When GOOD photographers do BAD things 

*There will be some issues that people disagree with me on. We've all got our own opinions and that's fine. I'm not interested in discussing individual cases, I'm interested in how other people approach reconciling their own personal relationship with photography and other artwork against their own moral code.* *For those pointing out that the JK Rowling tweets are not comparable to Polanski's crimes etc. - That's the point. Where do we draw the line?*

Nicely handled, beautifully edited, written and thoughtful considerate. Hope many people see and appreciate this work and your channel.

One thing is for sure: Jamie Windsor´s essays are a visual and thought-provoking experience.

My own experience throws light on this question for me. My grandmother, who grew up in a white farming family in Arkansas, looked after me for a great part of my childhood. She, and my grandfather, were loving and caring, and gave me a basis for being able to love others in my later life. But after they bothdied, and I was going through their papers, I found a box of 8x10 B&W prints. These were ordered so that they began with distant views, in which I could make out a procession with cars in a landscape, which gave a time, the early 1920's, and a place, the Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs. As I leafed through the prints and the photographer got closer and closer to the procession, it was possible to make out figures dressed in white among the cars. Closer yet, and you could see that they wore white pointed hoods. After some study I learned that when my grandparents moved to Colorado, in the early 20s, the Ku Klux Klan had moved west as well, and it experienced a flowering in that new environment. These were carefully arranged photos my grandparents had kept for more than fifty years. But that whole background was unknown to me as a child and young man, and seemed to have nothing to do with my experience of my grandparents. It was a shock I had never expected. I discovered those photos 25 years ago, and I've been thinking about them ever since. My judgment is this: we are all of us composed of a whole cast of personalities, some given to us at birth, others acquired in the patchwork world we grow into. Some of these personalities harmonise with each other, but others are at odds. This is just a given in our twisting and woven human lives. The knowledge that my loving grandparents were very likely supporters of the KKK at one time does not fit easily with the rest of what I know of them. But once I came to know that not only they, but everyone else on this earth is a jostling company of different persons in single bodies, I learned finally to be at peace with both my love for them, and my total rejection of the hatefulness they seemed to entertain as well. I think in substance that the question you pose is has no different answer. It is a shock to learn that the Nicholas Nixon we can celebrate as a feminist artist also harbours the Nicholas Nixon we deplore as a sexual exploiter. Was it Solzhenitsyn who wrote that the line between good and evil runs through every human heart? I'd say: relax and enjoy the photographs, but never let that enjoyment be mistaken for approval of the man's sexual predation.

“Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.” - Marcus Aurelius

What bothers me most about this is the "should we" as if some peoples judgment should rule for everyone. Its that type of thinking that makes people think they can shut down other people just because they disagree with their Art

so much food for thought here. i appreciate the thought of not reacting aggressively to how others choose to deal with their relationship to art by bad people

Quentin Tarantino's comment about the 13 year old girl is really unbelievable. I will never look at him the same now.

Interesting, as ever and thought provoking... As WS once wrote 'The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.'

One question remains for me to ask here: Why do we expect that an artist must be morally correct in all aspects of life without blame? He or she is only an artist who is particularly talented in this one of his or her special fields. This does not mean that he or she has moral integrity. Can, should or must we first demand a character reference before we consider the person's art to be good? Well, now there were two questions. Finally, here is a statement: I am afraid of the rising cancel-culture, as it develops into a new censorship culture that frightens me.

Personally, any deep emotional connections made to art prior to learning something repulsive about its creator are hard to sever. I tend to accept the possible persistence of those attachments for myself, while refusing to form new relationships with the artist's work. And I definitely no longer advocate for either the art or the artist, publicly or privately. Hard to know what the appropriate societal response should be. I don't think denying the work or its historical significance is truly productive. Rather, I suspect we should embrace candor and include as objective as possible discussion of the artist's misdeeds and the ways in which those actions-once brought to light-affect perception of both the work, its creator and the cultural reasons they were able to achieve such prominence. Broader (rather than narrower) comprehension of such unfortunate situations seem to be more effective at safeguarding society against their recurrences.

I don't think this tension between art and the artist can ever truly be resolved precisely because the arguments pull us so powerfully in different directions at the same time. every single one of us is imperfect to some degree and in that sense we are aware of the contradictions inherent in condemnation of behaviours and attitudes in others when we are hardly paragons of virtue. On the other hand there are some behaviours and attitudes that are so reprehensible that they will forever cloud our judgement of some artists. Our attitude in each case is subjective and yet also has wider social impacts, as the cumulative effect of our support or condemnation contributes to how an artist is viewed. In the end I think we are uncomfortably held forever in the tension between art and the artist and this is necessarily so.

I believe your question is merited. Myself, I tend to separate the actions and practices of a person from their creative work. Not always easy but it is a choice I've always striven to hold constant. It is how I hope others will respond to my creative work despite differences in religious or political views.

I wanted to thank you for this video. I’ve been struggling with this question myself. I still haven’t decided how I feel about this but your video definitely helps. Welcome back!

I guess there is something to "never meet your heroes, they will disappoint you". I personally have a hard time separating the art from the artist. If the artist is awful to someone, I just don't connect with their art. It's like you said, tainted. There are books I can't read, even if I loved them previously, there is music I can't listen to, there are photos that make me wonder if the person in the picture has suffered to have that image taken, and so on. The art is part of the artist, and if the artist went "bad"... Yeah.

Great video. This is also something I struggle with, and I’m glad you also pointed out the selfishness of having to struggle with this to begin with...and questioning where to draw the boundaries. One thing I’d like to add is, why we even have defined these works as important? Most “important” works are defined so from the white, western, perspective. And there is no denying their influence, but to “remove” or, rather, move on from these works wouldn’t leave us devoid of great art, but give us opportunity to support and learn from non-westernized, or marginalized, great works that were often censored or ignored throughout history at the cost of celebrating these problematic and harmful authors...

Glad You're still here Jamie!

This is a classic example of overthinking.

Brilliant video. I've been having this argument with people for decades. For me, it all comes down to something Chomsky said about common sense as defined by Descartes - "People are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions." He also went on to say (and I'm paraphrasing), "If we truly care about justice and human rights, we have to hold ourselves and our allies to the same moral and legal account as our adversaries."

I like how you propose a conversation, giving your own thoughts about it but keeping an open mind. This is for sure a hard topic and I don't think we'll ever get into a solid answer, but it sure is a healthy discussion, more so to us artists out there.

Always wanted to see someone address this topic in the photo community. I'm equally surprise and happy to see you tackle it. Love, love, love the nuanced take here.

First time I've ever commented on a video, really well put together. I think about this quite a lot, discovering Terry Richardson's work got me into photography and I see elements of what I liked about his photography in my own, which I take pride in, yet when people ask who initially inspired me to do portrait photography I'm hesitant to say his name

I love mostly the fact that u go more artistic with all ur videos than just technically about photography,and inform,entertain and share knowledge with people in 10 minutes with somehing that u spent weeks of building it ..thank u for that. ... well done mate!keep on ....

The academic approach to some of your videos makes me want to go back to university and discuss interesting topics all day. (Even though most lectures and seminars at my university left too little room for genuine discussion.) I really, really appreciate that you venture to discuss complex issues on a platform like RU-vid - even though it’s poorly suited for an exhaustive discussion. But at least a ~10 minute video can spark debate and give some pointers. That’s awesome. And by the way: I really, really, really like the graphic design in your videos. The amount of effort you must put in to achieving subtle effects is amazing.

"Having done great art does not give you free range to do bad things without consequences." No, it doesn't. But the consequences are decided by the law, as far as the artist having done something illegal. I feel that you confused artists having something criminal, with artists having opinions "we don't like". I wish we would differ more between the two. Essentially what we are doing, when we don't differ, is to say that someone having an opinion, which we don't like, is as bad as having done something criminal. How is that for having a dialogue? Also, about separating the art from the artists. I'm a Jew who enjoys Wagner's music. I wish that he would have been enlightened, rather than finding his opinions in the most base thoughts of other humans, but his music is still greatly composed. I chose to view it like this: a person can give charity, for then one day do something criminal. Should we then tell people to return the charity he has given, because we now found out that he's not a good person? Obviously not, let the positive outcome of the positive things he did do stay for the good of us all, even if he still needs to take the consequences of his bad actions.

That's a big yikes from that Quentin Tarantino quote

Sadly we are at a point where it seems hard to have two ideas in our heads at the same time. Nicholas Nixon's photographic work is worthy of distinction. His criminal actions should be punished. They are not mutually exclusive. Humans are complex. If we require perfection from our artists as people we could be in for a long wait. Let's change the context. What if someone discovered a cure for cancer and that person was proved to be a peadophile? Would we ban the cure? Is it possible that we can live with the idea that that person did something which benefitted millions but their bad actions have landed them in prison? Learning to live with the contradictions and flaws of the human condition is something we have explored for millenia, it's called art.

It is so refreshing to hear someone admit that he doesn’t know the answer to a complicated question.

2 points: It's important to distinguish between allegations and things that a person has actually been convicted of, or at least for which there is overwhelming evidence of. Unfounded allegations have destroyed people's lives and reputations. Second, although I am not overly familiar with J.K. Rowling's views, from what I can tell she is vilified simply because she disagrees with the "politically correct" position on transgender issues. To me that is unacceptable.

Thanks for putting this insightful video together, Jamie! I often struggle with this exact issue, still exploring my own answer to it...

So sensibly put. For me the approach is ultimately wholistic. In many cases I've come across artists and their work from several angles, whether it be a movie (which I later realized who it was directed by) or a Photographer's work, or even a Comedian's name, and then an exploration into his work. Regardless of the path to awareness, I have come to peace with myself by following more or less the following: - Examine the work itself, learn from it (removing the author from the work ONLY when judging the piece itself). - Learn about the author, their motivation, their angels and demons - Support good causes, and do not enable a culture of reward (or overlooking) bad behavior. This allows me to appreciate controversial photographer's work, and learn good practices to avoid becoming controversial. It also allows me to focus on the work itself, and feel what was conveyed through it. And it also gives me a realistic look at the person behind the work. The flawed woman behind Harry Potter. The racist writer behind Tom Sawyer. The self-centered director that threw his career away. It doesn't always provide me with the rosy view of things as my mind would like them to be, but instead I gain a deeper, more contextual appreciation of the work. Hope this helps. :)

I think you can't help what you're interested in. And nobody dies pure.

“The excellent Spotlight has been nominated. Yeah. The Catholic Church are furious about the film as it exposes that 5 percent of all their priests have repeatedly molested children and been allowed to continue to work without punishment. Roman Polanski called it ‘the best date movie ever.” - Ricky Gervais

Obviously act professional and within law, but NO ONE is safe from being a sinner in someone's perspective.

At some point, this became the best photography channel on RU-vid

I am also conflicted on this topic. Thanks for sharing. It's good to see people asking questions and admitting that not everything comes with an easy answer.

For the “alleged” I would disagree with condemning them. Alleged means NOT YET determined to be guilty or innocent of an accusation. It may be beneficial for us to not INSTANTLY ASSUME GUILT and condemn another human being with hasty judgment as many an innocent person has been alleged of crimes and found innocent with due process.

Well, if we decide to treat actors and musicians like this, so should we do photographers.

I don’t know how pong it takes to put these together, the animations and beautiful transitions, but I fully appreciate it and draw inspiration from it.

Beautiful, thought provoking video Jamie. My mom used to tell me that she wouldn't listen to certain musical artists because by supporting their music she was green-lighting their lifestyles. And I remember thinking how stupid that was. I can enjoy someone's music and not really care about who they are as a person...or can I??? Now that I'm an adult, I find that my attitude towards artists can be greatly impacted by whether or not I "like" them--even if I don't come right out and say that's what's behind it. An artist who I've come to respect or admire might get more plays from me and conversely from artists who I've found to be mean, insensitive, or cruel. Even businesses who have publicly supported something I patently disagree with, like homophobic views or dishonest business practices, will stop getting my business as a result. So even though I consciously will say the artist is divorced from the art, if I'm honest with myself, I know that isn't really true. What is correct and proper here? I can't say...but I think this is the core element behind our current "cancel culture", and I really hate that about society right now. Very thought provoking... thank you for making me look closer at myself and the world around me.

If the man is truly guilty, prosecute him. If it is an unsubstantiated accusation it is no more than elevated gossip.

What a thought provoking well narrated video once again Jamie. Your work stands out among your contemporaries. I personally discredit an Artists work once the truth comes out as moral standing of an individual is important to me rather than enjoying consuming their work.

I just came looking for your channel because I was thinking about my favorite channels and realized I hadn’t seen a vid from you in ages. turns out I had done something to the youtube bell .... after an initial ‘oh no’ reaction I was delighted that Ive got a whole bunch of new vids waiting for me 💛 Anyway, It’s a tricky topic. I tend to put my head in the sand and enjoy the art on the sly but eventually I find that I start to develop a distaste for it. A bit like a breakup where you weigh up the pros and cons of the relationship and what you know of the other party’s character but eventually you find yourself just changing the radio station away from michael jackson and finding something new to get nostalgic about. There are lots of other great artists out there so you don’t need the toxic ones in your life but it takes some processing to get over them. Also I guess it’s ok to occasionally reflect on the good times but when you dwell too long you remember why you moved on.

One of the true achievements of ethics is its capability to make us wonder wether something is right or wrong. By asking yourself these questions you are making world a better place, you may not know if something is deeply right or deeply wrong, but you'll ask and think about it.

An after effects class by you on skillshare would be dreamy

I do believe it’s different from art to art. J.K. Rowling hasn’t raped the work she puts out but I photographer might’ve done so with the subject of their work. I also don’t think that a deed or a thought is absolutely defining of a person. And furthermore looking at historical persons we need to remind ourself that it is impossible to see their views outside of their own historical content they lived in.

This is a tough one. The way I’ve found myself dealing with this problem is: - I can’t deny that artists going bad taints their work for me. - I will still consume their work to some degree, but less frequently and with less enjoyment. - On the one hand, I’m strictly against cancel culture, on the other hand, there have been certain artifacts that I really want gone from the public space. In the end, I may be about as conflicted as you are and I think your closing words about not judging people who deal with it differently are crucial. On an individual level, I think everyone needs to make their own decision. When it comes to public display of works, it gets more difficult, because in that case, few people are making decisions that affect many.

Thank you for this reflection of yours. I think one thing we should all be thinking about is how much good, amazing culture we could have today in a society where there was no racism, exploitation, and gender inequality. How many extraordinary female artists or African American writers could have emerged? How interesting, unexpected would their art have been? How high would our culture and art be if we had removed these obstacles in the path of human creativity? The art we celebrate today is unfortunately still marked by the persistence of these injustices.

I'm amazed once again about how you bring up and underscore these really important videos by viewing all these different angles. This is a truly difficult theme and I don't know the answer for myself, but I'm probably not able to, for example, put the hp books down - t they defined a whole big part of my fantasy world since I've been literally grown up year after year with them, starting at 11. And so do other people with other art. Do I judge jkr as a person - no, cause I don't know her. Do I excuse her views - no, cause I don't share them. But it's still self centred, my decision to do so - and I too have opinions and views others don't have, like our share as everyone. And we probably don't want anyone to know. But it is immensely important to be aware of what you do and talk, especially as a person of public interest. I'm probably tangling up things, trying to explain myself in English here, but I think it's an important enough theme to try. Keep up your great work!

Frankly, your "I don't know" stance looks a bit like a safe option - not taking a side, while making a video that will provoke reactions. About the matter, I think it is a bit USA/Western world thing. In reality, most of the modern societies have already decided what stance we should have about it. There is a justice system to handle all of that, it is not up to the court of public opinion to handle someones crimes. We are not hanging people or killing them on the spot for their crimes in civilized world because we believe (almost) everyone should be given a chance to atone for their sins, join back the society and keep living their life, and that includes earning money, making art included. If we all agree that people who have served time should be integrated back in the society, and allowed to live their life freely if they make no transgressions in the future, it should be no different with artists. The problem about Polanski is that he didn't serve time. He should have been in jail for a time, and then go back to making movies. And I would have no problem in enjoying his art. Should we ask who made our burger in restaurant before we start to eat? Who is fixing our cars? Who is our mailman? When we call electrician do we check about his morality first? Are all the artists super humans, semi gods that should be held to a higher standards compared to ordinary people? All around us are people that have done something bad at some point in their life. Some were punished for that, some got away. It is irrational to boycott good art because of artists transgressions. Bad people can make beautiful things, and if someone did a bad thing and served time, more the reason for us to learn to forgive. Also, this is the area of political polarization in the west right now and everything gets politicized, including artists and their opinions. It is really REALLY wrong that JKRs opinion gets in the same video with child rapists, and it shows how fare things have gone. And it kind tells a lot about your political leanings even if you say "I don't know". You actually think you know, that is why you have decided JKR should be in the video. (and I say that as a moderate lefty btw) Having supposedly "Hateful" "Right wing" "Anti-trans" opinion is for some people obviously similar to raping and abuse. It seems there is a tremendous pressure right now on the people to accept where this dictated line between "right" and "wrong" is, to choose their side and to hate everything that someone points to them as "immoral" or wrong. Some artists are lefties, some are on the right, some will have edgy opinions. They are just people as everyone else.

Absolutely one of your best videos. Shared it with my non photographer friends. This should be required watching for all humans. Thank you.

I find it helpful to think about the people that bad artists have harmed and how they would react to the art. Imagine a person you truly care about was harmed. In many cases there wouldn't even be the question to consume the art anymore. Distancing the art from the artist can be a display of your own privilege.

Dear Jamie, I really like your videos. In this case I would say: A well constructed and thought-provoking essay let down by the misplaced references to JK Rowling. Whereas most of the artists you cite are accused/guilty of crimes, JK Rowling has done no more than express a point of view which, however well researched and carefully worded, has upset some people who are ready to take offence. That said, please do keep the videos coming!

Imagine a firefighter who saved quite a few fellow human beings during his career. Imagine that by the end of his professional career he becomes an alcoholic who kicks the ass of his small kids with a leather belt. Do all the lives that he saved become doubtful? Will the relatives of the saved ones stop being grateful to the firefighter? You must separate the art from the artist just like you have to separate the father from the firefighter. Because if you don't, you will probably become a very bitter person with much less beauty in your world.

I have always been fed up with biographers excusing the bad behavior of great people as if their genius trumps all, because I can't be excused for being ordinary. That said I don't subscribe to the notion that a person's bad action somehow makes all the good things they ever did vanish completely. Then again, if the bad actions were perpetrated while making the art, such as exploitative behaviour to get the shot, or to obtain self gratification, then that art is diminished to the point that it should be trashed. As you say, very difficult to know where to draw the line, and who is the arbiter of taste anyway. Great, thought provoking video.

"I don't know the answer" is maybe one of the most sensible thing I've heard lately. And the fact that I noticed it shows that it's a very unusual statement in this world of digital so called democracy. People should admit a lot more often that they don't know the answer instead of claiming otherwise, often in a very arrogant and provocative way. The subject raised in this video is definitely a tough one. More than being answered, it needs to be raised so people can ask themselves how they feel about it and start THINKING. That's the artist's job, at least part of it: challenging our thoughts and making us think. And often times, "I don't know the answer" is the answer. It's just getting harder for us to admit because social networks and modern communication channels need answers and strong opinions. Thanks for this, Jamie.

Imagine that today, for the first time you see a film which blows you away - the plot was entirely engaging, the characters fully formed, the cinematography magical and carried a message which resonated with your soul. One year from today you learn that the film was directed by a man who has been charged with some hideous crime. Does that change the film ? Tomorrow, you watch another film which is very mediocre but, one year later, you learn that it was made by a victim of a hideous crime - does that information make the film better ? Unless you are willing to separate the art from the artist, you can never form any opinion about any art because you always have to reserve judgement until you know everything about the artist. We are all flawed and some tortured souls have produced some beautiful things which have uplifted our spirits. Liking a piece of art is not the same as forgiving the artist for their transgressions. Future knowledge of the artist may colour our judgement of them ... but it should not detract from the value of the art.

Jamie, I love your videos. I really do. But I think you are completely wrong about JK Rowling. She is clearly not trans-phobic (afraid of trans people). Anyways, everyone is imperfect. There are plenty of artists who have done plenty of awful things that you don't know about. Does their art somehow become less valuable because you have learned something bad that they have done?

I'm never gonna watch any of your videos without giving a like first. You always deserve it. Great work.

Wow, you really outdid yourself yet again, Jamie! Incredibly good video essay! I have troubles separating the art from the artist, to be honest. I simply cannot look at it the same way. I sometimes think it’s an out if the art was created before the artist “turned bad”, but in the end this is only to make myself feel better. I also think it’s interesting that sometimes I enjoy art more if the artist did something I really admire. So it kind of works in both ways, I guess. Anyways, thanks for your thoughts and I might show this video in class someday.

I'm as lost as you. My consciousness tell me we should stop consuming their art, but it's not easy when you spend a big part of your life being inspired or amazed by their works, when every piece of art which shaped your artistic view have been made by these people. The issue goes deeper than just consuming their art, it become about who you are as an artist or as person. When your morality come from moraly reprehensible poeple, what does it mean about you? I think that's partly why we struggle so much with this.

When we call someone a BAD person, can we separate truth from allegation? If you're going to call out artists for their own opinion, or look at the things they make, and say you're sickened by them and because we don't like it, then they are a BAD person, then you have no business making, curating, or representing art. Art is freedom of expression and should not be censored. Artists are literally just people saying what's on their mind. I understand when you say it's hard to separate the art from the artist, I have this too. However, an action is different then an opinion. I don't think someone should be labeled as a BAD person for a widely accepted opinion. If you think they are naive that's one thing, but to label someone a BAD person, Based on what? Your standards? To hell with your standards. Or what? Everyone who thinks differently, is a moral monster and should be labeled as BAD? Not saying you labeled them as BAD PEOPLE, just that some people will see something an artist has done, not like it, and criminalize them, based on their own standards. And in case you think I have a bias towards any of these artists you presented, I straight up couldn't care less about these movies or books, and I find no personal joy in their photographs. I'm simply saying An opinion should be treated differently to an action. But I guess that's something our countries don't agree on.

A man once said "Let they who are without sin cast the first stone"

Your work is simply beautiful. I’m so happy to see you going from photography to art essays. Your voice and opinions are on point. Can’t wait for more!

When an artist is trained in any discipline they acquire a set of skills that they exercise when they create in the discipline. This is a narrow set of skills and does not represent the entire gestalt of the artist's character. I revere certain music composers, performers, and teachers who have contributed significantly to the musical discipline and influenced both their own and the next generation of musicians. I do this because of my theoretical understanding of their contribution(s). I deliberately keep my attention on just the music when I exercise my analyses. The gray area that troubles me is when artists imbue extra-musical concepts into their work. This area is especially problematic in songs. If the lyrics (or the accompanying music video these days) projects cultural values with which I disagree, I generally choose to dislike the tune and if too many of his/her output displays this issue I dislike the artist. Early era rap and hiphop was rife with misogyny and encouraged violence. I therefore rejected all of hiphop. As the years piled on, I became aware of new lyrical trends in hiphop. I was able to analyze the newer music and reach some positive opinions. This allowed me to reach back to the early years. I have been able to learn of the extremely repressive culture in which early rap and hiphop evolved. Today I can praise a tune (even a song) for tis musical value but reject the artist's social views. Think back to many generations ago and choose a photographer who you think represented the "average" values of his/her current culture. Let's try the 40s-50s. I consider the writers and other artists to have lived in a very sexist and white-dominated culture here in the USA (GB as well?). I'm willing to bet that many, if not most, artists exhibited many of the sexual and racial values of their time. Since I am a fierce proponent of sexual and racial equality, should I reject any artist from what was then a "normal" culture? Should I single out only those artists who exhibited what would have been viewed as socially deviant? If I do this have I just cast aside my carefully created set of analytical parameters designed to judge only the art and not the artist? How can I objectively reach an understanding of the evolution of music during this time period and its musical impact upon later generations? How can I reach an understanding of my creative needs and my place in the world of art if I do not view all of history? My decision is simple: I consider just the tune. If the tune's construction is compromised by extra-musical poisons, I squirm over my illogical choices of what I like and do not like (shame on me). I am a musician and a college teacher with a PhD in Music Theory. I fully am aware that I am a person who does not represent the average person. Nonetheless, this is my two cents. Thanks for a great video!

There's a difference between transgressing contemporary social mores and criminal conviction. From the Renaissance onwards many of our great artists have been narcissists, letches, bullies (sexual and otherwise) and murderers. A much greater number held views that would be considered abhorrent today. Unless you're going for a Year Zero approach to the creative arts - in which case the new artist better be morally impeccable - we are compelled to draw our own lines.

Huge thumbs up for you Jamie for taking on a subject as divisive as this. I ended up in a weird predicament a few years back when I received a book of photographs by David Hamilton. To make things more awkward, it was given to me by my dad who was wistfully unaware of the controversy surrounding the photographer. Almost like a window that gets dirtier and harder to peer through with the passage of time, I find it difficult to observe Hamilton’s photography in earnest without the cloud of child abuse accusations obstructing the view. In the end, via drawing and embroidery, I went on to replicating this effect on the pages of the book in question. At that time, making mediocre art was the only way I could make sense of the author/art dilemma. I am sure all other ways of are equally valid... well, except for the approach of Tarantino. He can go step on a lego. Thank you again, for another great video.

Well done and well thought. This is a tough one, part of me thinks that monsters should be destroyed and stricken from history the other half says this is a learning point to move past such horrible atrocities and become a better society. I will however not place these once important people on a pedestal that they no longer deserve.

I understand you don't want to litigate individual artists but I don't think J. K. Rowling should be roped in with these others. I was kind of surprised that you did so. Most of the others have been convicted or fairly credibly accused of serious crimes (I admit to not knowing some of the names). Rowlings expressed an opinion, not a very popular opinion, but not in a hateful or abusive way. I looked for evidence of just how unpopular Rowlings' opinion actually is and found this. It isn't a perfect surrogate for Rowlings' twitter posts but it roughly represents acceptance of transgenderism in today's UK: "A recent YouGov poll for PinkNews showed that by 50% to 27% Britons believe that people should be allowed to self-identify as a gender different to the one they were assigned at birth. While still a commanding lead, this figure is a slight decline since 2019 (56% to 23%)." yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights So half of Great Britain would probably disagree with Rowlings and a quarter might support her and a further quarter have mixed or complicated feelings or don't want to answer. Should the half of Great Britain that isn't entirely on board with transgenderism be lumped with criminals? Speaking your mind on social issues isn't necessarily a terrible thing. "I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives." -- J. K. Rowling She might be dead wrong but we all take that risk every time we open our mouths.

The craziest thing is JK Rowling didn't say anything remotely transphobic.

I'll be honest, I like the videos before I even watch them. You're amazing Jamie

I love this channel. I like how you put more complex subjects and support them with the right images. I think with this art-artist division that it is not mentioned that in a certain way all works have something collective, one associates the work with a single name, but there are always more people behind each work who make it great. The abuse is also in a certain way collective, usually those most affected are close people and they share that secret with a few, perhaps as we now live in such a hyper-connected era and privacy is increasingly scarce, this "collectivity of abuse" it is more difficult to maintain it over time.

it is easy, just equate the issue with that of scientists and inventors who do bad things. Are we supposed to get rid of most of our culture because it was made by imperfect humans? Nobody should do bad things and the individuals should be prosecuted by the law, sure; nothing to do with their value as artists and the value of their art.

5:47: (paraphrasing) "sending the message that a bad person will be celebrated and admired as long as they make good enough films." 1. You neither need to celebrate nor admire a person just because they create good art. It is fine to admire the art as such. 2. Even if you admire someone's ability to create good art, that does not imply that you admire all facets of their personality. 5:36 "directly and indirectly complicit": No, absolutely not. We are not enabling someone to do bad things, we are (at most) enabling them to do more art. Also, one is not disabling someone to do bad things by not appreciating their art. We might be elevating an artist's status but we are not responsible for them to be given the wrong sort of power and then being allowed to abuse that power. Your view seems to make it impossible to even appreciate a person's good sides, if the person has one or more bad sides. Obviously the correct approach must not be to condemn the entire person but to work with them on their bad sides. 7:55 "I also feel strongly about how much work we need to do in society to combat rape culture and sexual abuse." Absolutely no problem with this statement. Where you are going wrong is by believing that such work need to be done by boycotting art. There are much more effective ways of doing that work. It is OK if you personally cannot separate the art from the artist but please don't try to insinuate that everyone should have that problem and that they are lying to themselves out of convenience if they don't have that problem.

Some questions have no definitive answer. There best answer is to just pose more questions. Sometimes the dialogue is the best answer. Thanks for another thought provoking video.

Great video, thank you again. We have a similar 'problem' here in Guernsey. We are faced every day with the remains of German occupation in the form of hundreds of concrete bunkers (we have one in the garden) and lookout towers all along the coast. I believe - and after changing my mind - that we should leave many of them as poignant reminders of a time that went wrong. They continue to cause controversy and argument, but without them we would be in danger of forgetting. And the recent push towards 'group think' is a very dangerous place to be. Thank you for your honest appraisal.

I think it's unfortunate that you included Rowling in this. Her views are widely held by many, including such radical feminists as Germaine Greer, who has been 'no platformed'. See also my comments below: only Polanksi has been convicted of a crime. Our legal system is predicated on the principle of innocent until proved guilty. However, it's a thoughtful and honest essay and thanks for being willing to tackle it.

Well I would say that your video premise is wrong! You can separate art from artist because you do it always anyway! I mean how do you know if every person you admire the work are actually good people and do not hold bad opinions or do wrong things? Ignorance seems to be the common point of your premise! You are ok with the art as long as you do not know anything damaging about the artist. If you don’t know the artist, who they are, what their opinions you cant judge them on a moral ground and therefore you can still enjoy their work! So yes we can separate art from artist we do it all the time! The question becomes can you appreciate the art after you know something wrong about the artist? Well if culturally we go forward with a moral stance on this, what is going to happen is the artists are going to try to keep themselves off the public eye! Because ignorance is the basis of the trust we need to appreciate the art! So we will appreciate the art of people that do wrong and have bad opinions! This is actually extremely dangerous, because it could end up in a moral purge and the scrutiny of every aspect of someone personal life! Because ignorance is the base of the trust in the artist, and we do not want to support “bad” persons trough their art, we could go and destroy the notions of privacy, individual self-determination and freedom just so we can appreciate art without guilt! And my second critique of the video is that you happily aggregate actual criminals like Bill Cosby and Polanski, people who have allegedly committed crimes (sexual assault) and someone who is accused of wrong think and opinions JK Rowling. Are they the same for you? Can we appreciate the art of someone who has different opinions? Political stances? Different moral grounds? Are we going, for example, to ostracize every artist who is religious? Because we all know that religion is very negative towards women, gays, trans etc! Can you support let’s say a practicing Muslim artist? A catholic one? If they fellow their religions they will certainly have some of the same opinions about trans people than JK Rowling. So the real question is not: can we separate art from the artist? It is: can we produce art that breaks from moral codes? Does art have to be criticized and judge by morality? My opinion is yes art has that transgression aspect to it, it is a factor of inovation! And we can appreciate art away from the artist… we do it all the time!

I can't separate art from artist, but the reasons I appreciate an artwork at the time I view it don't change after I might find out something bad about the artist. So that artwork stands on its own merits, albeit with a tinge of sadness from now on. However the same is not true, for me, about artwork created afterwards or even created earlier if I hadn't seen it yet. Your warning about 'staying clean' is spot on, because a reputation will follow you for ever - perhaps fading with time, but never going away. But anyway, hopefully we all want to be a good human for its own sake.

I was just thinking about how we at the very least need to be viewing these artworks with a filter. And then I thought: "why not a physical filter?" At museums and galleries, we hang a piece of coloured/tinted glass in front of these pieces to remind people of the kind of person these artists are.

Lol JK isn’t transphobic for saying men can’t have periods....

Jk rowling didnt abuse anyone she just had a opinion but the others mentioned i would avoid their work, and that tarentino clip ive never heard before and turns my stomach.

Judging an art piece (or anything else) by looking at its author is wrong. Period. Something beautiful or significant stays beautiful and significant regardless of who made it. And beauty must be preserved at any cost.

Thanks for making this video and putting a spotlight on the topic Mr. Jamie Windsor! As I get older I realize that unfortunately many Artist are broken people with many dysfunctions, one will think that if an Artist gets to a level of recognition that will steer them to be a better version of themselves when in reality all the unresolved issues get magnified. We like what we like and for as much as something does not go with your moral code denying what one feels or reacts to is repressing part of yourself.

Kinda how I feel about Jason Lanier. As a Sony shooter, I always watched his videos but once he was accused of sexual misconduct it became hard to sit and watch his videos now.

Allegation is not conviction! Stop canceling people because of someone's words! Innocent until proven guilty.

Wow, what an essay - great one Jamie!

These videos Jamie are absolutely phenomenal! Not only is the content in them rich with information and content and all easy to comprehend, but the edit itself just looks so great, you should be soooooo proud, this is so crazy good!

Ah, Jamie, that's a somewhat treacherous subject. Let me ask you: How much art and culture will be left in our civilization if once we finished being politically correct, overly vigilant, have claimed the the moral high ground for ourselves and have thrown out everything, because this person or that person or someone else with a different cultural or religious background or moral code didn't like the artist for whatever (perceived?) transgression he or she may or may not have committed - or simply because the times and views have changed? Based on these standards we'd have to throw out the works and achievements of George Washington, John Locke, Isaac Newton, Thomas Hobbes, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and pretty much everyone else's contributions to our civilization since we came down from the trees. What should we do about Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton or Donald Trump, for that matter? Should we judge and condemn only some but not others? Without noticing it, we wouldn't be much different from - say - the Taliban, the IS fanatics or the Nazis of the Third Reich, to name only a few outstanding recent examples of rather self-righteous cultural vigilantism gone out of control. History has taught us ample times where cultural mob law leads. Should we limit ourselves in future to accept politically correct art from flawless artists acceptable to "everyone and his dog" only? (Mars would become the cultural hub of our solar system in no time!) Cultural achievements and works of art should stand and be judged on their own and not by their creator's character flaws. We have our respective justice systems to deal with those in an unbiased manner, according to the law and under consideration of the circuumstances at any given time and the severity of the transgression. Let them be the judges, and let them hand out the judgement over the person in question. It shouldn't keep us from admiring great works of art and to learn from them. On the subject of supporting this or that artist by admiring and/or buying their work: Keep in mind that you are supporting art and variety in art more than the artist. On the subject of your perception of taintedness of works of art based on their creator's character you should explore its origins. Quite an enlightening journey, I can assure you. It will put things into perspective, as it did for me.

Not a FAN, but J.K.Rowling said nothing transphobic.

It's a really good day essay, really sparks the argument between the creator and the creation

I think the most established response to finding out one of your favourite artists did a bad thing is to feel both disgusted and guilty for having liked it, and then have this whole "Seperating Art from the Artist" arguement and either come to no conclusion or choose one side, but the disgusted and guilty feeling won't go away.

I took a course in aesthetic in university. The professor showed us some paintings and everybody agreed they were pretty good. Then he told us that the author was a monkey. Of course this demolished the value of the work in our opinion. But, after all, what matters is the work. Think about Banksy, Daft Punk, Salinger... Shakespeare, Dante or Homer. We barely know them, and it may be for the best. If consuming Polanski's art while he's alive give him money, I'd like him to use it for defending himself in court.

For a start - has the tog been tried and convicted ? These are allegations - not facts...

The pen blending with the grim reaper was awesome

This is amazing. You're a true inspiration, thank you such much for doing this in such a delicate and thoughtful way.

J.K Rowling isnt saiyng anything bad about trans people, shes standing for biological female, so i dont think she "deserves" to be an example in your video essay

You state "We've all got our own opinions and that's fine." I'm always uneasy when people feel they're in a position to give permission for others to have opinions. You then say "I'm not interested in discussing individual cases..." after trotting out a series of individual cases. You then use a cheap rhetorical trick - condemning by association - JK Rowling. You've grabbed your pitchfork - Look!!! A transphobe!!". You've stated the fact (not your opinion) that JK Rowling is a transphobe but you're not interested in discussing this as it's an "individual case". But of course my opinion that JK Rowling is clearly not a transphobe is just a product of my confirmation bias. Poor show, Jamie, very poor show.

Damn, I’m lost for words. This is a very good social commentary and you know it’s good when both sides of the coin weigh so heavy closely to each other.

It's not just art and artists. History is filled with people (mostly men but some women too) who accomplished great things and benefitted culture, science, politics, etc. but treated others horribly in their personal lives. You've made wonderful points without proposing an answer. Rightly so. We all have to figure that out for themselves.