What this little column is morphing into is a sort of account of ‘lessons I've learned’ or rather ‘lessons I’ve heard and am passing on like an intellectual hot potato’. This round, I want to mull over a little maxim that I have a lot of ambivalence for.

You are not your work. I believe someone first told me this when I was working in the food industry, and I was buckling under the stress of the line. It was said in the spirit of “Hey friend, we know you can’t take the mind splitting pressure that is a kitchen, but it doesn’t say anything about you personally.” It’s a nice sentiment, but does it hold up as good life advice?

If one has a bad day at the office, breaking the copier and spilling coffee all over the big report that was supposed to be presented, does that mean they’re having a bad day as a person?

Can't they still go home to a fully realized and fulfilled personal life? If someone is a bad painter, and that’s how they make their living, does that mean they’re a bad person? I think not. I think that’s how this nugget passes the smell test. The quality of a person’s output is not directly correlated to their quality as a person.

The nuance rears it’s hydra-heads when one dives into the stipulations. The source of my ambivalence, I think, comes from the fact that YANYW is not a balanced equation. When you invert the logic and ask: is a person’s work affected by and reflective of who they are as a person? Absolutely!

Every fry cook and CEO knows this as a matter of fact. Angry Bill loses his patience with customers. Dreamer Jane forgets key details on her daily report. Etcetera Etcetera

Today, it is hard not to notices, how this touches on the old “Can you separate art from the artist?” issue. With the wonderous “Harvey Effect” sweeping through Hollywood, we’ve all learned what seedy pricks some of the shiniest stars really are. It used to be I just couldn’t stand Mel Gibson’s face, and it made watching his movies a chore. (And Woody Allen, but I will admit I’ve watched a lot of his movies and been sucked in by them.)

Now, however, the list of seedy people, mostly men of course, who committed heinous acts is growing everyday. As a movie lover, but also a person with a few scruples, should I simply not patronize every film associated with one of these creeps? Probably. Here is my golden rule, to not miss out on content and still sleep soundly: you can enjoy the movie so long as the money for your ticket, the dvd, or what have you can’t contribute to the guilty party’s legal coffers. I believe that’s the ethical way forward, because while you are not your work, you still bear the responsibility of being you and your work can and should suffer the consequences.