issue 25// vol 45 opinions // no. 15 We can appreciate someone's work without defending their actions > ‘Leaving Neverland’ and coming to terms with the separation of art and artist Jessica Berget Opinions Editor ’ma big Michael Jackson fan, and I don’t mind admitting that when I first heard the rumour that he was allegedly abusing children, I didn’t believe it. I thought the families maybe just wanted money and coerced their children into saying these things. Or, that Jackson was just trying to have fun and relive the childhood he never had by hanging out with these kids but overstepped his boundaries. However, in light of the recent HBO documentary Leaving Neverland in which two men describe the alleged abuse they endured at the hands of Jackson, it makes me question his innocence. It also makes me ponder this ongoing debate: Can you separate a creator from their work? If you ask me, of course you can—and you should. You can acknowledge that someone can create great art and still be a terrible person. The fact is that there are many famous people who have done horrible and awful things. If you stop listening to the music or watching the films of someone because they are alleged or known to have committed some unpalatable acts, then you have to do the same for many other celebrities and artists. To me, this seems redundant and pointless. We can’t just forget these artists or pretend that they don't exist because then we're ignoring a huge part of cultural history. Furthermore, some of the things they create can positively impact a lot of people, even if the artists themselves may or may not have done unethical deeds. For instance, when I was younger the music of What gets your goat? >» Bad concert or artist merchandise Jessica Berget Opinions Editor f you're anything like me, you appreciate a good piece of artist merchandise. When I go to any concert, show, or event, I like to buy the tour shirts to support the artist and to add to my extensive collection of graphic T-shirts. Artist or tour merchandise means a great deal to me. It’s almost as important as seeing them perform live. It serves as a memento of a fun experience or a way to F show my love for certain bands or artists. So, when I see an artist that I like selling badly made products or merchandise, it is extremely disheartening. I think artists need to realize that their merchandise is important to their fan base and plenty of people would pay good money for well-made or well-designed apparel specific to the artist. If people shell out a lot of money to see someone perform, the merchandise should meet the fans’ expectations. Odds are they're going to buy it no matter how bad it is because they want to preserve that memory or show that they were at that concert. However, that doesn't mean artists should sell cheap or crappy tour merch just because they know their fans will buy it anyway. As a huge fan of RuPaul’s Drag Race, | am always looking for drag queen merchandise that is designed well and worth my money. So far, I have yet to find any. Most of the stuff I find is boring, badly designed, or way too expensive. Finding good merch isn’t a problem only within the Drag Race fanbase either. Many major artists and bands sell mundane or lame tour apparel. For instance, I have tour shirts from bands like The Pixies, Beach House, The Black Keys, and Kendrick Lamar that I unfortunately bought and never wear because I think they’re poorly designed. One recent case of bad tour merchandise is Ariana Grande with her Sweetener World Tour apparel. Buzzfeed even wrote an article to show the hilariously bad products that were being sold at her tour merch stand. Some range from “kind of lame” to “what the hell is that?” One shirt in particular has a blue stain on it that supposedly looks like a dick stain, which I’ve decided I need. It might be funny to look at it from an objective view, but if I was a young fan of hers at the concert with those sad excuses for tour shirts, I would be bitterly disappointed. Most of these artists are popular enough to have some of their creative fanbase make apparel designs for them, so why do they stick to such boring clothing? Merchandise is extremely important to fans, so some artists need to step up their design game. Image by @ladygaygay on Twitter John Lennon and David Bowie helped me significantly at a difficult time in my life. John Lennon admitted to hitting women and David Bowie allegedly slept with underage girls. Does that mean I should never listen to their music again even though it’s a big part of my life? Of course not. I think we can love someone’s work as long as we don't defend their actions. I think you can and should acknowledge that sometimes terrible people can make or create great music, movies, art, or anything really. You have to give credit where it’s due. I think it’s important to recognize that terrible people can create wonderful things because it’s a true part of life and an honest reflection of human nature. However, that doesn’t excuse their actions or behaviours. Many people say that by praising the works of people who have been abusive, you are Jessica Berget Opinions Editor eld of psychology, I have taken fascinating topic and I enjoy learning new things about the human psyche. about and studying Freud and his theories. and his outdated ideas. I can tell you almost everything about the Oedipus complex, or his penis envy theory, but almost nothing about many other in classes compared to how little time is given to the other great, influential of how wack some of his theories are because they’re so outlandish that they’re hard to forget. Either way, I’m sick of hearing about them. I’m even still regard him as a genius today. ground-breaking conjectures about human behaviour and consciousness century), but he also had some ideas He believed that girls who experience do not havea penis and suffer from what he called “penis envy.” He also hypothesized that one’s personality is developed through a series of oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital part of psychology, I don’t think his A s someone who is interested in the quite a few classes on the subject. It’s a However, one thing that always bothers me is how much time is spent learning It seems when studying psychology all we ever hear about is Sigmund Freud psychologists’ theories. I think this is a testament to how much Freud is taught thinkers in the field—or maybe telling more sickened by how some people use Freud's theories in popular discourse and Sigmund Freud may have had some at his time (the late 19th and early 20th that I think are ridiculous. For instance, he thought that most human neuroses could be explained in terms of sexuality. anxiety do so because they realize they psychosexual stages, which he called the stages. Most of his theories are sexually focused and although sexuality is a big tolerating their abuse and saying this behaviour is okay. I would argue that you're only tolerating their abuse if you support them financially. To me, listening to their music or watching their films is harmless— any revenue they gain from your choice is truly marginal. You can pretend that some piece of music or film is bad, or never listen to or watch it, because the person who created it was allegedly an awful human being, but you'd be lying to yourself. People can choose to think less of others’ works by considering their actions in life if they wish. To me, it seems pointless to deny yourself a great piece of art, music, or film just because its creator has supposedly committed some foul deeds. As long as you don't justify or excuse their actions, you can enjoy the art they create. Freud 1s void >» We need to stop using his theories and focus on other psychologists arguments are credible. I won't even get into his theory of the Oedipus complex, which has probably already been burned into your brain. Furthermore, in the case of his patients, he would give absurd diagnoses. In one example, he thought one man’s fear of rats was a disguise for his homosexual fantasies. He also thought a five-year-old boy’s fear of horses stemmed from a fear of castration. Finally, it is a well-known fact that he would prescribe cocaine as a medicine and often used it himself— though admittedly, at the time cocaine was legal and was used in many medical treatments. I know not all psychologists are perfect and some may have weird ideas, but I think Freud takes the cake in what I consider psychological mumbo- jumbo. Arent there more relevant or recent psychologists in the world now that we can pay more attention to? Shouldn't we give other unsung heroes of psychology a chance in the spotlight? What about Carl Jung, B.F. Skinner, Jean Piaget, or William James, who I find are often mentioned only in passing after Freud? In defense of Freud, he was an influential person and did the best he could with his experience and knowledge of psychology at his time. There were many things he got right, and many wrong, Furthermore, Freud did have many innovative and instrumental theories that definitely helped us to understand many things about the human consciousness and psychoanalysis. However, many other psychologists have also made great contributions, but their names are not as highly regarded as Freud. His ideas may have been huge at the time, but we are past that point in history. I think it’s time to retire some of Freud’s theories to make room for more relevant and current influential psychologists and their findings.