Dedicated to HiProGlo:

Here is a moral dilemma on art vs. ethics. Let's assume for a minute that a masterpiece of artwork has been discovered. Curators and historians and art critics agree that it is a masterpiece of beauty... One problem the painting is by Adolf Hitler?  What should be done with the painting?  Do we seperate the man or monster from the art?  Should it be displayed? Obviously we don't have to worry about Hitler profiting from it since he is dead, but what does that say about our society either way on how you answer the question...

that people are entitled to their opinions, pro or con. I'm sure you could find any number of people who would support this masterpiece of artwork as greatness embodied, and any number that would take a contrary point.

It's a different case.  When did he create this magnificent piece of art? Was it before or after he went stark raving nuts and began a campaign of genocide? Don't forget that items belonging to him have already been sold at auction for a very high price prior to this. Question asked and answered.

As I mentioned down the thread before this one, I just read the transcripts of the Grand Jury Testimony today. I honestly had no idea what was involved with it. Statutory rape is a pretty broad subject, and I honestly didn't know the details of what this guy did to a 13 year old before today. It creeps me out in the extreme.

Polanski gave the girl Champagne, Quaaludes, and then after she was good and out of it, and being told "NO" and "stop" he continued anyway. Bear in mind he was 43 when he did this, and from what I read, it seemed that it could have been planned out.

He violated her anally and vaginally, and came inside her. This was after she told him she was sick and needed to take medication, repeatedly. He was interrupted during the act, by another person in the house, and then returned to do it again to this little girl.

He copped a plea, and then fled to avoid being sentenced. He's still a fugitive. That's what I know about it. I'm sure there's more since there were only 39 pages worth of deposition posted.

In my book he's a sick f!ck who should be dragged back to the USA kicking and screaming, and made to answer for his crimes. At least here in the US, once you're in jail, there are provisions to keep a convicted felon from making a profit from their notariety while serving time.

As far as I'm concerned should the painting be displayed, yes, other baubles of Hitler's have been sold and displayed.  Should Hitler be hailed as a great artist of all time, no and Hell NO!

No.. I am in an irritable mood and lashed out at you for whatever the fuck the reason.  I did not like your responses to people answering your thread. Whatever.. It did get me thinking that if you raised the issue of the creator to one of crimes against humanity it makes it a bit more difficult to answer...

Should the painting be hung in Art gallaries for the viewing public to see?  If it is a masterpiece would we not be denying the public the right to see it?  Should it be seen? Regardless of when it was painted. The Artist represents genocide. WOuld it not be an offense to our moral center to sanction elevating Hitler to Artist status?  Fortunately we are not faced with this issue but an interesting one to ponder.  As you raised in your thread either directly or indirectly, can we really seperate the art from the artist?  Should we...

Long ago, I was in college, and saw Polanski's first famous movie, Knife in the Water.  That movie, catapulted him into fame and fortune in Hollywood.  It was indeed a great and unforgettable one.

After reading what he did to this little girl, I have concluded he is an animal, and subhuman.  I cannot be a fair judge of his work, and don't care.  Who could be tolerant of rape and sodomizing a little girl?  How could this not to bias any decent human being?  Thanks God, we don't live in the world of supreme rationality, the world of Spinoza.  

If he wins the Academy Awards, it depicts the ethical corruption of Hollywood.  My penny is on Hollywood is better than that, and he will not win.  

Can you please cite your source because the victim has certainly recovered and what you describe sounds worse than what I heard.

I never heard any of these details and yes it upsets me if these are true then why would the victim say that the media did more damage to her than anything Polanksi did.  I would really need to see this and also talk to the victim to see if her mother embellished any of it.  And who is the 3rd person who interrupted him?   Why weren't they held accountable if they knew what was going on?   I sincerely would like to see the transcript.  What you describe sounds very brutal and doesnt' match up the words from the victim's mouth about this...

Have you read some of the crap that come's out of the mouth's of "Hollywood" people?  I wouldn't bet a penny on anything Hollywood is involved with. There are stand up people like Martin Sheen, who has a long history on various issues that are obviously well thought out.  He's a man of conviction and although I seldom agree with him, I respect his opinion.  Others, like Jane Fonda (yeah, I remember when she was in Hanoi, and giving aid to the NVA), Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn, spout out things like "if George W Bush is elected president, I'll leave the country".  Oh, they really mean what they say - they're still here, aren't they?  They have opinions, but no conviction.  I'm ranting.  Polanski is not deserving of life, let alone anyone's praise for his work.  The people who work for him need to take stock of their morality.

Jim

Polanski, Adolph Hitler, or Charles Manson...to me the issue is whether any individual should receive accolades or profit (or his heirs if deceased) when he has commited heinous crimes.  I'm old-school enough..or close-minded, take your choice..that I my answer is "no."  

All too often it's the notoriety of those crimes that brings the subsequent attention in the first place.  So I wouldn't buy a book written by Charles Mason, Richard Ramirez, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc..or a sculpture by Josef Satlin, Mao Tse-Tung..or a painting by Der Fuehrer.

brutal and extremely disturbing.  The media and the now adult victim (after receiving a financial settlement on her civil suit years ago and wanting to put the story behind her) really whitewash the facts all these years.  Please read it yourself: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.shtml .

As far as blaming the mom, according to the victim in Larry King Live, her mom thought that a friend of her would accompany her in the photo shot.  After leaving her mom's house, Polanski pressured her friend to leave the car so that he wouldn't be distracted by another person in the photo shot.

It was only because the victim's sibling or mom overheard her conversation to her friend after the incident that broke the story.  Otherwise, Polanski would get away with it.

The irony is that Polanski was in a sense a victim of both Hitler and Manson. Polanski was a child in Poland at the time of the German occupation and I strongly suspect that he witnessed many of the horrors shown in "The Pianist". Much later his wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by the Manson family.

Although I don't approve of what Polanski did I don't think that as a symbol of evil that he ranks alongside Hitler or even Manson.

I also think that "The Pianist" is an extremely well made and powerful film that is likely to be regarded as a masterpiece some day. Assuming that the film is the best-directed film of the year -- a question that I am not competent to address -- should Polanski be denied an Oscar because we don't like what he did many years ago? An interesting question indeed.

Should Time magazine have made Hitler "Man of the Year"? They did, you know. Their criterion was "the person who has most affected the course of events during the year for either good or evil." Hitler clearly qualified, but the uproar was enormous from what I have read.

Should Gary Powers have gotten his pay for the time he spent in a Russian prison? (For those of you too young to remember a link is http://www.geocities.com/siafdu/powers.html ). He certainly embarrassed the United States by not blowing up the plane like he was supposed to do. Many of the people I worked with (I was at Douglas Aircraft at the time) thought he should have been shot as a traitor. I argued that was irrelevant to whether or not he had his back pay coming.

Incidentally, although the information is not included in the link, the CIA had told the pilots that the switch to blow up the plane had a time delay built in so they would have time to bail out. I don't know if that is true or not. I do know that none of the pilots believed the CIA. They all believed that if they blew up the plane that they would be blown up along with it.

I also remember that the Nazis made a great fuss about "decadent art" and took down paintings by artists that they did not approve of (as well as burning books by authors they did not approve of). Hitler's contemptuous dismissal of nuclear physics as "Jewish physics" may, of course, be one of the most disastrous mistakes in history (although Bush's equally contemptuous dismissal of the evidence that human activities are an important factor in global warming may also turn out to have serious consequences).

I think we get on very thin ice indeed when we start making judgments about films, books, and scientific theories (and the awards for films and books) based on our opinion of the moral character of the author or authors.


-- Modified on 3/13/2003 12:29:27 AM

I think you misundertood my intentions. Absolutely no comparison.
Where I was getting at is the debate essentially comes down to can we appreciate the art and admire it, and recognize it, when the artist may have committed crimes. There is much disagreement on Polanski.

I just thought that the question might be more interesting if we took a hypothetical case, You chose.. I chose Hitler, it could be Stalin or how about everybody's favorite Suddam Husein. If one of these mass murderers was revealed to have painted a masterpiece or work of art, should it be displayed in our gallaries? Or because of their association as mass murderers and butchers, we should not? That is the question I was raising...

Greywolf,
The scenario I was trying to set up was one where there would be no material reward but one of aesthetic recognition..

Do we allow art for art sake to be recognized and shown if the artist was a monster? That was the issue I was raising for discussion. Would you want a painting or a sculpture by Hitler or Stalin or Gangesis Kahn being displayed in an Art gallary? Even if it was recognized as one of the most beautiful pieces of art and a masterpiece?

Is it even possible, realistically, to remove entirely any material benefit?  And were it possible, is there any chance that in the future the glorification of the work of art would lessen the rememberance of the individual's other "accomplishments?"  Considering the rather short memory of so many, I can see how that might easily happen.  I'd be willing to wager that many movie fans in the general public today don't know the darker side of Polanski, just as I doubt all those who in the past bought Jane Fonda's workout videos were aware of her activities Viet Nam which went far beyond a protest against that war.

So my own answer would still be that I wouldn't buy that work of art or be in favor of its display...not just because I wouldn't want even the slightest possibility of others not remembering what else the artist had done, but because in my mind I wouldn't be able to separate the event from the individual.