique of Norman Rockwell, but understand that BIPOC folk will rarely see themselves in his work. And if they do, it’ll likely be in a servile manner, unless we point out Ruby Bridges or Do Unto Others, which strikes me as exceptions in his body of work. That doesn’t mean that I can’t learn Rockwellian techniques and craft people into that style of art, who better represent non-dominant cultures. My goal is to someday replicate renaissance style public art with black people in the narratives. Lofty as that is.
Cheers!
What a nice way to handle this discussion from both of you
I dont know my flipside to this is that people create ridiculous expectations of their favorite artist and if their favorite artist doesnt meet the imaginary criteria that person has created for them the artist is suddenly a bad person and a "never meet your heroes".
I don't really care for the idealization people have created for artists similar to celebrities where they have to be infallible beings who are constantly emanating generosity and kindness 25 hours a day.
In those cases those people DEFINITELY cannot separate the art from the artist due to their weird sense of entitlement of how an artist exists as a person in their mind. Thats a great way to be completely incapable of separating the art from the artist.
It can definitely be quite a challenge to separate depending on the situation. There are people who are really great at art who also happen to be incredibly terrible people to be around. There are people who relish in the fact that they are so good at what they do they know people will look at their work or want to learn from them regardless of how disgusting they act.
Sister Wendy enlightened me when she said the artist's work is a prayer, the human is so imperfect. T S Elliot...antisemitic- but brilliant poems.
One of the synchronizes also fascist, Dali supporter of Stalin.
Holy smokes! Great conversation! Take a look at Gauguin and his painting of Polynesian women. Gauguin is an amazing painter and figurative work. HOWEVER, knowing his story, relationship with underage women, and even how he represented those women in his painting, I have a hard time appreciating his work.
I admire Whoopi Goldberg's approach of identifying the skills and consequences in context. That's an approach that helps people to learn that cultures operate systematically to normalize awful oppressions. Societies only grow better when people learn to question what they accept as okay.
A remarkably thoughtful and nuanced discussion of a VERY challenging topic.
A lot of this, sadly, sounded like justification for why studying from someone awful is okay. You can separate the artist from their craft all you want, but you are still supporting the continuation of that person's lifestyle by continuing to hire them. You are still supporting that person's legacy by recommending their books. You are still holding them on a pedestal, trying to ignore the bad things, because you like some of their work. I find it hard to believe that these racist/misogynistic/absolute garbage people are the one and only true and best source of education now and forevermore. Just because someone did something well among the first people, it does not mean they did it best, or that they can never be surpassed. Art, like everything else, is always changing and evolving. There will always be newer, better sources to study from.
In the end it all comes down to two things, don't put those indivuals you are learning from in a pedestal.
And the second one it's seeing them if It makes you too uncomfortable as a table of instructions, dehumanazing them.
It is not a joke Proko, people that study public speaking and politics do study Mussolini and Hittler speach model. Understanding how they did that is MORE , way more important than to study fluffy cute speech models. If you do not study evil, you are just an easy pray for it.
In my opinion, if you're a buissnesss owner like Steve jobs who has perfectionist tendencies that's not necessarily a bad thing, that just means he cares about separating himself from the competition and building a great product.
There is an argument to be made for greatness and suffering and how those two things tend to be molded together.
Van gogh, tesla, elon musk.
Even in the case of individuals like any person who has become exceptional in their chosen field.
Michael jordan for example, some saw him as a Bully at the time but all of his teammates see what he was trying to do at the time looking back so.
I don't think we should just judge people from the past because they didn't have values that even some people today don't have. We're all human I guess.
Sorry for the long essay, probably got another essay i need to be getting to but this one I'm more passionate about 😂😬
Man, I'm very appreciative of Marshall's willingness to be open minded and self aware. I've seen a lot of biases that hurt people that are brushed aside simply because "it's the norm". It doesn't change the fact that it hurt people.
What I'm really surprised with is that neither of them asked what if the person is still active in the industry? What about the problem with giving support to bad people, who do more harm than good? If they're your plumber, you're paying them! If you know they're a bad person, hire a plumber who isn't a bad person. What happens when the bad person has their own company with a wider reach? When you learn and buy art books or give them attention, it's telling them and everyone else you can be a bad person and still climb to the top. Whatever "bad" means to you
There's a popular illustrator, who has a UA-cam channel, was doing paid classes and sells reference photos and turned out to be a "sexual predator". I think it's worth mentioning that studying art from bad people in the way that doesn't influence you or that artist might (or might not?) be ok, but imo definitely no if you can still give them financial profit by watching their videos or buying other resources from them.
Really?😲
Jup, NB immediately came to my mind, as soon as I read the title of this video...
@@xXSoralinkXx Funny, same person came to my mind too... along with Terese Nielson
who?
I'm not so sure the Michael Jackson example quite hits home. I could be wrong here ... but I feel like with him, the public viewed him as guilty from the rumor mill much more so that guilty in a court of law. It became a joke. I'm probably misremembering things ... but that's how it hist me. And also that his personal demons, whatever they were, obviously affected the way he viewed himself, and how he was driven to change his appearance. But as I write this, I recognize this is a bit ticky tacky, because the overall discussion was awesome.
I think so. I think we as artists can be grateful for the contributions to art. Francis Bacon's paintings have fascinated me and speak from a dark place. We get a glimpse into that world but we can also take a step back and look at the art objectively.
I think an important distinction to make is also what the artist in question has to gain from your 'learning' from them. Do they gain monetarily and thereby basically get a pass to continue doing what they did because your actions continue to support them, even if you don't agree with them? When Marshall mentioned that John Huston said that he could not associate with George C Scott as a person but would cast him in a role; that's again problematic, because you're saying you will continue to give the person in question work, visibility and opportunities so there's no real world consequences for their actions; especially (and I don't know enough about George C Scott to say if this is true in his case) actions that have caused great harm/trauma/manipulated others. So its important to also make that distinction.
As for separating the art from the artist, it is possible, but I think if you are going ahead and using their work as references to advance your skill, also definitely put in the effort to read, educate and understand the context of their wrongdoings; especially if those have contributed in ANY way to their art; as with Paul Gauguin or Woody Allen. Be very informed and aware of those actions of theirs and THEN look at their CRAFT/ skills and learn from that. That CONTEXT of knowing about the person behind the artwork can also tell us a lot about the Artwork and it's important to not simply brush it aside.
Yes! Knowing about the creator is important! Because we're all flawed and don't know anything and you won't necessarily know when you pick up something bad. Stan's hesitation about whether he picked up bad things from "good" artwork, and Marshall not realizing Loomis' racism at first, because sometimes you know, sometimes you just don't know! Until someone else points it out to you. I think storytelling is quite complicated in regards to this. It's probably why so much old comedy now is just... not great
@@BurdHQ absolutely. And sometimes we don't only pick up the good and subconsciously also pick up the problematic when studying others work. So go ahead and learn from the 'useful' things in their skill/ craft but definitely be aware of their context, ideas and actions as people and artists too.
Very good discussion guys. It’s not an easy answer but, I think the fact that we are thinking these things is a step in the right direction.
Humans are typically terrible 😂 so I just not surprised when I see stuff. (Never thought about if I could learn from hilter lol) As I have grown up, most history classes have taught me that, I should just take what I can out of it. Most times in history would be hostile to me for being dark skin but I can still enjoy a time period. I love the game red dead redemption 2 but I wouldn't go back to that time for obvious reasons 😂. I think there is a thing of being too sensitive, you won't learn anything if you can't take anything. HOWEVER I would also like to say, they are people who go the opposite route, they are so anti offensive that they will parade horrible things and justify it as " helping people get thicker skin ". I think many cultures as well as my own need to learn about one another in order to really understand how to communicate. I don't think many put in enough time to do so. Just going over to my friends house of different ethnicities is a weird experience, then you add on beliefs, political leanings, family history, common culture, and etc. We are complex creatures and we have to see others through that lens.
Good comment! Really like how you said it and I agree with you!
Yeah it's weird, considering how your darker skin and stylishly structured face is attractive to me and many others.
I'm just someone who loves the history behind cultures (even if it's terrible, tragic, brutal and cold) and as a result it gives me multiple perspectives and more to learn from.
People are both beautiful and ugly little creatures. I both love and hate us. History is the reason for that relationship.
@@SadelinaV thank you!
@@KitKatWiffleBallBat I am flattered. I don't think I've ever been told I have a stylish structured face. Believe or not. I don't hear compliments too much.
The tragic elements can really add to a period too like the 3 kingdoms era or the Sengoku jidai
Unfortunately people are so polarized now that civil discourse almost doesn't exist. Social media and news outlets on both sides sow division instead of what you are encouraging.
I expect Marshall's little songs now. They are rather sweet. And often sensible.
Super interesting and helpful podcast. Thanks for thoughtful questions, comments, insights. I especially love the 'exploring options' idea - '"Let's consider this from this angle so you can show me how I might need to change." - something like that - awesome attitude! "What criteria do you use to decide whether or not you will learn from an artist or not?" It's intuitive and subjective, taking into account a lot of context. I believe we're all flawed and imperfect, and unless we're totally depraved, capable of good as well. Is there intentionality to overcome my bad qualities? Or am I a stone-hearted unchanging person, with no intention of changing? It would be a hard search to find a good human who is also a teacher I can learn from. (BTW - why not use the word mentor?) And it goes for many strata of life. The flawed politician, the flawed husband, father, mother, sister, brother, best friend, employer. We take the good with the bad until we can't. Some line is crossed, or I feel vulnerable, unsafe, ethically compromised. But I also look for redemption, injecting grace, hoping for change and be a catalyst for transformation. Thanks for thought provoking.
Of course it’s possible to separate the art and the artist! It’s like with style..you learn from what appeals to you and leave the rest.
Congratulations to Stan and his family!
i think, for me at least, the most important thing is - is my relationship or my interaction with the artists going to enable or facilitate them to do bad. Im happy to learn from artists i disagree with peronally until the process is unpleasant or the subject matter personally distasteful... but if that artist is alive and my process of learning is perhaps going support either financially or through propogation whatever wrong this person is doing or has done... then ive got to draw the line and make sure the learning is a passive process and I think its important to highlight the failings of that artist or whoever in discussion of their work for the same reason as word of mouth has value to them.
Ive quit driving lessons cos my instructor would happily go on racist rants... was surprised when marshal mentioned hiring a racist plumber at the end then given his earlier comments - i know his point is you can learn about pipes... but thats not a person id support regardless. a plumbers less important than somoene with a platform though so maybe its not worth the effort.
My standards for learning from an artist in order of importance are
1-Their Skills, if they have what I’m looking to learn, for example storytelling, composition, rendering, gesture, dynamism etc.
2- Their personal life, if they are good, is awesome, but if they are not, it pisses me, but is not an impediment for learning what I need from them
I don’t think I have a line, I think I have an spectrum of how awkward and uncomfortable it is to learn from someone, and it gets worse and worse depending on what “sins” they have committed, it would not be the same to learn from someone who is mean and selfish as it is from some mass murderer, serial killer or molester.
I found myself in a similar predicament when I started learning songwriting and guitar, Lennon is a great song writer but a really awful person in a lot of aspects, but i still took what was helpful for me.
Hayao Miyazaki from studio Ghibli could be another example. He is so strict, and centered in the craft, that a lot of times is perceived as mean, selfish person devoid of empathy towards his teammates, in this point I personally agree that one must be fierce and dedicated, but also be emphatic, and there is where I would not Follow Miyazaki.
Miyazaki also has an interesting perspective, in the documentary “kingdom of dreams and madness” he says that “everything you do has a negative effect, I make animations that may inspire people to do incredible good, but you can say that they are wasting time watching that they could use for something more useful” he also has a movie “the wind rises” were a plane designer struggles with designing planes, his passion, when confronted that at the time (early 20th century) the only way he could work was by designing war planes in japan at the time.
To conclude, I think this a matter that we must always talk about, because is of extreme relativity, and if we stop talking and discussing, we have the risk of plateauing in a frame of thought that in a matter of time, can turn into something awfully horrible.
I agree with Miyazaki about everything having a negative affect. But also no-one making art before I was born was making it for the moral standards of now.
@@lulamidgeable that's true, moral standards change constantly through out history, in a hundred years as Stan and Marshall said, we will probably be seen as dispicable in a lot of aspects
my brain is stuck at the 2000+ sketchbooks statement
This was a very interesting podcast. I think that we all employ situational ethics in where if it comes to our personal benefit. But what if we turn the bad into good? What if we study evil in order to be a better person? When we know better, do we always do better? Do the lines blur for the better or do we completely disregard because we feel a pious, altruistic idea of who we think we are or want to be? I believe that we need to recognize the bad in order to appreciate the good, whether it is in others or ourselves. But in the end, this self realization takes a great deal of honesty in order for the lesson to be learned. Just my opinion, a female with two different ethnic origins.
What if their art is an attempt to alchemize the defects of their personality?
I know we live in times where being offended tries to justify the erasing of what we don't like (particularly in the USA) but given the past history I don't believe in any kind of censure at all, neither in judging with recent criterias our ancestors nor being responsible for them. Everyone has its flaws and sometimes Beauty emerges from the most tremendous horror. This is not black and white, good and bad, but two faces of the same coin.
Personnaly I think we should learn from everything and everyone, then apply our knowledge to conduct our lives and our Art as we want. That's where resides Liberty. The suffering is universal, every race or religion is mocked over the world. I hope we don't take ourselves too seriously. Learn from what you want, from the art which truly speaks to you, and leave the rest but at least let people make their own choices, because the opinion of others (minority or majority) shoudn't define what you want to bring to the world before dying.
So great to bring in Howard Zinn!!! Thank you.
I think both sides are valid. And I think there is nothing wrong with both.
I have my deal breakers, but generally, if I want to study someone I would without much thinking about the artist.
I want to give a context related to future discussion: The relationship between the art and the artist. Because, the discussion here is not about the artist per se, but his work and how the work must be viewed when you know the artist, as a person, had very dark sides. For me, my view is that the art is separated from the artist like a child must not be criticized because of their bad mother. But if the "stink" of the artist is very heavy in the art for some people and it brings them dysphoria, is also ok and must not be taken of hyperbolics. There is disagree is when the art is cancelled because of the artist, THIS for me IS a hyperbole.
The art must not get into shadows, it must be appreciated in its own context, either if I want to enjoy it, or study it.
Also! Continue your podcast, the views are low but I am one of the loyals here, I find the content very interesting and it satisfies a bit of my need for an art discussion as a lone artist in a small country far far away from you!
This episode was amazing!!! thank you really! I respect you both a lot I just love listen to you hehe
Congrats Stan And Melissa For the baby! (i will NOT forgive you for not telling Marshall tho LOL)
If you learn from someone awful and created sth beautiful, I see it as a gut punch to the bad person.
That someone wouldn't care because they are creating something beautiful as well. You wouldn't be inspired to learn from them in the first place.
That 'Oh, boy!' in the end was taken directly from 'Fun with a pencil' by Loomis. Nice one!
I'm on my 3rd read of The People's History of the United States. It is an excellent examination of the US and how its formation influences the nation to this day. And the impact that has had on US citizens. I believe that it should be required reading in high school history.
"Congratulations", Stan!
Once my friends and I went to a meditation hall inauguration ceremony where they called two volunteers(A man and A woman) on to the stage and asked them to write on a note whatever that comes to their mind first. The guy wrote the name of the guru(Artist), and the woman wrote love(Art).
I think you should be able to separate art from artist when it comes to learning technique, & even personal enjoyment (to the extent possible). A problem with "cancel culture" & black-&-white thinking is that it takes the worst thing a person has done & paints their whole life & work with that brush. Take Michael Jackson, & for argument's sake let's assume he had relationships with the 2 boys in the documentary. He's also raised MILLIONS for charity. His music has brightened the lives of literally billions who've heard it in the last 40 years. He ushered in new eras in pop music & choreography/ dancing, the video age, etc.
Take Picasso, & for argument's sake let's assume he was an awful misogynist who broke women's hearts (& possibly more). He's also created work that advanced modern art & became prized by millions of people. I'm not trying to play a game of moral equivalence or justification. I'm just saying that people's legacies aren't black-&-white.
Would any of us like to be judged by the worst thing we ever did - or ANY single thing we've done that we're not proud of? Maybe it was selling drugs or having an ab0rtion or harboring resentments that could get you cancelled if you voiced them on Twitter. Maybe it was tracing or 'closely referencing' another artist's work & posting without giving credit. Perhaps you were unfaithful to your spouse. You might've been at fault in a car crash. Maybe in college you pressured a partner a bit too hard for a hookup, or you took advantage of a partner who was, in hindsight, too intoxicated to consent. Is that your legacy?
In no way am I defending those behaviors, I'm just saying that people aren't perfect. Even a nun or a Buddhist monk likely has regrets. We're all on journeys, both professionally & personally. Our character, like our art, is [hopefully] on a path of progress. We should be willing to grant ourselves & other artists grace & forgiveness. If we can't, if we get caught in the toxic trap of judgment, then we're poorer for that. We should be able to learn from & appreciate the best work of those who've come before us. Progress depends on that. Virtually every philosophy has some version of the axiom, "take what benefits you & leave the rest."
Michael Jackson has nothing to do with this conversation... I understand where you're coming from with the "for the argument's sake" But please Watch "Square One" on Amazon Prime or UA-cam, Watch "Lies Of Leaving Neverland", read all the transcripts and court documents, please read the FBI files available for a 10 year period investigation, please read the hundreds of credible testimonies, please do your research before publicly condemn a black man exonerated in a court of law 14 TIMES ! There is not ONE piece of credible evidence against Michael Jackson, on the other hand, there is HUNDREDS of evidences showing him as the victim of extorsions and false accusations even after his death. You dont need to separate the Art from the Artist when the Artist is the Victim... and you don't need to bring Michael Jackson in this conversation. Thanks
@@YoannBomal_Dessin She brought it up cause the podcast did and he attempted to show him in a positive light regardless of what he had been accused of . So I don’t get what you’re trying to say here in saying he shouldn’t bring him up. You legit just missed the whole point they were bringing up.
I think you study the work but you should also understand the context in which the work was created. If some one is bad you don't put the blinders on to their deeds just so you can study the work. I feel if your studying Hitler's skills as a orator you need to understand why he was who he was. Putting blinders on is how we end up with putting historical figures on pedestal when they are not necessarily deserving of such adoration.
i dunno man, i think is a problem for people who fancy themselves ethical paragons and have the moral authority to dictate to other people whose art is ok for public consumption and whose art shall be verboten.
THIS PODCAST IS BETTER THAN THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!! SOMUCH INSIGHT LIGHTYEARS OUTSIDE OF ART !!! Thank you guys!
Stan is right. Everything is relative. We all are capable of good and evil, categories which are sliding scales based on a society's values. Here's the United States CV: genocide, slavery, nuclear war, corporate greed. We all contribute to this legacy by going to work everyday. It doesn't mean we are evil, or that the US is "evil." Same goes for people and their art. "Evil" is a human condition, not a personal one or a national one or an artistic one.
Outstanding discussion! I applaud you both such a vital discussion of the role of art culturally. Yes. I question Eric Fischl these days, can the Art World power corrupt....
I also try not to dive into people backgrounds if it's not need. I just take what I need and go (with art).
Congrats to you and your wife, Stan!🧡
There's something called "Death of the author" theory which you can look into for more perspective on this dilemma.
Also I think the main thing of this convo should really focus on ignorance vs hateful.
EDIT: Hui Qing Ang made a great point below and I would change it to ignorance vs hateful vs willful ignorance.
ignorance vs hateful vs wilful ignorance. I've met people who just wouldn't be genuinely open to discussion about how their actions may hurt others, and wilfully bulldoze onwards. Just think the distinction might be useful because most people think they're not in the hateful category, but may be doing the same damage anyway.
@@BurdHQ I totally agree thanks for adding that.