Grant Morrison on leaving DC

[BohemiaDrinker]

but you're right you should divorce the art from the artist

I wouldn't say I'm right on this one. It's a hot topic and people have their reasons for whatever outlook they take. But it is what I choose to do, yes.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I wouldn't say I'm right on this one. It's a hot topic and people have their reasons for whatever outlook they take. But it is what I choose to do, yes.

I struggle with it. I'm currently reading an ESL adaptation of LA Confidential with one of my classes while watching the movie adaptation with Kevin Spacey and it's reaaaaally tricky to watch his performances now.

With comics, it's a little easier because you aren't literally watching Warren Ellis stand there telling a story, but I have no idea if my eventual re-read of Planetary (which I adore) is going to be influenced by knowing Ellis is a much, much bigger ******* than I originally thought he was.

[BohemiaDrinker]

I struggle with it. I'm currently reading an ESL adaptation of LA Confidential with one of my classes while watching the movie adaptation with Kevin Spacey and it's reaaaaally tricky to watch his performances now.

With comics, it's a little easier because you aren't literally watching Warren Ellis stand there telling a story, but I have no idea if my eventual re-read of Planetary (which I adore) is going to be influenced by knowing Ellis is a much, much bigger ******* than I originally thought he was.

OH, it ruined Transmetropolitan for me, sure. No position we take is 100%, no matter how we try. So when possible I try to take the good and leave the bad.

When it's impossible and it's all bad I complain on internetz. :P

[Bored at 3:00AM]

OH, it ruined Transmetropolitan for me, sure. No position we take is 100%, no matter how we try. So when possible I try to take the good and leave the bad.

When it's impossible and it's all bad I complain on internetz. :P

Yeah, I'm kinda bummed I never got around to reading Transmetropolitan before Ellis's douchebaggery got exposed.

On the bright side, I was never a big fan of EVS, so his current behavior has no impact whatsoever on my opinion of his art.

Millar is a tougher case though. I absolutely enjoyed a lot of his earlier work, but I can't stand his current stuff. I'm not sure if his Superman Adventures stuff will read as well now that I've grown tired of his shtick.

[BohemiaDrinker]

Yeah, I'm kinda bummed I never got around to reading Transmetropolitan before Ellis's douchebaggery got exposed.

It wasa probably on my top 5 fave comics of all time, but there is some stuff there that gains a different meaning after that...

[Aarkus]

but you're right you should divorce the art from the artist

I used to feel this way, but the fact is, when you support their works, you are financially supporting someone you dislike or disagree with. there's a big difference between "so and so is arrogant and mean to fans", vs "so and so is an abuser/nazi/racist/homophobe/whatever"... the former can be chalked up to human nature, maybe they don't handle celebrity well, whatever... but when it's an abuser or such, supporting their work financially enables them to continue their toxic behaviour... I think at that point, one needs to re-assess the idea of separating the art from the person who made it.

[BatmanJones]

I used to feel this way, but the fact is, when you support their works, you are financially supporting someone you dislike or disagree with. there's a big difference between "so and so is arrogant and mean to fans", vs "so and so is an abuser/nazi/racist/homophobe/whatever"... the former can be chalked up to human nature, maybe they don't handle celebrity well, whatever... but when it's an abuser or such, supporting their work financially enables them to continue their toxic behaviour... I think at that point, one needs to re-assess the idea of separating the art from the person who made it.

I had a similar change of heart going back to the earliest Woody Allen accusations. I was a huge fan but found it difficult to watch his movies without being troubled and that was just from the accusations and very unsettling marriage to his stepdaughter. After the recent docuseries I have do doubt of Allen's guilt and I could never enjoy a film of his again because, even if I wanted to divorce the art from the artist, it's all I'd think about.

Louis C.K. had become far-and-away my favorite comedian and his show my very favorite on TV. It was hard to lose him. It was harder to continue consuming his work.

Bill Cosby, Michael Jackson... there are just some things that are too horrible to get out of my head to divorce the work from the person that made it.

There are levels to this for me and I'm not sure where the dividing line lies. I'm not a moralist. I'm so not a moralist that I'm diametrically opposed to the idea that moral ambiguity in a comic book character (from Adam Strange to what we knew of Wally West at the end of HiC) ruins a character or makes it hard for me to appreciate them anymore; indeed it makes me more drawn to them.

Sex crimes, especially involving children or adults that are young enough that they just aren't fully formed yet as people, are hard for me. They're harder for me to divorce from the work. I feel similarly about Roman Polanski.

The Warren Ellis stuff is a little trickier for me. I don't know the story well and that's probably because I've avoided knowing it well and that's on me. I do know though that, like some of the above artists in various media, I wouldn't be able to read his work again without thinking about it literally the entire time.

And I used to be a hardline 'divorce the art from the artist' position because none of us is beyond some terrible character flaw that plays out in some truly terrible way. For me, it's become more a case of can I divorce the two well enough to appreciate something.

And I know that so many older/deader artists have done things as bad or worse than more modern ones and that I'm more able to go ahead and appreciate their work as distinct from the person that made it. Walt Disney is an example. Between his blatant racism and antisemitism, I find him an abhorrent person but I can somehow watch his work and forget that while doing it. I don't like the idea of being canceled because it doesn't leave a sinner/criminal anyplace to go in terms of growth or redemption or rehabilitation vs. punishment, a huge problem I have with the criminal justice system. But some people just have to be canceled, if only personally. And I struggle with believing Walt Disney, for example, should be canceled at least to me while Woody Allen is just off the table for me and forever.

Time shouldn't heal in those ways, especially when there was never an attempt at understanding and taking responsibility for a crime against humanity. Somehow it seems to do so anyway, at least for me, and I don't think it's right to hold a living artist to a different standard than a dead one. Michael Jackson's dead now but, as much as I love his music (and I really love it), when I hear it now all I think of is the children that suffered his repeated rape of them, whose lives have been shattered forever.

So no, I can't divorce the art from the artist anymore. That was a young headed, academic concept on my part.

[LordUltimus]

https://grantmorrison.substack.com/p...nnotations?s=r

[Clark_Kent]

I've never had a problem separating the art from the artist. Maybe I would feel differently if, say, Bill Cosby made a movie about drugging and raping women. I suppose then it would be difficult to not think about the real world similarities. But outside of that, I see no reason to deny myself entertainment of any kind just because the person who made it is a terrible waste of life. I know I'm in the minority there and everyone is different, but I'm just wired differently.

Tom Cruise is my favorite actor, and not once while watching Mission Impossible am I thinking about Scientology. I still adore Mel Gibson's filmography, and yep - even Bill Cosby. The Cosby Show is still funny as hell, my kids and I even watched Ghost Dad recently, and if I enjoy something I see no reason to not continue enjoying it. I think by boycotting things, I'm only hurting myself...the artists have already been paid for their work, so me buying a book or boycotting a book drawn by EVS will not affect his royalties, or his livelihood, in either direction. None of that means I condone shitty people doing shitty things, but illegal or immoral acts are not for me to judge as an outsider. All I can judge is the art, and I enjoy it or not on a case by case basis. But the personal lives of the artist never comes into it, for me.

[Thezmage]

I have no problem enjoying the work of people whose opinions I find problematic, provided the problematic nature doesn't permeate the work, but I don't feel right financially supporting those people

[ducklord]

I've never had a problem separating the art from the artist. Maybe I would feel differently if, say, Bill Cosby made a movie about drugging and raping women.

Well, there was that episode of the Cosby show where Cliff's magic bbq sauce made everybody sleepy and horny (seriously, look it up)... but y'know, other than that, he mostly kept his proclivities out of his work.

And, of course, Woody Allen's demons were kind of front and center in his films for a good chunk of his career, so, yeah - ugh.

[Clark_Kent]

Well, there was that episode of the Cosby show where Cliff's magic bbq sauce made everybody sleepy and horny (seriously, look it up)... but y'know, other than that, he mostly kept his proclivities out of his work.

And, of course, Woody Allen's demons were kind of front and center in his films for a good chunk of his career, so, yeah - ugh.

I suppose in the case of Woody Allen, it helps that I didn't particularly enjoy his films even before his personal life blew up for everyone to see. It's his acting, for me, that I don't care for. I may have enjoyed his work if he had remained behind the camera / typewriter, and not gone in front of it.

[LordUltimus]

https://grantmorrison.substack.com/p...nnotations?s=r

In the original take, Brainiac’s place in the narrative was occupied by a duplicate Superman!

When it was still part of the 5G concept and a little more parodic, I had this big daft idea to update the classic utopian Superman story Superman Red/Superman Blue from 1963 by having an older Superman face a literalization of his contradictory impulses towards anti and pro authoritarianism.

My suggestion was we split Superman not into Superman Red/Superman Blue but Superman Left/Superman Right – collectivism versus competition - authoritarianism vs. libertarianism with each half starting closer to the centre, then growing ever more hardline as time went by and they remained separated. With dire consequences for the world, of course!

A final scene in the original plot for issue #4 had Superman Red unveiling his own team – only for it to turn out to be the ORIGINAL Authority with Damian Wayne and Jon Kent in place of the Midnighter and Apollo!

The echoes of this idea that remain can be seen in the series’ obsession with resolving duality – light and dark, good and evil - and the need to unify opposites to make progress, as well as in the – ‘No – WE’RE the Authority…’ scene at the end of issue #3.

When I outlined this plot to the Superman editorial team and Phillip Kennedy Johnson, I could see Phillip visibly recoil, and I promised to change the ending so as not to commit him to all the implications of a divided man of Steel impinging on a story he’d been meticulously building and setting in motion.

The solicitation copy for the issue however does refer to Superman splitting – so now you know what that was about!

[ducklord]

I suppose in the case of Woody Allen, it helps that I didn't particularly enjoy his films even before his personal life blew up for everyone to see. It's his acting, for me, that I don't care for. I may have enjoyed his work if he had remained behind the camera / typewriter, and not gone in front of it.

I'm part of that cliched group of people used to enjoy his "early, funny work." As he got older and more serious (while his leading ladies kept getting creepily younger), I got less and less out of his films. There we still flashes of insane brilliance (Zelig), or bits of cinematic magic ("I'm Through With Love" in They All Say), but on the whole I drifted away from enjoying Allen. This made it a lot easier to cut him off.

[Ilan Preskovsky]

Not to derail this thread, but even as someone who usually divorces art from artists, I would probably still have a problem with watching Woody Allen films if I thought he was guilty of molesting his child, but I find the in-depth fan-made documentary "By the way, Woody Allen is innocent" far more compelling in proving his innocence than in the Farrow-produced official doc that apparently didn't even contact Woody until the last minute. So yeah, Woody Allen as the icky weirdo who married (and thirty years later, is still married to) his ex-girlfriend's adopted daughter isn't going to stop me enjoying his films... Woody Allen as a predator of young children - and the cases of Sun Yi and Dylan Farrow have less than nothing to do with one another - would be a lot harder to get past. Separating art from artist really does depend on the severity of the crime.