upworthy

art

Culture

Wil Wheaton gave a perfect explanation of how to separate problematic artists from their art

A truly thoughtful response.

Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

Wil Wheaton speaking to an audience at 2019 Wondercon.

When you find out an actor whose work you enjoy is blatantly racist and antisemitic in real life, does that realization ruin every movie they've been a part of?

What about an author who has expressed harmful opinions about a marginalized group? What about a smart, witty comedian who turns out to be a serial sexual assaulter? Where do you draw the line between a creator and their creation? As someone with his feet in both worlds, actor Wil Wheaton weighed in on that question and offered a refreshingly reasonable perspective back in 2021.

"Question: I have more of an opinion question for you. When fans of things hear about misconduct happening on sets/behind-the-scenes are they allowed to still enjoy the thing? Or should it be boycotted completely? Example: I've been a major fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer since I was a teenager and it was currently airing. I really nerded out on it and when I lost my Dad at age 16. 'The Body' episode had me in such cathartic tears. Now we know about Joss Whedon. I haven't rewatched a single episode since his behavior came to light. As a fan, do I respectfully have to just box that away? Is it disrespectful of the actors that went through it to knowingly keep watching?"

And Wheaton offered this response, which he shared:

 

"Answer: I have been precisely where you are, right now. In fact, we were just talking about this a few days ago, as it relates to a guy who wrote a ton of music that was PROFOUND to me when I was a teenager. He wrote about being lonely and feeling unloved, and all the things I was feeling as a teenager.

He grew up to be a reprehensible bigot, and for years I couldn't listen to one of the most important bands in my life anymore.

But this week, someone pointed out that he was one member of a group that all worked together to make that thing that was so important to me. And the person he was when he wrote those lyrics is not the person he is today. And the person I was when I heard those lyrics doesn't deserve to be shoved into a box and put away, because that guy is a shit.

This is a long way of saying that Joss sure turned out to be garbage. Because of who my friends are, I know stuff that isn't in the public, and it's pretty horrible. He's just not a good person, and apparently never was a good person.

BUT! Buffy is more than him. It's all the actors and crew who made it. It's all the writers who aren't Joss. Joss is part of it, sure, and some of the episodes he wrote are terrific.

At least one of the episodes he wrote was deeply meaningful to you at a moment in your life when you'd experienced a loss I can only imagine. The person you are now, and the 16 year-old you were who just lost their dad, are more important than the piece of shit Joss Whedon revealed himself to be.

His bad behavior is on him. He has to live with it, and the consequences of it.

 Wil Wheaten, celebrity, wisdom, advice, knowledge Wil Wheaton | Wil Wheaton speaking at the 2012 Phoenix Comic… | Flickr www.flickr.com  

 

16-year-old you, who just lost their dad, shouldn't have to think about what a shit Joss Whedon is for even a second. That kid, and you, deserve to have that place to revisit when you need to go there.

I can't speak for the other actors, even the ones I know. But I will tell you, as an abuse survivor myself who never wanted to be in front of the camera when he was a kid: it's really okay for you to enjoy the work. The work is good and meaningful, and if nobody is going to watch it because of what one piece of shit did two decades ago, what was it all for?

I'm not the pope of chilitown, so take this for what it's worth: I believe that when some piece of art is deeply meaningful to a person, for whatever reason, that art doesn't belong to the person who created it, if it ever did. It belongs to the person who found something meaningful in the art.

If it feels right to you to put it away and never look at it again, that's totally valid. But if it brings you comfort, or joy, or healing, or just warm familiarity to bring it out and spend some time with it, that's totally valid, too.

I've written a lot of words. I hope some of them make sense and are helpful to you."

 Wil Wheaton, Star Trek, celebrity, wisdom, thoughts Wil Wheaton in Star Trek upload.wikimedia.org  

As with practically everything in this world, the question of whether art can or should be separated from the artist is complex. It involves philosophical questions about the nature of art—where it comes from and who it belongs to—as well as questions about how imperfect a person has to be for us to reject everything they create.

In 2023, The Atlantic published a poignant opinion piece by contributing writer Judith Shulevitz, in which she suggests that art does indeed transcend the (problematic) artist. Wheaton's response and overall take on the matter feels right, especially when we're regarding art that is collaboratively created.

This article originally appeared four years ago. It has been updated.

From Your Site Articles
cancel culture
Fatherhood

A dad posted his 5-year-old's paintings online and couldn't believe the huge response

Kudos to this dad for helping to unlock his son's impressive talent.

Unsplash & bruncvik/reddit

Joseph, a dad from Dublin, Ireland says he started drawing and painting in the evenings about a year ago to help him unwind from work. It's a great idea, because adult coloring has been shown to have a ton of positive mental health effects. Plus, it's fun! But one unintended and adorable side effect of Joseph's coloring was that his young son, Philip, decided he wanted to emulate him.

Philip had always loved coloring but, Joseph says, "I had to get him some pastels, and he started trying on the same drawings as I did," Joseph says. "I found it absolutely adorable when he was seriously repeating the same movements as me: cleaning the tips of the pastels, blend the edges of colors, etc."

One thing quickly became apparent: Philip was much, much better than his old man.

"About a month ago, he made a painting that was so good I had to share it on Reddit. Within two days, it generated over 100,000 views and 3000 likes."

The overwhelming response? "Uh, 5-year-olds can't do that."

bruncvik/reddit

The first piece Philip shared is wildly impressive. Some commenters couldn't believe that a 5-year-old could have made it, but I think you can see it pretty clearly. It has just enough childlike crudeness, but the stylistic flair is just off the charts, from the whispy sky to the slightly foreboding trees. Redditors agreed that it was incredible.

"Thats better than I can do now at 25," one Reddit user wrote.

Others questioned whether the boy might be related to Bob Ross.

"I told [Philip] about it, and I guess that was his first big dopamine hit," Joseph says of going viral. "Since then, he is asking to draw more often, and there's often an intrinsic reward for him. One painting got submitted to a charity auction at his school ... I don't pressure him to draw; he's coming to me to ask whether he can use my pastels"

One critical part of the story is that Philip often follows along with YouTube videos that his dad finds for him. Lest you think this should diminish how impressive the painting is, quite the contrary. As someone with an almost-5-year-old of my own, I've seen the kind of stuff kids this age are capable of drawing — and it's not this! No matter how much instruction they have.

The structured YouTube videos were able to unlock Philip's natural talent and guide him in a way that his dad never could.

Here's the finished painting he was following along with. Honestly? I like Philip's better! It has a lot more personality.

She'z ART/YouTube

The response to Philip's first painting was so positive that his dad decided to post another piece.

You gotta give the people what they want!

I love this one, too. The youngster's talent is on display again, with an excellent color palette and aggressive strokes giving it life. Remember — the kid is five years old! Five! Usually they can barely muster a convincing stick figure.

bruncvik/reddit

And again, here's the model painting from YouTube. Joseph said his own versions of these paint-alongs come out looking a lot like the example, but that his son has an incredible way of making them his own.

She'z ART/YouTube

Philip's dad gives a lot of thought to the right way to nurture his son's talent without pushing too hard and snuffing it out.

"He attended an afterschool art club, where they experimented with different media, but he found it too restrictive. He is still bringing home new art at least twice per week, but it's something he does on his own," dad says, not sure if pushing his son into formal art instruction is the right thing to do.

Experts say that pushing too hard when your kid shows a flair for something, especially regarding longterm goals (like going to art school or becoming a professional artist one day), can backfire big time and make them feel overwhelmed and resentful.

Joseph finds other ways to encourage his son's interest.

"One thing I do with him, though, is to talk about painting when we are out and about. Last weekend, we went to watch the sunset, and I asked him what colors he'd use for the clouds. ... Philip is just as obsessed with different shades (his current favorite word is 'vermilion' and his favorite color is 'turquoise'), and how they mix."

Being the parent of a talented or gifted kid is no easy job. There are a lot of pitfalls and plenty of ways to bungle your attempts to nurture that talent. As impressive as Philip's artwork is, especially for his age, the thoughtful parenting on display in this story is just as awesome.

This article originally appeared in January.

From Your Site Articles
art
Art

In 125 years, millions of people have looked at this painting. No one really saw it until recently.

Van Gogh saw something it took scientists another 100 years to see.

Image from Wikimedia Commons.

Van Gogh's Starry Night, 1889.

Vincent van Gogh never got to enjoy his own historic success as an artist (even though we've been able to imagine what that moment might have looked like). Van Gogh died in 1890 at the age of 37 in Auvers-sur-Oise, France after shooting himself in the chest with a revolver. It was a tragic end to a turbulent life marked by mental instability and severe self-doubt.

According to the Van Gogh Museum, in a letter to his brother Theo in 1890, just a couple of weeks before his death, Van Gogh wrote, "...my life, is attacked at the very root, my step also is faltering." The man was struggling and exhausted. The high standards he had set for himself and his art were taking a toll. He was unsure about his future and, up to this point, had not received much recognition for his work and thought himself a failure "as a man and as an artist."

His most well-known work, Starry Night, was famously painted while Van Gogh was staying in an asylum in France 1889 after he mutilated his ear during a psychotic episode. According to the Van Gogh Museum, though, this may not be the full story. While it is widely agreed that Van Gogh did in fact cut off his own ear, the museum notes that it was because of a fight between Van Gogh and Paul Gaugin, the artist he had been working for in Aries, that led to the violent explosion that highlighted his deteriorating mental state.

Vincent Van Gogh, artist, 19th century, famous artist, Starry NightVincent Van Gogh's Self-Portrait, 1889Image via Canva.

As one of the best known and most studied artists of the 19th century, Van Gogh's madness and how it influenced his work is not new information. But it turns out that those of us who have appreciated his work have been missing out on some critical details for more than 100 years—revealed in the 2010s thanks to the Hubble Space Telescope.

A video at the bottom of the page will explain everything, but before we get there, let's do some backstory:

We known Van Gogh was an artist—and a genius artist at that—but, it turns out, he was also scientist. Kind of.

Whether intentionally or not, fresh eyes have found that Van Gogh's art—aside from being breathtaking—also captures one of science and nature's most elusive concepts: Turbulence.

The concept of turbulence is hard to understand with math, but it turns out art makes it fairly easy to comprehend through depiction. So, what is turbulence?

According to Britannica, turbulence, or turbulent flow, is a concept of fluid dynamics in which a type of fluid flow (liquid or gas like air or water or air) undergoes an irregular fluctuation or energy cascade. In other words, the air or water swirls and eddies as it moves: big eddies make smaller eddies, and those make even smaller ones, and so on. Common examples of turbulent flow include blood flow in arteries, lava flow, atmosphere and ocean currents, and the flow in boat wakes or surrounding the tips of aircraft wings.

It looks like this:

figures, flow, turbulence, turbulent flow, science, movementTurbulent flow illustrated and animated.All Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

The thing is, scientists only started figuring this out pretty recently.

turbulence, turbulent flow, science, nature, researchAnimation of art referencing science.All Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

And yet, there was Mr. Vincent van Gogh, 100 years earlier in his asylum with a mutilated ear and able to accurately capture this turbulent flow in what would become his most famous work, Starry Night.

Starry Night, Van Gogh, turbulence, art, art captures scienceAnimated Starry NightAll Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

The folks who noticed Van Gogh's ability to capture turbulence checked to see whether other artists did the same. Most of the Impressionists achieved "luminance" with their art—a striking and lifelike depiction of light's effect on color. While impressive, they did not capture or depict turbulence the way Van Gogh did.

The Scream, Edvard Munch, art, popular art, history, painting An animated depiction of The Scream.All Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

Not even Edvard Munch's The Scream, with it's swirling color and movement, could recreate what Van Gogh had accomplished.

Even in his darkest time, Van Gogh was able to capture—with eerie accuracy—one of nature's most complex and confusing concepts 100 years before scientists had the technology to do so.

Who would have thought that the beauty Van Gogh captured was foreshadowing what scientists would observe in the real, natural world in a century's time? To learn even more, watch the TED-Ed video below:

- YouTubeyoutu.be

This article originally appeared twelve years ago. It has been updated.

From Your Site Articles
art
Pop Culture

A composer died in 2021, but a lab-grown version of his brain is still making new 'music'

Are the haunting tones proof of consciousness after death, or just a beautiful sentiment?

Guy Ben-Ary/YouTube & By Non Event - Alvin Lucier, CC BY-SA 2.0

Alvin Lucier''s "brain" is still composing music 3 years after his death.

I love the gag from Futurama where, when people die, their heads and brains are kept alive in a jar, allowed to carry on forever. Their body may have failed, but in a sense they can live on and on and on (as long as someone's there to lug them around). It's a fascinating idea, and one that's definitely being explored in various ways here in the real world.

For example, did you know that you can upload photos, videos, and audio clips of a deceased loved one and create an incredibly lifelike AI version of them? This may or may not be considered a good thing depending on how you view it, and though it's not true consciousness per se, it can be a frighteningly accurate blurring of the lines. Furthermore, some scientists insist that consciousness does not exist solely in the brain, and that one day we may be able to harness it when the living organs of the body have died. Heavy stuff!


futurama, brain, consciousness, immortality, longevity, scienceMaybe one day our heads will be able to live on in a jar!Giphy

A composer who passed away several years ago was also fascinated by the idea of his consciousness and art living on without him. So he devised a bizarre experiment.

The musician, composer Alvin Lucier, was not content to only make music for the duration of his natural lifetime. So he recruited a team from Harvard Medical School to harvest his stem cells after he passed away

From there, the stem cells were used to grow something resembling a clump of human brain matter. It's not a fully functioning brain, not even close, but it is living tissue derived from the DNA of the late musician. The experiment, then, was to determine just how much of Lucier really existed in this sample.

alvin lucier, composer, musician, music, orchestra, science, brain, immortality, deathAlvin Lucier passed away in 2021 at the age of 90By Non Event - Alvin Lucier, CC BY-SA 2.0

"The central question we want people to ask is: could there be a filament of memory that persists through this biological transformation? Can Lucier's creative essence persist beyond his death?" the team said, per the Art Newspaper.

Neuroscientists and artists teamed up to create an installation — part art, part science — called "Revivification." They connected the "in-vitro brain" to electrodes that would then transmit the electrical impulses generation by the brain matter to twenty humongous brass plates hung around, thus creating music. Or, at least, tones.

You can see the art installation and the behind the scenes in this video. If you want to hear the haunting tones that seem to originate from beyond the grave, you can get a listen at about 3:53.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Not only does the "organoid" generate signals that become sound through the brass panels, it also responds to the environment around it. Sound from the art gallery is captured by a microphone and fed back to the little mini-brain, which affects its electrode activity.

That makes the sounds generated inside the experiment totally unique and dynamic. If Lucier really "composing" this music, in a sense? Not really, but the bizarre sounds are being generated, in part, by his genetic material. That makes Revivification an absolutely fascinating blend of art, science, and maybe even a little spiritualism.

Revivification is probably not proof of consciousness after death, and it doesn't claim to be. But it asks interesting questions about the nature of memory, and where our creativity or spirit or soul or whatever you want to call it is really stored.

Perhaps the most touching aspect of the story is Lucier's unwillingness to ever stop creating new art, even after his death at the age of 90. You'd think that would be enough years to fully satisfy his need for self-expression! But not so.

When Lucien's daughter was told about the project, she laughed and said, "This is so my dad. Just before he died he arranged for himself to play for ever. He just can't go. He needs to keep playing."

From Your Site Articles
death
Trending Stories