On 2023-04-09 3:46 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:14:44 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:
>> Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong with
>> the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator?
> Not that I know of. And maybe the whole fad of denigrating
> the work of artists on account of personal peccadilloes will
> fade away before a term is invented.

I think that it isn't remotely plausible to call it a "fad". People
have been critical of works of art because of the artists' behaviour for
a *long* time. I'm not even convinced that it's much more common now
than in the past.

Joel

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Joel Polowin <jpolowin@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On 2023-04-09 3:46 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:14:44 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:
>>> Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong with
>>> the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator?
>> Not that I know of. And maybe the whole fad of denigrating
>> the work of artists on account of personal peccadilloes will
>> fade away before a term is invented.
>
>I think that it isn't remotely plausible to call it a "fad". People
>have been critical of works of art because of the artists' behaviour for
>a *long* time. I'm not even convinced that it's much more common now
>than in the past.

It's all the fault of Constantine. Between him and Savonarola it's a wonder
there's anything left.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 15:10:43 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:

> On 2023-04-09 3:46 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:14:44 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:
>>> Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong with
>>> the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its
>>> creator?
>> Not that I know of. And maybe the whole fad of denigrating the work of
>> artists on account of personal peccadilloes will fade away before a
>> term is invented.
>
> I think that it isn't remotely plausible to call it a "fad". People
> have been critical of works of art because of the artists' behaviour for
> a *long* time. I'm not even convinced that it's much more common now
> than in the past.
>
> Joel

I've been a reader of reviews in newspapers for 50 years --
of literature, art and music, and I'll say again that it's a
fad. Or you could call it "critical reassessment" or you could
call it self-flagellation by the chattering classes. Whatever.
But it's most certainly a thing in the past decade.
Here's an example just yesterday in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/04/03/pablo-
picasso-death-anniversary/

The game to play with a review like this is to know that the
headline signals that there's an Easter egg of sorts to be found.
Then you try to guess how many paragraphs into it you'll find
it.