The influence of artists' ideologies or non-musical behaviors

[Todd]

If you look at the wikipedia page

That settles that, I guess.

Gesualdo murdered his wife.  Gesualdo was evil.  Gesualdo was also an excellent composer.  The last point is what interests me most.

[Mandryka]

Gesualdo murdered his wife. 

Maybe

Gesualdo was evil. 

He may have broken the law in his country at the time.

Gesualdo was also an excellent composer.

I like some of his music too.

[Todd]

Maybe

He did.

He may have broken the law.

He committed murder.

However, as your posts demonstrate, along with some others in this thread, people can and do rationalize anything and attempt to explain away nastiness which they may find yucky.  I like Gesualdo's music even with full knowledge that he murdered his wife.

[pjme]

the slippery slope nature of the subject matter this thread.

Exactly.  I fear the worst.

[Spotted Horses]

As a rule, I can separate the artist from the art in cases where the artist is dead and gone (unless the art itself is offensive). If an artist is alive, I do not want to materially support an artist I find morally compromised, especially if it facilitates continuation of abuse (i.e. a conductor can keep his or her job and continue abuse). Occasionally morally compromising behavior has an ick factor which makes it hard for me to appreciate an artists work even though he or she is dead and buried.

[Opus131]

That settles that, I guess.

Gesualdo murdered his wife.  Gesualdo was evil.  Gesualdo was also an excellent composer.  The last point is what interests me most.

Seems to me like you believe then there is no possibility of remorse for a murder. That to commit a murder, reguardless of the circumnstances, indicates the person is irredeemable.

Would that apply to the father in the video i just posted as well?

[Todd]

Seems to me like you believe then there is no possibility of remorse for a murder. That to commit a murder, reguardless of the circumnstances, indicates the person is irredeemable.

Of course people can feel remorse for committing murder.  So what?  Murderers still committed murder.  It is the worst crime of all.  There are pretty much no circumstances where a person who committed murder can be redeemed.  People who commit manslaughter or negligent homicide or similar, lesser crimes that result in another person's death can be redeemed.  Indeed, there are very well-established reasons why crimes that result in the death of another person are differentiated.  In short, malice matters.

[AnotherSpin]

What you can imagine has nothing to do with how criminals think.

I believe all people imagine or think in the same way.

[Mandryka]

(Sorry for the convoluted way this post is expressed. I just know that in this sort of discussion the devil is in the detail, so it's best to try to express ideas as clearly as possible, even if it means you end up talking like a lawyer! In particular. In this case, we have to be careful about distinguishing intention, action, bodily movement, freedom, responsibility, moral evaluation etc.)

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Gesualdo took the life his wife after he discovered her in bed with another man.

1. His state of mind, rage, on discovering her in flagrante delicto may have been near the start of a causal chain of events which ended with him forming the intention to kill his wife and taking the knife and stabbing her. That's got to be a real possibility: psychological states cause other psychological states, and they cause actions and bodily movements.

2. It follows from 1 that he was determined to act as he did. He was not free to act otherwise. His bodily movements and intentions were part of a causal process over which he had no control.

3. Nothing follows from 1 and 2 about whether it is appropriate to hold him responsible and punishable. Even if he could have avoided taking the knife to his wife, we may wish to discourage similar actions - that's presumably the function of saying that he was "evil" or using the law to impose sanctions.   

4. There's nothing specific to Gesualdo's case in all of this. If 1 is true of Gesualdo's killing his wife, it is true of all our bodily movements, intended or not. And similarly 2, if true in this case, shows that freedom is an illusion generally. 3 shows that there is still an important role for moral judgements.

[Opus131]

Of course people can feel remorse for committing murder.  So what?  Murderers still committed murder.  It is the worst crime of all.  There are pretty much no circumstances where a person who committed murder can be redeemed.  People who commit manslaughter or negligent homicide or similar, lesser crimes that result in another person's death can be redeemed.  Indeed, there are very well-established reasons why crimes that result in the death of another person are differentiated.  In short, malice matters.

If murderers are "ireedimable", would you argue all murderers deserve life in prison? Why release a murderer if one believes the capability of committing such an act implies the person is beyond the pale no matter what (thus liable to murder again given the opportunity)?

By this i don't mean to trivialize how serious a murder is, and how the capability to commit such an action, in "passion" or otherwise, doesn't involve a serious darkening in the soul of a person, but i think the point was wether something of Gesualdo's personality, and by extention his "evil" nature, would reflect in his music, where as the accepted belief is that it is his guilt and remorse that shines through, not his murderous personality.

Essentially, the point i'm trying to make is that not everything about Gesualdo was "evil", not if he was capable of feeling remorse, and thus it is not just "evil" that one hears in his music.

Of course, i guess this opens the question of whether an evil person invariably makes evil art. Personally, i think it must to some degree.

[Todd]

I believe all people imagine or think in the same way.

Some people believe in sasquatch.

3. Nothing follows from 1 and 2 about whether it is appropriate to hold him responsible and punishable. Even if he could have avoided taking the knife to his wife, we may wish to discourage similar actions - that's presumably the function of saying that he was "evil" or using the law to impose sanctions.

One of the well-established purposes of criminal law is to attempt to deter future criminal behavior.

There is one rather significant item missing from your analysis.  Gesualdo was a fancy man, rich and influential.  It is unlikely that a peasant would have enjoyed the freedom to continue on with his life in the same manner.

If murderers are "ireedimable", would you argue all murderers deserve life in prison?

Yes, murderers deserve life imprisonment as a matter of course.  There may be special circumstances where they could be released early - for end of life care for terminal illness, for instance. 

Gesualdo's actions were evil.  He was evil.  People can equivocate about that all day long if they wish.

[Jo498]

Thank you, this is quite informative. I wonder if it is possible to trace the common source from which support for Greens agenda and philosemitism stems?

There is no common source. Because of German history support for Israel and Jews everywhere is basically an official doctrine; mainstream conservatives might be anti-green but certainly will support Israel and Jews.
To the contrary the far left is split because they favor the Palestinians as an underdog, so they have to be careful not to fall from anti-current policies of the state of Israel to antisemitism.
There was a minor scandal last year because indonesian? artists had presented a mural with barely hidden antisemitic caricatures at the Documenta art exhibition.
(The charge of antisemitism is abused in a ridiculous manner in Germany: If you are against the banks, WTO, "globalism", George Soros or anything that could be some way construed as similar to old antisemitic clich'ees, some people will try to frame you as an antisemite).

Roughly, Levit did nothing worse than being a self-righteous a..hole and used the threat of the antisemitism card to avoid serious debate, because if you dissent with his stance, you're an antisemite. It's hardly worth mentioning but pissed me off sufficiently that I decided ignore his recordings.

[AnotherSpin]

Some people believe in sasquatch.

People believe in all sorts of imaginary things. Or, there isn't a thing that someone won't believe in. And in that, all people are the same. Serial killers, Nobel Prize winners, or devotees of early polyphony. More importantly, though, people don't choose what to believe.

[AnotherSpin]

There is no common source. Because of German history support for Israel and Jews everywhere is basically an official doctrine; mainstream conservatives might be anti-green but certainly will support Israel and Jews.
To the contrary the far left is split because they favor the Palestinians as an underdog, so they have to be careful not to fall from anti-current policies of the state of Israel to antisemitism.
There was a minor scandal last year because indonesian? artists had presented a mural with barely hidden antisemitic caricatures at the Documenta art exhibition.
(The charge of antisemitism is abused in a ridiculous manner in Germany: If you are against the banks, WTO, "globalism", George Soros or anything that could be some way construed as similar to old antisemitic clich'ees, some people will try to frame you as an antisemite).

Roughly, Levit did nothing worse than being a self-righteous a..hole and used the threat of the antisemitism card to avoid serious debate, because if you dissent with his stance, you're an antisemite. It's hardly worth mentioning but pissed me off sufficiently that I decided ignore his recordings.

Thank you.

[Todd]

More importantly, though, people don't choose what to believe.

Explain religious conversion.

[Todd]

If an artist is alive, I do not want to materially support an artist I find morally compromised

Can you define the word "materially"?  If you purchase a recording by sinful conductor X, would the marginal income s/he receives from your purchase be considered material?  The same could apply to concert ticket purchases or book purchases.  I am unaware of other ways a consumer can transfer money, in material or immaterial amounts, to a classical music performer.

What happens if a very bad person is part of an ensemble?  The Cleveland Quartet and one other quartet that eludes my memory now each have one member accused of despicable behavior.  Is it fair or just to deprive the other three members of any support, material or immaterial, because of the actions of one member, especially if the ensemble is otherwise exceptionally good?  The same line of questioning applies to larger ensembles (eg, orchestras) and companies (eg, record labels).  If it is learned that the CEO of UMG committed a crime, or greenwashed corporate behavior to a more egregious than normal level for multinational corporations, or engaged in other corporate malfeasance you find immoral, would you stop buying UMG recordings? 

People are of course free to consume whatever content they wish, using whatever selective criteria they choose, but basing consumption behavior on morality seems sloppily selective and fickle.  (And that excludes the larger question as to whether consuming recordings in physical formats is itself immoral given potential environmental concerns that arise from consuming luxury products.)

[pjme]

Thank you.

Seriously?

[Mandryka]

Explain religious conversion.

Explain is a big word. At one level, the ordinary way, we'd refer to people's mental states to explain it  -- he wanted to join a community, he felt comfortable with a group, he enjoyed going to mass, he believed that he would feel more fulfilled and a better person if he modelled his life on Jesus's ideas, he thought he had a revelatory experience etc.  These beliefs, desires etc cause his conversion.

In no case were the beliefs and desires chosen. I can't choose to believe that I'll be more fulfilled as a Christian any more than I can choose to believe that I'm in America now.  I can't decide to want to join a community any more than I can decide to want to drink a beer.  I can decide to join, and I can decide to drink the beer -- but now we have to take the question one step back -- what caused that decision?

At another level of explanation, the bodily movements which constitute his religious conversion -- going to mass, uttering prayers etc -- have physical causes -- states of our brain and nervous system presumably. And presumably, in some sense, the beliefs, desires are (in some sense -- identity or constitution --  big and difficult questions there!) states of our brain really -- though that may not be very useful for explanations.

[AnotherSpin]

Seriously?

Seriously what?

[AnotherSpin]

Explain religious conversion.

The reasons may vary, but they come down to the influence of the environment in which the individual finds themselves.