If you’re going to apply the “purity tests” to whether persons’ works will be allowed, then you must get rid of your cellphones, computers, GPS systems, laser scanning bar codes, and anything else that depends on applying Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. Albert Einstein is responsible for both, and several other theories that are the part of the foundation for much modern technologies. And, also, few men are in his league as an SOB to women in his life.

His daughter with Mileva Maric, before they married, was sent to live with her relatives in Serbia. Even after they married, she wasn’t brought back. She disappeared during WW I, during the time when Austrian armies overran much of Serbia. Also, Maric probably did the math for General Relativity, but her work wasn’t acknowledged. He divorced her in 1919 (Serbs weren’t popular in Germany after WW I). His second wife, who was more of a housekeeper, made him promise to have no more than one mistress at a time. He was a brilliant man, but not a nice guy.

At least Pablo Picasso was never *called* an asshole.

And yes, if "cultural appropriation" is beyond the pale, then let the rest of the world abandon all the privilege, security and comfort they derive from the technological advances of stale, pale males.

If only Steve Jobs hadn't resorted to veganism to cure his pancreatic cancer..

Eric Weinstein talks about this topic precisely here.

FZ yoostasay "Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."

I wonder how much of what we hear about famous historical figures these days is actually true -- I think some of it is biographer clickbait. Biography seems to have, over the past half century, swung from one extreme to another, going from sanitizing reputations to printing any unsubstantiated rumor as truth. To name an example, some baseball historians are now challenging the recent (since about 1990) portrayal of Babe Ruth as a stupid, drunken shithead who just happened to hit a lot of home runs. He certainly wasn't the angel that he was made out to be prior to 1970, but the truth is probably somewhere in between. In other words, he was human.

The 21st Century demands that artists, entertainers, and public figures be exemplary in all areas of their life or have their work as well as themselves erased or substantially downgraded in terms of cultural importance.

Well, of course. Those who would want you to believe that they are great artistes can not actually compare to actual giants in the field. So they must be humbled and brought low so as to not overshadow the current crop of self-proclaimed giants.

Orwell would not be happy. 1984 was not supposed to be a how-to guide.

I believe you're correct about Rodin.

Still, if you get the right reproduction, the girls still melt for it. (But, only get The Eternal Idol if you're into being a submissive...)

When I saw their works together, it looked like he idolized women in general and Claudel idolized him.

His second wife, who was more of a housekeeper, made him promise to have no more than one mistress at a time. He was a brilliant man, but not a nice guy.

Wfjag at March 12, 2019 4:30 AM
___________________________________________

And that "promise" didn't do any good as far as the husbands of those women were concerned. (I heard he ruined several marriages of other couples.)

Not to mention he was semi-rotten as a father to his sons as well.

(At least he didn't have children with his second wife, who was his first cousin - but she was already 43 anyway, so they likely figured they were safe from having to deal with any babies with birth defects. In the meantime, Mileva Maric had to raise the sickly 4-year-old Eduard alone - and he became schizophrenic in his teens and attempted suicide at 20.)

As I like to tell pro-natalists, would it really have been so terrible if he - and Gandhi - had quietly gotten themselves "fixed" when young? Not to mention, if you KNOW you couldn't be a better parent than Einstein or Gandhi, how is that not a very good idea to abstain from parenthood?

Whoops - I meant "very good reason."

"Biography seems to have, over the past half century, swung from one extreme to another, going from sanitizing reputations to printing any unsubstantiated rumor as truth."

Well, there's another miniseries or movie about "Jesus™" advertised on the "History Channel", ready to repeat ad infinitum everything popular opinion has as fact, I'm sure.

And that "promise" didn't do any good as far as the husbands of those women were concerned. (I heard he ruined several marriages of other couples.)

All he did was expose an already unfaithful heart.

Cousin Dave wrote:

Biography seems to have, over the past half century, swung from one extreme to another, going from sanitizing reputations to printing any unsubstantiated rumor as truth.

This is absolutely true. Never occurred to me until you wrote it, Cousin Dave.

All he did was expose an already unfaithful heart.
_______________________________________

I admit that Miss Manners once wrote, in effect, that when a spouse cheats, the wronged spouse should be more angry with the cheater than with the third party, since the latter never made any sacred vows to the wronged party.

But somehow, while I'm sure Rosalynn Carter didn't appreciate it when, in 1976, her husband told the public "I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times," she certainly preferred THAT kind of adultery, on his part.

Of course, one could argue that one should never expect a famous and popular husband to be completely faithful. (But for all I know, Carter was - technically.)

nonservator, referencing Jonathan Richman?

Inside the Creepy Underground World of Serial Killer Art, Where Manson Means Money

“At least he didn't have children with his second wife, who was his first cousin - but she was already 43 anyway, so they likely figured they were safe from having to deal with any babies with birth defects.”

Charles Darwin married his first cousin. First cousins, on average only share on average 12.5 percent of the same DNA. Unless you are both descended from a known carrier of a genetic disease, which you can get tested for, marrying a first cousin is not a significant DNA risk, and is quite legal in most of the world, and most of the U.S.

The Amish have a much bigger problem. They have entire inbred communities due to the limited genetic pool, and lack of new blood.

@Isab - It may take a few generations of inbreeding, but after 700 years the Hapsburgs had no chins.

Every single person is a jerk or did not (in 1900) hold progressive views, or was a white male or did something bad--all of us, all of them. Progressives are actually now complaining that symphony orchestras only play dead white males--but that is who created that style. duh

And if they were a saint, that isn't any good either. And I can't think of any saints that were great artists.

Progressives are actually now complaining that symphony orchestras only play dead white males....

There are plenty of non-white composers orchestras can, and often do, play. Would these indignant Progressives even know if it's a non-white composer when they hear the music?

• Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges (1745 – 1799)
• Florence Price (1887 – 1953)
• Scott Joplin (1868 – 1917)
• George Bridgetower (1778 – 1860)
• William Grant Still (1895 – 1978)
• Samuel Coleridge-Taylor (1875 – 1912)
• George Walker (1922 – 2018)
• Francis “Frank” Johnson (1792-1844)
• José Silvestre White (1835-1918)
• Thomas “Blind Tom” Wiggins (1849-1908)
• David Nathaniel Baker Jr. (1931–2016)
• Margaret Allison Bonds (1913-1972)

If you're politically correct, you can do what you want. Abe Lincoln wasn't Jesus, but you can't tell that by popular citation, and in the other direction, nobody knows that George Washington had six horses shot from under him, had bullets tear his clothes, survived TB and halted an attempt by his officers to march on Congress. Cute stories about wooden teeth and cherry trees don't make you think, so we hear those instead.

If someone is a heinous human being I don't want to give them my money. In theory anyhow... in practice it doesn't always work out. So I'll avoid buying works of a living artist who I know is awful.

Once they are dead and no longer would profit from it, I don't GAF.

Good for you, NicoleK.

I avoid sponsoring the wrong people, most of the time, simply by being a tightwad and borrowing as much stuff as I can from the library.

(When Cat Stevens was in town, you can bet I didn't buy a ticket, though I will always love his music and I'm not getting rid of the recordings that I bought pre-1988.)

It's funny how that sort of thing will or won't change one's perception of an artist. I still enjoy listening to The Clash even knowing that Joe Strummer was an out-and-out Communist. On the other hand, I can no longer stomach the sight of Alec Baldwin, and even though I always liked "Match Game" and I'll watch the old reruns with Gene Rayburn any time, I won't watch the current version.

The library is a good solution

But I get so many yummy social points for looking down on Woody Allen's personal life!

I'm not sure that anyone could live up to the current scrutiny being welded by our society today. The too pure are mocked as well.