I can't speak to the journalistic angle here because I'm not familiar with the backstory, but here's another example of the problem with our culture's tendency to rush to judgment and see people in binary good/evil terms.
Kevin Spacey might be an angel (very unlikely), he might be a sleazeball, he might be a sleazeball who abused people we don't know about, and he might be a sleazeball who abused some or all of the people who accused him in these cases. But he went through the legal process and wasn't found guilty of wrongdoing, and that should count for a lot. On the other hand, when there's an avalanche of accusations against somebody, there's usually at least a kernel of truth there.
I don't expect creative types to be virtuous people, so I won't have trouble kicking back and watching a Kevin Spacey movie. Or even listening to a Michael Jackson or R Kelly song. I separate the artist from the art, which I realize is an old-fashioned approach nowadays.
I've wrestled with the "art vs. artist" question, and for me it depends on a number of factors, which I haven't totally settled on.
Recency. The further back in time, the easier it is to separate. Similar if there's historical or culture importance to the art.
Money. If I'm paying for something, how do I feel about my money going to that creator? I wouldn't buy OJ's book, but have no problem with Michael Jackson songs.
Context. A few years back I watched Woody Allen's "Manhattan" and was disgusted. The music swelling as a 40's-year-old man ran though town to stop his 17-year-old lover from taking a summer in Europe was only worsened by Allen's similar personal history.
Good thoughts. It's hard for me to apply this to Woody Allen movies because they were never my thing in the first place, especially the ones he starred in. Match Point is really cool though, partly because he's not in it.
I applaud you for taking on this story, but I would caution about declaring someone “not guilty” when we all know the connotation. I was heartened to at least see the acknowledgment of Spacey’s known predilection for young men, but in today’s environment where everyone looks for a victim label, I am hard pressed to hand one to Spacey, even in a legal sense, because of just how destructive his behavior, and so many like him, has been. I realize it sounds like I’m willing to make an example of him for the sake of deterring others like him from preying on young people....and I guess I am. That’s probably all that needs to be said about that.
I can't speak to the journalistic angle here because I'm not familiar with the backstory, but here's another example of the problem with our culture's tendency to rush to judgment and see people in binary good/evil terms.
Kevin Spacey might be an angel (very unlikely), he might be a sleazeball, he might be a sleazeball who abused people we don't know about, and he might be a sleazeball who abused some or all of the people who accused him in these cases. But he went through the legal process and wasn't found guilty of wrongdoing, and that should count for a lot. On the other hand, when there's an avalanche of accusations against somebody, there's usually at least a kernel of truth there.
I don't expect creative types to be virtuous people, so I won't have trouble kicking back and watching a Kevin Spacey movie. Or even listening to a Michael Jackson or R Kelly song. I separate the artist from the art, which I realize is an old-fashioned approach nowadays.
I've wrestled with the "art vs. artist" question, and for me it depends on a number of factors, which I haven't totally settled on.
Recency. The further back in time, the easier it is to separate. Similar if there's historical or culture importance to the art.
Money. If I'm paying for something, how do I feel about my money going to that creator? I wouldn't buy OJ's book, but have no problem with Michael Jackson songs.
Context. A few years back I watched Woody Allen's "Manhattan" and was disgusted. The music swelling as a 40's-year-old man ran though town to stop his 17-year-old lover from taking a summer in Europe was only worsened by Allen's similar personal history.
No easy answers for me.
Good thoughts. It's hard for me to apply this to Woody Allen movies because they were never my thing in the first place, especially the ones he starred in. Match Point is really cool though, partly because he's not in it.
I applaud you for taking on this story, but I would caution about declaring someone “not guilty” when we all know the connotation. I was heartened to at least see the acknowledgment of Spacey’s known predilection for young men, but in today’s environment where everyone looks for a victim label, I am hard pressed to hand one to Spacey, even in a legal sense, because of just how destructive his behavior, and so many like him, has been. I realize it sounds like I’m willing to make an example of him for the sake of deterring others like him from preying on young people....and I guess I am. That’s probably all that needs to be said about that.