Comments on: Polanski as Byronic hero

By: DeWayne

DeWayne — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:29:45 +0000

Neo:

For unabashed substance abuse and bad-boy flair coupled with a scary brilliance, it was hard to beat Hunter S. Thompson.

I think, for creative types, the drugs are another way of breaking down the thought boundaries, and letting the jesters play freely in the mind. Like I said, the anarchy of thought, only on steroids.

By: JohnC

JohnC — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:54:42 +0000

Thanks Neo . Yes, I saw that movie some 5 or so years ago. By the way, there is another one, a black and white documentary, that stars Pollock himself. He demonstrates his method of drip painting in it. It’s interesting. I can’t remember the title, but it’s probably available at one of the fine arts museums in your area, if you are interested. He doesn’t do any peeing or drinking in it though, at least not in that one.

Also, I didn’t mean for my comment above to be a generalization across all artists.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:35:59 +0000

DeWayne: liberal use of substances is part of it. They lower inhibitions. Pollock was a raging alcoholic, and Polanski used drugs and alcohol in the rape, both for himself and for the girl. My guess is that he was a regular user.

Again, no excuse. Just an observation.

By: DeWayne

DeWayne — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:28:15 +0000

Antisocial and anti-personal.

Rape a child, pee in a fireplace or cut off an ear, they all point to a fuzziness about the rules, or a raging narcissism that excuses them (they presume) from the norms of society.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:18:07 +0000

John C: I agree that there is something about many artists, a connection between their creativity and a heightened potential (in some) for antisocial behavior. But I also agree that all adults are responsible for what they do, and there should not be different rules for artists than for others. Period. I am reminded of a film I saw recently, "Pollock," about the painter Jackson Pollack, another destructive, alcoholic, acting-out artist. There was a scene were he's a a party hobnobbing with rich art patrons in a swank apartment when, in full view of the assembly, he unzips his fly and pees in the lovely fireplace on the fire. He got away with it, too (at least, according to the film). That says a lot.

By: JohnC

JohnC — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:04:58 +0000

think it does = think they do and I know there are some other mistakes. 🙁

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:02:07 +0000

The list of Byronesque attributes reads like the defintion of psychopathy from the DSM-whatever.

By: JohnC

JohnC — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:43:16 +0000

Thirty years ago I was an artist in college, a painter. My work is probably best described as somewhere on a between Matisse and Picasso, but with strong influences from the school of abstract expressionism. I am not going to get into detail about my life then. I will say though that I know what living an ‘artist’s life’ means: the intense self examination and reflection, the projection of the personal narrative in the work, the hard work, and, yes, the manipulations in ‘love’ affairs. (Why are so many young women attracted to artists?) I lived it. I don’t want to ever go back to it.

Huxley’s dilemma is well taken. Call my response to it a projection, I don’t care. The fact is I loved Salinger and D H Lawrence and many others in my time, but I can’t read them now knowing the cruelty in interpersonal relations, the intense narcissism, and the lack of a moral compass that is / was pronounced in their lives — all in the name of artistic license and privilege; those things I assumed at one time. I have zero use for them as people.I cannot separate the person from the work most of the time. And why should I? My point is that Polansky abused and raped a young woman and no ‘artistic’ grounds whatsoever exists for giving him a pass. In fact, let it be a ‘teachable moment’ for those artists who might think it does, including Salinger.

By: Artfldgr

Artfldgr — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:30:18 +0000

WHOOPI GOLDBERG CLARIFIES POLANSKI COMMENTS

http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/01/2084644.aspx

Goldberg had said, “It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.”

Whoopi wanted to clarify the comment and make it clear that she was talking about the legal charge against Polanski at the time.

By: nyomythus

nyomythus — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:50:35 +0000

only existing film of anne frank found.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hvtXuO5GzU&feature=player_embedded