This site does not represent the views of

Bear with us while we get this organized. This site does not represent the views of Send submissions to Send tips to if they are not posted there, wait a while & send them to Take care, Stay Awesome.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Gettin' Anchory: Suffering the artists for our art

Welcome to Getting’ Anchory, a semi-regular feature where Anchor Management (see what he did there?) rants about the aspects of popular culture that get him riled up, to appease the demon monkeys that live in his head. Also, to make fart jokes.

Jonny Craig, who is blessed with the voice of a drunken angry angel, is the front man of Dance Gavin Dance, Emarosa and has a solo album out. Although you’ve never heard of him, you should. Go YouTube it, I’ll wait. Last week it came to light that Jonny Craig has been offering fans Macbooks via his Twitter account, but never delivering on the computers. Although the exact number is unknown, over twenty fans have claimed it had happened to them with proof. This fanned the flames of discussion between fans. Does Jonny’s scamming mean they should never listen to his work again? Or do they give him support, no matter what he does? Now this is nothing new for Jonny, who had been kicked out of DGD before because of his problems with drugs. But since he has the best voice this side of Michael Jackson (deal with it), they took him back in, hoping to recapture their early sound and success after much internal struggles within the band. He promised he had bettered his life and fans wanted to believe him. Just a few days ago the record company, a week away from his band’s album release, has issued a statement he would go into rehab and all the duped fans would get their money back. Instead of a glorious return to form, the band would have to settle for touring without their front man and getting all the press they didn’t want.

Dance Gavin Dance’s Facebook Status: It’s complicated
This could have been about Charlie Sheen’s recent very public fall from grace, if he had actually made some decent shows or movies except for Wall Street and Hot Shots to be graced about. I still don’t understand how he became more successful than his brother Emilio Estevez. Must be the name change to ride his father’s coattails. Seriously, the Mighty Duck movies were amazing! But I digress. The issue that arises is whether or not artists’ personal lives should influence the way we think about the art they produce. While it is easy to condemn them for their personal antics, their art should remain a separate entity through it all. As long as they do not use their art to explain their personal behavior, we should be fine with it.
I strongly believe in a separation between the artists and his or her art. Kanye West being a huge narcissistic dick didn’t stop him from making amazing music, nor did Gwyneth Paltrow being a terrible misguided delusional snob keep her from being in some great movies (Se7en, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Talented Mr. Ripley, etc.). Does Michael Jackson being bat-shit insane make “Thiller” not one of the best albums of all time? Did cheating on his wife several times make Tiger Woods less of a golfer? Has Michael Richards using the N-word on stage made Kramer less funny? Have Mel Gibson’s crazy rants made “Braveheart” or “Mad Max” retro-actively less awesome? No, the strength of their performance should be taken at face value, rather than diluted by what they’ve done in their personal lives.

Kanye West is a douche, but one with five great albums behind his name
On the other hand you cannot escape the voice in the back of your head that goes “Hey, Roman Polanski raped that girl and ran from the police”. It’s not always easy to not take their disgusting behavior into account when watching their movies our listen to their music. Especially in the case of people you didn’t like in the first place. For example, I am still not cool with Chris Brown being a popular artist again. Not just for what he did to Rihanna and they way he tried to downplay the fact, but also because his music is bland and unoriginal. But we should try and be objective spectators and not be distracted by their antics, even if they are tiger blooded warlocks with Adonis DNA.

1 comment:

  1. I thing you have a point, especially in a highly collaborative medium, but sometimes it's tough to separate an artist from his or her work when the work reflects the individual. Sometimes you can see new things in the art that forever taints it.

    Also, I certainly think that it is an acceptable form of protest to abstain from consuming an artist's work that you might otherwise enjoy because of their personal faults.