Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Mar 2008 10:37 UTC, submitted by Oliver
Thread beginning with comment 305714
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Oliver
by primelight@live.com on Wed 19th Mar 2008 19:31
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Oliver"
RE[4]: Comment by Oliver
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 19th Mar 2008 20:56
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Oliver"
So you are OK with possible child abuse as long as good art is produced?
Don't twist my words - I'm not approving of child abuse. All I'm saying is that someone's personal lifestyle, or wrongdoings, have no influence in my appreciation for that person's art.
If Hitler was actually a good painter (instead of the crappy one he was) and produced good art, I'd still say it was good art, despite his horrendous crimes.
UPDATE: Oops, I wrote it the wrong way in that comment. What I meant was: "One judges art not by the artist that made it, but by the art itself."
Hope that clears it up.
Edited 2008-03-19 20:58 UTC





Member since:
2005-06-29
"One judges an artist not by his lifestyle, character, or actions, but by his art."
One of the the most important lessons I've received (from my Dutch Literature teacher).