LBRT: This House Would Not Consume Art Created by People Who Have Committed Deeply Immoral Acts

LBRT: This house would not consume art created by people who have committed deeply immoral acts.

Content:

1. Key Articles 2. Additional Resources

ARTICLE 1 WHEN SHOULD WE SEPARATE THE ART FROM THE ARTISTS? February 6, 2014

Considering how long and how often it has happened, Western culture should find it easy to separate art from artist to judge a particular work of art apart from the behavior, even reprehensible behavior, of its creator.

The ongoing tragedy of filmmaker Woody Allen and his family suggests maybe it's not so easy anymore, especially not when everyone and their wacky brother can weigh in on social media. That in turn could affect how Allen's peers judge his latest Oscar-nominated film, Blue Jasmine, and its Oscar-nominated stars.

"Oscar voters DO punish people," says Tom O'Neil, editor of GoldDerby.com, which tracks film awards.

Then again, sometimes they don't. Paging director Roman Polanski, Oscar winner, admitted statutory rapist.

"Chances are good that if we delved into the private lives of every single artist whose work we admire, surely we'd find plenty not to like, and even to be disgusted by," says Peggy Drexler, a psychology professor at the Cornell University medical school, in a posting on Time's website. "It's possible we'd never see a movie, look at a work of art or read a book again."

History is replete with tales of artists behaving badly. Composer Richard Wagner was an anti-Semite. Novelist Charles Dickens trashed his wife and secretly shacked up with a teen actress. Painter Michelangelo Caravaggio was a murderer. Movie star/filmmaker Charlie Chaplin was investigated by the FBI and banned from the USA in the 1950s, as much for eloping with an 18-year-old as for his leftist political views.

And yet, Wagner's operas are still heard (even in Israel). Great Expectations is still read in high schools across the land. Most art museums would kill to get a Caravaggio. And Chaplin's movies are still considered comic masterpieces worthy of his honorary Oscar in 1972.

This age-old debate, mostly unresolved, has come round again in the wake of the latest poisonous developments in the case of Allen and his daughter Dylan Farrow. Backed by her mother, actress Mia Farrow, and

LearningLeaders – All Rights Reserved - 8/10/16 2 one of her brothers, she accuses him of molesting her when she was 7. He denies it, was never charged, and blames Mia Farrow for planting the idea in his daughter's head in revenge for their toxic breakup.

Two decades later, and with powerful social media at their disposal, the Farrows are campaigning against Allen as his film Blue Jasmine is riding high this awards season (even though irony alert Allen doesn't give a fig for awards and never shows up to accept them).

After Allen's film career was honored during last month's Golden Globes ceremony, Mia Farrow and one of her sons with Allen, Ronan Farrow, tweeted their ire, suggesting that honoring Allen for his art amounted to calling his daughter a liar.

Dylan Farrow, now 28, repeated this argument in a searing j'accuse open letter on the New York Times website last week, in which she called out Blanchett and other actors in Allen's films by name for paying tribute to his artistic achievements.

"For so long, Woody Allen's acceptance silenced me," she wrote. "It felt like a personal rebuke, like the awards and accolades were a way to tell me to shut up and go away."

All this set off vociferous arguments. When, for example, Barbara Walters tried to defend her pal Allen on The View, asking whether an artist's personal life should block him from awards, she got heated pushback from Sherri Shepherd and from critics on Twitter.

O'Neil says it's possible the Farrows' campaign could encourage academy voters to pass on awarding Allen or his actors. (Allen is nominated for best original screenplay for Blue Jasmine, while Cate Blanchett has scooped up just about every best-actress award this season for her starring role in the film.)

"Blanchett is so far out front for best actress the only thing that could explain a loss would be this scandal," O'Neil says.

Blanchett, of course, is totally innocent, and Allen is presumed innocent. But even if Dylan Farrow's accusations were true, why should Hollywood not honor Allen as an artist if his peers believe he deserves it?

After all, Mia Farrow herself has defended Polanksi, who helped make her a star in 1968's Rosemary's Baby, even though he pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old in 1977. The academy awarded Polanski

LearningLeaders – All Rights Reserved - 8/10/16 3 the best-director Oscar for The Pianist in 2003 (he's been nominated for three other pictures, including Rosemary's Baby), and Farrow was not among the objectors.

Brad Brevet, who writes a film blog, RopeofSilicon.com, says the Polanski example shows that Hollywood can be selective about separating the art from the artist. But he admits to having more questions than answers.

"Obviously no one supports what Polanski did or what Allen allegedly did, but should that stop us from watching Repulsion and Midnight in Paris?," he says. "Should it stop people from starring in those films?... It's a massive moral quandary and I don't think the answer is black-and- white."

Peter Lehman, a film scholar and director of the Center for Film, Media & Popular Culture at Arizona State University, says historically there have always been "major contributions" from figures "who engaged in morally objectionable behaviors."

"We don't think of them as lesser, as if there were a connection to whatever happened in their private lives and the work they created. And there's no reason to think that would be different with Woody Allen's films," says Lehman.

But, he says, none of those past artists transgressed in the age of Twitter, when whispers are amplified, cockamamie theories go viral and unrelated issues are conflated with wild abandon.

Lehman is disturbed by "media steamrolling," which he says has created an environment in which people come to firm conclusions, about Allen or anything else, without actually knowing the facts. They just think they do.

"We have documentation about Wagner's anti-Semitism," he says. When it comes to Allen, "it seems to me there's a rush to judgment based on little documentation."

It's unfair, he says, but Oscar voters might be influenced nonetheless. That's because, he says, the Academy Awards are not just about picking the best in a given year.

"It's about putting their best foot forward in shaping public opinion about the film industry," he says. Some academy voters might conclude the industry's image would be harmed by honoring Allen or his movie.

"It is possible that this year in this context a number of voters could be influenced."

There may be no answer to this debate except time. Consider the example of the classic filmmaker Elia Kazan (On the Waterfront, A Streetcar Named Desire, East of Eden), multiple nominee and winner of two Oscars in the 1940s and 1950s. But for decades he was viewed with contempt by many in Hollywood, after he "named names" in 1952 to congressional witch-hunters pursuing Communists in the film industry. Hollywood figures who were blacklisted could not forgive him. And yet eventually he was honored for his lifetime of achievement, in 1999, four years before he died.

At the ceremony, some stars sat on their hands as the 89-year-old accepted the Oscar; most of the audience, including Warren Beatty and Meryl Streep, stood and applauded.

BY: Maria Puente

SOURCE: USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/02/06/when-should- we-separate-the-art-from-the-artist/5228631/

ARTICLE 2 - THE IAN WATKINS CASE: WHO DECIDES IF THE SINS OF THE ARTIST NEGATE THEIR ART? November 29, 2013

After the Lostprophets' singer Ian Watkins admitted sex crimes, HMV withdrew the band's music from sale. But there have been many past cases where art has outlived its creators' shame

Ian Watkins will, almost certainly, never be forgiven, his music never returned to general circulation. The magnitude of his crimes is too great; social media allowed the condemnation of them to spread too quickly, to too many people. There can barely be a person in the UK who even if they had never heard a note of Lostprophets' music does not know who Watkins is and what he did.

HMV's decision to withdraw Lostprophets' music from sale is a symbolic act, more than anything else. In the unlikely event that anyone has felt the urge to hear the Welsh metal band this week, their albums are still available from both Amazon and iTunes, far more significant in driving sales than a bricks-and-mortar retailer. In fact, HMV's move has been one of the few incidents in the whole, vile affair to have prompted any sympathetic comments, with some social media users pointing out that the ones who will suffer from the ban will be the other members of Lostprophets, who announced their split in October.

Such was the level of vitriol aimed at Watkins that earlier this week, entirely accidentally, the hashtag ianwatkinsisinnocent started trending on Twitter. In fact, no one had been tweeting his innocence: the hashtag was coined by fans a year ago, when he was first charged. It began trending because people searching Twitter for Ian Watkins found it coming up in their searches, and leapt in to condemn the coinage. Even as I've been writing this paragraph, a new tweet has appeared: "Did I just see a hashtag #IanWatkinsIsInnocent

But if Watkins will never be rehabilitated, the reality is that the wider arts world is quick to forgive transgressors, even if their crimes are heinous. The sculptor, typeface designer and printmaker Eric Gill, for example, was revealed in a 1989 biography by Fiona MacCarthy to have sexually abused his children, had sex with his sister, and with his dog. "When my book came out, there was a backlash of revulsion," MacCarthy says, "particularly from staunch Catholic admirers of his work. There was an outcry that his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral should be removed. I must say, this did die down." Whether it

LearningLeaders – All Rights Reserved - 8/10/16 6 would have died down so quickly now, when horror at his deeds even among those who would never have heard of Gill would have spread across social media in a blaze of fury, is a moot point.

Crucial to it dying down, though, is the fact that Gill was an important artist. "My view is that great art lives," MacCarthy says. "One must regard it in a different category. If you looked into the private lives of all the artists in our national galleries, where would it end. No one is defending [Gill's sexual behaviour], but where would it all end? If you followed this through and did destroy from public view all examples of Gill's work, our cultural life would be very much reduced."

In fact, our cultural life is replete with art made by those whose personal lives bear little scrutiny. In the Nazi corner alone, we have the filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, the poet Ezra Pound and the philosopher Martin Heidegger, none of whom have been "decanonised", despite critical caveats about their political views. In the world of film, Roman Polanski continued to make films, albeit from outside the US, despite fleeing a conviction for the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl in Los Angeles in 1977, ahead of sentencing. Why, then, was he able to continue making art?

"At the time, he had cultural capital in the bank," Guardian film critic Peter Bradshaw says. "And he could bombard you with details that he had served time, and that it was technicality because he had done a [plea bargain] deal and expected to be released [instead of facing imprisonment at sentencing]. And he had sympathy because of his wife having been murdered. People thought: 'It's a mess is it something to do with his wife being murdered?'"

Professor John Sutherland perhaps sums up the division or double standards, if you prefer most succinctly. "We genuflect before real art and real culture. It will be a long time before they take down the Eric Gill work at Broadcasting House, whereas every Jimmy Savile picture at the BBC is now gone." He even mentions recently editing a book by MP Shiel, a writer of supernatural and scientific romances, whose novels apparently often feature sexualised young heroines. It emerged in 2008 that Shiel, in 1914, was imprisoned for sexually abusing a 12-year-old girl. "And he hasn't been decanonised," Sutherland observes.

Lostprophets were, almost inarguably, neither real art nor real culture, and the nature of Watkins's crimes and his admission of guilt precludes any ambiguity: these are not events that have been alleged and disputed, years after the fact; they are in the here and now and they are undeniable. Yet even within rock and pop, a status division exists. Led

Zeppelin remain one of rock's greatest bands (full disclosure: I have interviewed them), despite the knowledge that their guitarist, Jimmy Page, had a sexual relationship with Lori Maddox that began when she was 14. When Chuck Berry dies, the obituaries will likely dwell more on his role in the birth of rock'n'roll than on his conviction for transporting a minor across state lines for immoral purposes. Even moving away from the end of pop music with claims to art, you can still go to HMV and buy albums by Gary Glitter, convicted of child sex offences, and Charles Manson and Burzum, both convicted of murder (HMV would not offer any comment when asked about this discrepancy).

All this raises one question: if art is to be deemed beyond the pale, who makes the decision, and how? Are there some crimes, like Watkins's, so great that the art dies at the moment of revelation? Would F Scott Fitzgerald disappear from Waterstone's if we learned he had been doing the same things as Watkins? Or would his talent and the distance from the events leave the reputation of The Great Gatsby unhindered? Is the level of public outrage the determining factor? Fiona MacCarthy, for one, thinks we should be very careful before we decide the sins of the artist invalidate the art. "I think it's got harder and harder because the crimes are more reprehensible," she says. "But we don't want to arrive at a situation where we deprive ourselves of great works of art because of what Caravaggio did hundreds of years ago."

BY: Michael Hann

SOURCE: The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2013/nov/29/ian- watkins-art-sins-artist

ARTICLE 3 ROMAN POLANSKI MUSIC OR BE ENTERTAINED BY ROLF HARRIS? June 12, 2014

Should we distinguish between the art and the artist? What if they turned out to be awful people? John Bailey explores the dilemma.

Is it still OK to watch Woody A put it. The director and actor stars in Fading Gigolo, now in cinemas, abuse of adopted daughter Dylan Farrow arose earlier this year, a halo of doubt has settled on cinephiles facing a moral dilemma many art lovers know but few know how to resolve. What happens if great art is created by a monster?

Melbourne expat James Turnbull now lives in New York, the city that is director was involved in a romantic relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, the daughter of his long-term partner Mia Farrow, someone pointed out to

fiercely blind spot when it came to Allen and his behaviour. Apparently being person accused of terrible misdeeds who also happens to be much adored for their creative output.

wives and mistresses. Writer Norman Mailer stabbed and almost killed his wife, and director Roman Polanski fled the US in 1977 after pleading guilty to the sexual assault of a 13-year-old. Can we separate these artists from their art? What about Gary Glitter? Charlie Sheen? Rolf Harris?

- Semitic an

poems are extraordinary and there are a couple that are among my

A similar problem can be found in the music of Wagner, according to Associate Professor Christopher Cordner of the University of

-Semitism competes with the fact that his work has proved enduring enough to warrant the $20 million spent on the Ring Festival in Melbourne last year.

those in Israel thought that these views were an expression of a deep- rooted repudiation of a people. Not allowing it to be played in public individual moral value of my own but that playing it in public would have somehow been a kind of acknowledgment of a person whose

he playing of the music

In a similar fashion, the Allen case highlights our participation in what philosophy lecturer Patrick

Stokes points out that the most recent claims against Allen emerged in response to a Golden Globe lifetime achievement award he received.

to the moral sphere that kind of disqualify you from being involved in

the assumption that by recognising the films and honouring them, that

charged with any crime. But this only makes the moral implications of viewing his work murkier for us ordinary moviegoers, according to Stokes. A court verdict is a higher moral authority to which we can with tension between wanting to observe all of the usual norms about innocent-before-proven-guilty but also wanting to respect the experiences of his step-

And yet for much of the 20th century, at least, entire schools of thinking advanced the view that none of this is relevant: the art and the essay is required reading for first-year arts students, and argues that meaning in any artwork is found not in the intentions or character of its makers but at the point of reception. The school of New Criticism sought to treat art without reference to any factor outside of the work itself, while post-structuralism and deconstructionism wondered if there was any such thing as an artist anyway.

Some creators attempt to disappear into their work think of the chameleon-like self-portraits of Cindy Sherman or the expressionless face and flat voice of Andy Warhol. Today the deliberate anonymity of musicians such as Daft Punk or street artist Banksy let their works speak for itself. What if any of these turned out to be awful people?

Would the art be diminished?

the artist, but whether we should. Whose purposes are served by severing that connection absolutely? After all, one of the architects of the American deconstructionist school was theorist Paul de Man, and a recent book suggests that his denial that there is any continuity to the self were wonderfully useful for an academic giant who, it turns out, had faked his own qualifications and erased his own criminal past in Europe.

morality can get pretty messy. There seems to be a kind of ethical statute of limitations that many of us unofficially apply in such cases.

does make a difference and

them 40 years after they did something. A long time has passed and things have changed. But at the same time, it still seems like the moral

e way that great art can be a get-out-of-jail-free card, morally speaking.

aesthetic merits of his television work. Why should the scales tip otherwise in the case of more lauded artists?

on. How many good movies do you have to make to outweigh the evil of rape? Once you start adding those things together something has

Cordner says that one school of thought allows us to appreciate art without blinkering ourselves to the circumstances in which it is created.

reat plays, works of philosophy and so on, that all comes from a slave-owning culture and -owning culture. That sustained the whole way of life of Greek culture. Should we somehow wash our hands of all of tha

at the same time not affirm the cultural circumstances out of which it

In some cases, says Cordner, this line of thought could be applied to

too strong or too near us historically or imagine how other right-

Cordner puts emphasis on that crucial last statement, and says that in moral terms there is a great distinction between making a judgment and expecting that others should do the same.

film are somehow doing something wrong. In other cases a person - on the situation, whether a person thinks their response is just their own or -minded person

which she defends the right of viewers to do the same while also noting, films by Woody Allen or Roman Polanski is superior to the contrary decision. Certainly, there is a persuasive case to be made for not watc

So is it OK to watch Woody All we should always be aware of our own moral role in the consumption of ng

Back in New York, Turnbull has run the numbers on his own moral arithmetic a benefit of the doubt to Allen but only if people were prepared to do the same for the victim. Few people I discussed it with were prepared to do so. That disgusted me.

sumption of innocence but, in the 20 years

BY: John Bailey

SOURCE: The Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/is-it-still-ok-to-watch-woody- allens-or-roman-polanskis-movies-or-enjoy-michael-jacksons-music-or- be-entertained-by-rolf-harris-20140614-zs4x1.html

ARTICLE 4 HITLER ARTWORK FETCHES HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS AT AUCTION June 21, 2015

Fourteen drawings and watercolors signed "A. Hitler" were sold at auction this weekend in the German city of Nuremberg for 391,000 euros ($444,000) according to the Weidler auction house. The highest price was paid for a watercolor of King Ludwig II's Neuschwanstein Castle in Bavaria, which went to a Chinese buyer for 100,000 euros. Each of the works were made between 1904 and 1922, before Hitler seized power in Germany.

"These collectors are not specialized in works by this particular painter but rather have a general interest in high-value art," Kathrin Weidler explained to German news agency DPA. Other bidders came from Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, France and even Germany itself. The auction house said they were mostly art investors but declined to identify them by name.

Another watercolor thought to be by Hitler which depicted Munich's town hall was sold in 2014 by the same auctioneers for 130,000 euros. As a young man Hitler made money by painting postcards of Vienna, Austria and selling them to tourists. He applied to the Vienna Academy of Art twice in 1907 and 1908 but was rejected both times.

The sale of his paintings is permitted in Germany as long as they do not violate the country's laws forbidding Nazi propaganda. The auctions remain controversial, however, as 80 percent of the proceedings go to private sellers rather than supporting a charitable cause.

BY: Deutsche Welle

SOURCE: http://www.dw.com/en/hitler-artwork-fetches-hundreds-of-thousands- at-auction/a-18530051

ARTICLE 5 NETFLIX POSTPONES A BILL COSBY COMEDY SPECIAL AS FALLOUT MOUNTS November 19, 2014

Comic hit by old sexual assault allegations

Netflix says it is postponing the launch of a Bill Cosby comedy special due to a number of sexual assault allegations against the legendary comedian.

A new stand-up show, Bill Cosby 77, which was taped on his 77th birthday, was due to be aired on Nov. 28, writes the Hollywood Reporter.

-up comedy is said to have agreed with the move.

Old allegations from several women, who accuse Cosby of drugging and sexually assaulting them over a decade ago, resurfaced after comedian Hannibal Buress called the entertainer a rapist.

ice Dickenson claimed that Cosby raped her in 1982.

In a radio interview last weekend, Cosby refused to respond to questions over the allegations, although he has vigorously denied all accusations against him in various statements in the past. The famed comic has also never been charged, but Associated Press reports that he did settle a civil suit in 2006 with a woman over an alleged 2004 incident.

BY: Helen Regan

SOURCE: Time http://time.com/3594046/netflix-postpones-bill-cosby-77-comedy- special-rape-sexual-assault-janice-dickenson/

ARTICLE 6 PAINTINGS MUST BE DESTROYED, JUDGE RULES Graham Ovenden had been controversial for decades prior to his conviction on six counts of indecency with a child October 14, 2015

Where does art end and obscenity begin and when is it acceptable for the law to order that paintings and photos be destroyed by the state?

Those were the questions facing a judge in the functional surroundings

District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe found herself ruling on the indecency or otherwise of hundreds of photographs and paintings belonging to the artist Graham Ovenden, who was jailed for two years in 2013 for sexual abuse offences.

Before his conviction on six counts of indecency with a child, Ovenden, 72, had been controversial for decades because of his paintings and photographs of naked or semi-naked young girls.

Some people had previously sought to defend him, including, reportedly, some of his former child subjects and the artist David children naked are not bea

destroyed.

The images earmarked for destruction included a 1964 photograph of a girl that Ovenden claimed to have given to the artist Sir Peter Blake, who supposedly used it for the model of his 1969 Shakespeare-inspired painting Puck, Peasebottom, Cobweb and Mustard Seed.

wrath

Ovenden also claimed that the judge had ruled that 40 photographs by the 19th-century French artist Pierre Louys were indecent, while sparing a painting of a paddling, half-naked girl, which he claimed had been for charity.

Outside the court, Ovenden described the forfeiture hearing, brought by the Metropolitan Police under Section 5 of the Protection of Children

Appearing unrepentant about his child abuse convictions, and insisting a famous artist. I am an equally famous photographer, and they are destroying material which has been in the public domain for over 40

Showing The Independent a Pierre Louys photograph of what appeared to be a pubescent girl with her breasts and genitals exposed, he said: tions all over the country. And I bought the Pierre Louys photos from

In court, after the judge had ruled against the Pierre Louys pictures, the British poli

unfair position, if I may say so, because many people think ... like [the th

whether overtly or not, evoke poses by adult women that are intended to be sexually alluri

the images upon the basis of the recognised standards of propriety that

are legitimate art, and that their artistic merit invests them with a sort of

Giving Ovenden 21 days to appeal before the images were destroyed,

BY: Adam Lusher

SOURCE: The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/arts- entertainment/art/news/paedophile-artist-s-photographs-and- paintings-must-be-destroyed-judge-rules-a6692921.html

ARTICLE 7 GARY GLITTER HEY SONG BANNED FROM AMERICAN SUPERBOWL February 2, 2012

NFL bosses have ditched any plans to play one of his rock anthems during celebrations at the NFL game, which will be aired on BBC2

Pop paedophile Gary Glitter has been blocked from banking hundreds of thousands of pounds in royalties at the American Super Bowl this Sunday.

NFL bosses have ditched any plans to play one of his rock anthems during celebrations at the NFL game, which will be aired on BBC2.

The BBC is among broadcasters around the world who were due to pay the child sex offender royalties from his 1972 hit Rock and Roll Part II.

The worldwide smash - is played at the host venue the Lucas Oil Stadium, when points are scored by the home team The Indianapolis Colts.

Glitter has already earned royalties from that this year.

But that routine has been pulled by NFL executives, who determine music at the Superbowl.

The game will be played between the New England Patriots and New York Giants. Glitter would have earned significant sums in performance royalties on February 5.

The Hey Song is not only a favourite at the Lucas Oil Stadium but has also been adopted as the touchdown song by the New England Patriots, who are playing the New York Giants in the final.

The popular anthem is played in stadiums across the US, it even fe out the sport Any Given Sunday, starring A Pacino and Cameron Diaz.

conviction in 2006 and replaced with a cover version by the glam rock band Tube Tops 2000.

But as the co-writer of the hit, which reached number two in the UK charts, Glitter still makes money whenever the song is played.

played at the Super Bowl, even if it is a cover version, then the original songwriter will receive royalties.

"How much they are paid will depend on how the syndication rights for the Super Bowl have been worked out with each of the countries

Glitter, real name Paul Gadd, has been banned from TV and radio after being convicted of molesting two underage girls in Vietnam.

He was jailed in 2006 and returned to the UK in 2008.

The BBC is understood to be paying £600,000 to the NFL to broadcast the event in Britain, which would cover any royalties paid to Glitter.

More than 90 million viewers are expected to tune in with a further 100 million watching around the world.

BY: Ryan Parry

SOURCE: Mirror http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gary-glitter-hey-song-banned- 663059

ARTICLE 8 OHIO FESTIVAL CANCELS R. KELLY S HEADLINING SLOT AFTER COMMUNITY QUESTIONS HIS HISTORY OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE July 29, 2014

R. Kelly has been uninvited as the headliner for the inaugural Fashion Meets Music Festival in Columbus, Ohio after many community members complained about the R&B singer's history of sexual violence, Radio.com reports.

The inaugural event, which is the first festival to combine music and fashion, is set to take place over Labor Day weekend. Now the organizers and Kelly have released a joint statement saying that they've come to a "mutual decision to cancel Kelly's upcoming performance."

Kelly's publicist also released a statement saying, "R. Kelly is sorry to disappoint his fans but looks forward to seeing them in the near future during one of his upcoming tours."

According to Columbus Alive, members of the community began questioning the booking last week after the local folk-rock band Saintseneca announced they would be withdrawing from the festival lineup, and radio station WCBE 90.5 FM ended its sponsorship of the event. Both groups cited Kelly's sketchy legal history, including a 2008 trail where the singer was acquitted on charges of making child pornography, in their announcements.

The festival's communication director Melissa Dickson said FMMF decided to part ways with Kelly after a month of internal conversations beginning with a local electro-pop duo Damn the Witch Siren raised concerns about Kelly's appointment as a headliner and eventually dropped out of the festival themselves.

"[Starting] on June 25 there was a lot of back and forth on the criticism we did receive, but then also looking at [Kelly] as an artist," she said. "Then truly the last few weeks ... the festival has taken a lot of heat, and we really just wanted to listen to Columbus and really take a stance and move forward."

The festival says it will not replace Kelly on the bill but will continue with the current lineup that includes headliners O.A.R., Michelle Williams, and Local Natives.

BY: Caitlin Carter

SOURCE: Music Times http://www.musictimes.com/articles/8089/20140729/ohio-festival- cancels-r-kelly-s-headlining-slot-after-community-questions-his-history- of-sexual-violence.htm

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

1. Can immoral artists produce great works? Discuss (with examples) http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/can-immoral-artists- produce-great-works-discuss-with-examples-1194871.html

2. Why Immoral Art Cannot Morally Harm Us http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1158&context= philosophy_theses

3. The Nonexistence of http://blog.art21.org/2010/03/26/the-nonexistence-of-unethical-art/

4. Good Art, Bad People http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/opinion/global-agenda- magazine-good-art-bad-people.html?_r=0

5. Rolf Harris: guilty man, guilty art? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-01/rosewarne-rolf-harris:-guilty- man,-guilty-art/5561640

6. R. Kelly Releases Video Urging Black Listeners To Buy His New http://newsone.com/3291845/r-kelly-releases-album-but-should-you/