To call this a paradox is to accept the notion that Polanski's sexual assault on this child and his films are somewhat on the same plane, that they constitute a contradiction per se and that one can't do one if he does the other. I don't accept that.
What I would accept is the weight of personal choices, e.g. someone saying "I am so dead set against rape that I wouldn't accept a rapist as someone deserving admiration because of something else he or she did," or "I am so admirative of artists that I would never let whatever heinous stuff an artist did affect my appreciation of his/her art."
So there is no contradiction or paradox: some people give a moral pass to "brilliant" enough artists (or politicians or sports heroes or members of minority groups), and some peole blackball rapists/child molesters. whatever else they do. which I think they are entled to do without incurring the wrath of art fundamentalists.
Ah. Your first sentence shows that you have missed my point entirely. They aren't on the same plane.
Sometimes distasteful people have the ability to make something quite wonderful. Does the "heinous crime" have an impact on the work? Maybe, but maybe not. It's not the two-dimensional cut-out that you would have it be. Polanski also had other horrific experiences as a victim of violence, and those shouldn't give him a free pass, either.
But the work still stands on its own, and if you knew nothing about the artist, you'd probably have to say, yeah, that's a well-made film.
But then, I can look at "Triumph of the Will" and think, wow, horrific message, horrific stories around it, but man, Leni knew her stuff. If you can't, well, maybe you're just a little limited. However, I'll thank you not to censor me.
I also believe I talked about giving a "moral pass" upthread - I said that the work's quality should not give the artist a pass on a criminal act.
