Quote:
Originally Posted by combustiblefuel
I don't think you seperate the artist from the art. The whole thing with art is it's a peice of them that they are displaying out to the world . Everything that makes them them they put that into their art. That's the whole bs that artist say any ways . " That's me on the canvas, that's me giving it my all on the mic". Artists have always promoted that that's "them in full" in their media form. Artists have always promoted themselves that the art isn't seperate from themselves. Its them raw on a page,canvas, filling what have you. So why should people seperate them from their art when the for decades have said the art is them and vice versa?
The answer is because now they have been caught they don't want the money to stop and as fans It's an easy excuse to still enjoy their work with a caveat that doesn't make you feel guilty.
|
None of this really matters. How you view the artist in relation to the art is subjective. As I said, if you can't separate them, I don't blame you for that, nor do I think that's necessarily wrong, but I also think not doing so because the artist makes claims that it's a "piece of them" or whatever is pretty lazy. Sure, it's a piece of them, they created it, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of how you have to view it. Separating the art from the artist is not about removing the artist entirely, it's about viewing the art as it's own thing. They created it, of course they are in it. But art stands on its own. Fantastic, brilliant, kind and loving saints of people can create terrible art, and the exact opposite is true. Jimmy Page, the person, will never be bigger than Led Zeppelin IV. Its value to society as art transcends Page's value to society as a person.
Your answer is pretty mindless, anyway. I doubt very much Bowie, who is dead, cares about the money. And I don't have to make any excuse to throw on and deeply enjoy every minute of Ziggy Stardust without feeling guilty about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
actually Bowie is accused by two women, one who said she slept with him when she was 13 and he was 15 in 1964, while not legally kosher in the UK in '64 it was hardly unusual and these days wouldnt be considered sexual abuse at all, the second accusation is by a woman who claims to have slept with Bowie, Jagger and Jimmy Page as a 16 year old groupie in LA in the mid seventies, her story is riddled with holes but she was well known on the scene in those days and on the whole I tend to believe her, she doesnt accuse him or any of the others of using force or in anyway abusing her and describes the interactions as being concentual and if anything initiated by her
|
For anyone curious (I was, so I read up on it), this is a much better description of what happened than combustible seemed to want to give credit for.
AFC and combustible are both off by a year (she was 15 at the time), but according to Mattix, she ran with some groupies that were basically with everyone of the time. She claims to have slept with a lot of them, but didn't view it as wrong or unusual, citing it as "of the time" herself.
There are definitely holes in her story where the timeline makes it somewhat unbelievable though. There's evidence of her with Jimmy Page, so there's little to question there, but there's no evidence of her ever having been with or even around Bowie and Jagger. She also says Bowie took her virginity, but when you match up her story back to the dates of the things she references, she would have met and been with Jimmy Page before Bowie (placing Bowie in the middle of her relationship with Page), and her run-in with Jagger happened in reference to a recording session that never occurred. So, it's sort of a "grain of salt" story, and questioning isn't really blaming the victim, since 40+ years later she did not think of herself as a victim then in any way.
She's a groupie that had some wild stories. Because some of them are true, all of them become believable, but all of them being believable doesn't necessarily make all of them true. And if they were, let's side with the "victim" in how we view them.