Art and sexual abuse

Yes, we should do ( separate the two) but it isn’t always easy to do.

I don't separate the artist and the abuse.

I'm not sure but I don't think so. We wouldn't necessarily know about the sexual conduct of every painter, photographer, composer, singer, actor, etc. etc. throughout the last two or three hundred years or so.

And if we're going to censor the work of people because of their sexual crimes what about other sorts of crimes, such as wife beating? I believe several painters have a record of violence against their wives/lovers/women in general and exploitation of powerless minorities. And some composers - such as Wagner - have supported murderous regimes.

Whilst individuals may choose not to engage with any art produced by these people, I'm not sure it should be seen as disreputable to do otherwise.

I do, however, think that persons who have been found guilty of serious crimes against a person or a group of people should not be honoured in any way and any honour that has been bestowed upon them should be rescinded.

Eleothan - ref your comment about Wagner - do you mean Hitler & the Third Reich hierarchy as the "murderous regime"? If so, it's a false charge against Wagner - although he was their favourite composer he had been dead for 50 years before they came to power so he can hardly be blamed.
On the general point I think there are different standards being applied to different paedophiles - Gary Glitter is (in my opinion rightly) not given any air-time whereas Pete Townsend seems to have retained his reputation and is on TV as some sort of musical expert.

Eloethan, "I do, however, think that persons who have been found guilty of serious crimes against a person or a group of people should not be honoured in any way and any honour that has been bestowed upon them should be rescinded."

Exactly.

Standards and attitudes change with time, and provided the work itself does not promote, or glory in, the vices or misdemeanours of its creator, should we not simply judge it on its merits? For example, Dickens was hardly a paragon of marital rectitude, and look how attitudes towards Oscar Wilde have changed.

It must be up to each of us to make our own judgements in individual cases. And many of us is worthy to cast the first stone?

DbD I really don't know in any great depth the issues regarding Wagner's alleged anti-semitism. It is a controversial subject in which some claim his recorded comments (eg "suggesting the solution of an Untergang for the Jews, an ambiguous word, literally 'decline' or 'downfall'") showed that Wagner wished the Jewish people to be destroyed. Others claimed Wagner had Jewish friends and was not anti-semitic but wished for Jewish people to be more integrated into mainstream society.

However, having accepted that I don't know either way what Wagner's real feelings or intentions were, if he had been proved unequivocally to be a fanatical anti-semite/racist, etc. etc., should his music not then be listened to? I'm leaning towards feeling that it is an individual choice but I can quite understand why some people would think differently.

From my own point of view, if a living person who I believed had been proved to have damaged or continued to damage the life/lives of a person or a group of people, I would not buy their books or their music or pay to attend any events in which their opinions or art featured. That would have a material effect rather than a spiritual one.

Eleothan - thank you for that further information about Wagner - it shows how complex a subject this is.
If we are to judge people (and there's a huge debate to be had about who is qualified to judge) I think it's important to judge them in their context - i.e. the society in which they lived. For example, attitudes to women & our equality have changed enormously even in my lifetime, so I wouldn't want to criticise someone for attitudes that prevailed in the earlier times in which they lived.