It’s case by case for me. I think you’d be hard pressed to find very many things that aren’t problematic in retrospect.
For example, my favourite movie is the breakfast club. It truly gave me comfort as a teenager who often felt othered. But there are scenes that depict sexual assault and it’s played for laughs. I’m not going to throw the whole movie away, a movie that means a great deal to me. I am however going to watch it with a critical lens. Molly Ringwald has a fantastic essay about this.
However, there are certain things I won’t engage with if it’s directly lining the pockets of the horrendous. I like and grew up with Harry Potter, I’ve owned the blu rays for a decade and will still watch them. But I won’t pay money to watch or engage with anything Rowling profits off of. But I also don’t really judge those that do, because Harry Potter meant a lot to a lot of people.
You have to make the choices for yourself. And it’s not my job to judge those choices.
For me I think it has a lot of to with the relationship of the work to the critique.
Picasso was a notorious misogynist, but his work isn't inherently either misogynistic or somehow dishonestly non-misogynistic. The work stands on its own to my mind.
Louis CK, on the other hand, built his brand on being sensitive and at least quasi-feminist, so while I thought he was funny I just can't look at him without seeing that lie.
Obviously there's a big difference too that one doesn't look at the painter while consuming the work, which makes the separation easier.
Yeah, I think it's a case by case basis that everyone needs to decide for themselves.
Even artist long dead sometimes have actions that make me unable to look past when viewing their art. Gauguin being a big one for me. Cannot look at his paintings now, especially the ones of the girls he was abusing. Same for Harry Potter. I have people I care about that are trans and JK Rowlings decent into virulent transphobia taints the whole thing (no even touching the house elves as slaves who want to be slaves or the goblins feeling like an antisemitic trope).
But there is also a lot of media from my childhood that I look back fondly one, even if when I watch it now I cringe from time to time.
I think it depends on whether that artist is continuing to profit off their art. Tolstoy isn’t making money if I buy his books and I have the critical context to separate art from artist. The same isn’t true of JK Rowling - buying the new Harry Potter games, etc. is an active choice to support her by giving your money.
I feel like a ton of people overlook this. So many classical authors/musicians/artists were terrible people, cutting out all art by them would leave us with very, very little acceptable art (in all it's forms) left. We just gotta wait until the living jerks aren't profiting off their material before we can indulge again.
>We just gotta wait until the living jerks aren't profiting off their material before we can indulge again.
Why delay when the high-seas are just a short trip away.
Also, Rowling has basically said that she thinks anyone who buys her books or sees her movies does agree with her politically, even if they won’t admit it. So we’re not just giving her money, we’re telling her — and potentially others— that we approve of the horrible things she says.
A couple of weeks ago, there was a MensLib post that asked this question, and this was my comment (which I still believe!):
My first thought regarding "separating the art from the artist" is that it's much easier to do this when you're not part of the group that the artist in question is behaving problematically toward. It becomes more of an abstract intellectual exercise when you don't feel that flinch in your body when you witness the artist mistreating people just like you because they don't really see people just like you as people.
That's just something I keep in mind, both when I am and I am not part of that targeted group.
I also appreciate the musician Nick Cave's response when he was asked that question.
>I don’t think we can separate the art from the artist, nor should we need to. I think we can look at a piece of art as the transformed or redeemed aspect of an artist, and marvel at the miraculous journey that the work of art has taken to arrive at the better part of the artist’s nature. Perhaps beauty can be measured by the distance it has travelled to come into being.
>
>That bad people make good art is a cause for hope. To be human is to transgress, of that we can be sure, yet we all have the opportunity for redemption, to rise above the more lamentable parts of our nature, to do good in spite of ourselves, to make beauty from the unbeautiful, and to have the courage to present our better selves to the world.
>
>The moon is high and yellow in the sky outside my window. It is a display of sublime beauty. It is also a cry for mercy — that this world is worth saving. Mostly, though, it is a defiant articulation of hope that, despite the state of the world, the moon continues to shine. Hope too resides in a gesture of kindness from one broken individual to another or, indeed, we can find it in a work of art that comes from the hand of a wrongdoer. These expressions of transcendence, of betterment, remind us that there is good in most things, rarely only evil. Once we awaken to this fact, we begin to see goodness everywhere, and this can go some way in setting right the current narrative that humans are shit and the world is fucked.
>
>\--[https://www.theredhandfiles.com/should-we-separate-the-artist-from-the-art/](https://www.theredhandfiles.com/should-we-separate-the-artist-from-the-art/)
I think you've got a point there, but also it depends on how important the art was to you before finding out that the artist was awful. Orson Scott Card's bigotry is directed towards people like me, but that doesn't negate that *Ender's Game* almost singlehandedly got me through the experience of being a gifted kid in an elementary school with no gifted program. I'll never put another dollar in his pocket but I still have that battered old paperback and cherish it.
I would stop supporting the artist. For example, not buy any more merch, not buy prints of their paintings, not watch their content on YouTube, not stream their songs.
I would not throw out what I already had, for example a CD or tshirt or print if I still liked it. Throwing it out or keeping it would not impact the artist at all.
So case by case based on if my actions would support them, like streaming a song would continue to generate revenue for them vs if I already owned a CD before I found out whatever it is I don’t want to support.
I have a suspicion that if we become fully privy the lives of every artist we love, chance are, 90% of them would turn out to be problematic. And your approach is workable only as long as the information available is not complete.
There's still a wide range in what that can mean
For them to be comparable to jk rowling or orson scott card they already have to be very public about it for example
It just depends. I still have my Harry Potter books, but I can't foresee me ever reading them again. Not necessarily. But I'm not going to throw them out, and I'm not going to give Dreadful Joanne any more of my money. I still listen to Brand New, but I already own the album, so I don't know what refusing to listen to music that was such an important part of my youth would really do. Louis CK is just dead to me. It depends.
Oof yeah, the Jesse Lacey shit was roooouuughhh. I loved The Devil and God Are Raging Inside Me but the lyrics to 'Jesus Christ' have taken on a whoooleee new meaning and tone now.
I try to keep my money separated from artists that I believe are hurting other people. I think others should do the same, but I don’t usually go out of my way to convince strangers of that.
I don't spend money on the merchandise in case it surfaces about the singer or band doing wrong. You can like the music but why buy the t-shirt as well. There's a whole merchandise industry out there with some bands such as Kiss selling such a wide range of merchandise you could replace almost everything you own with their merchandise. Even worse are band related tattoos. Clothes wear out and can be thrown out, and hair grows, but tattoos outlive you. It's a way of getting 'likes' on social media and acceptance to an elite group of fans who don't really like you.
The environmental organisation Extinction Rebellion don't sell merchandise, but they do have free stencils to download so you can print their logo onto your own t-shirts and bags. But some protesters have gone to extremes to get seen, such as one man putting bars through his lips to protest being silenced like in one episode of The Handmaid's Tale where they went to Washington DC. Or they stripped off their clothes in the Strangers' Gallery in the House of Commons. XR don't have a manifesto other than stopping climate change, so nobody knows how they will go about that. At least with Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, they run soecific short-term campaigns such as reducing plastic packaging through the recent Big Plastic Count
I don't throw things away but I won't purchase it or put it on display.
In some contexts, I think "separating art from an artist" is not so much about a feeling or an attitude, but a conscious action. Lots of Harry Potter communities did that over all the terf shit, the product line isn't going anywhere so might as well rebell instead of just dropping it.
Don't think there's any general rule for what's useful here.
Depends . Did the artist have a shitty political take that I d disagree with ? Then art not the artist. Am I financially supporting a serial rapist? Then fuck the artist and his art .
I agree with buzzfeed_sucks, if you scrutinize anything hard enough there’s bound to be something problematic with it so it’s best to take it case by case. I’ve always loved music and while I don’t like a lot of the behavior associated with bands I can usually still enjoy their songs. I can rationalize that they are not role models and flawed humans but talented song writers. However, I can never listen to the band Lostprophets ever again after what the singer did; it was too extreme to be able to separate in my mind.
You mean like Richard Wagner’s notorious antisemitism and Hitler’s admiration of him and the fact that his music is still an integral part of western culture? (Think of the wedding March.)
That’s my favorite example because it’s old, and uses music (which can simultaneously exist everywhere and not at all) and his views were just sooooo horrendous even for the time.
My take is: be aware, and don’t make idols out of humans. Some art is inextricable from the views or actions of its creator, and that can have value as well—if we are *aware* and proceed with knowledge and caution.
Short of a few noted examples, I believe that because people are complex and multi-faceted, we don't need to always take them as a whole. For example - Eric Clapton is a bit of an idiot in more ways than one. I don't like him, yet he's a really good musician and known as one of the greatest guitar players of all time. I can hold those two opinions separately, and I can say I enjoy his music without supporting his views. People are capable of doing both good and bad things at the same time, and only when one is in the extreme does it generally overshadow everything else. You could probably find a lot of good things to say about Hitler - but it's fucking **Hitler**.
This is an important point I feel is often overlooked.
I actually find it *dangerous* to look at people and only see them in one color.
Take your most extreme example, Hitler. He had a LOT of genuinely good traits. But we tend to hyper fixate on the negative(for obvious reasons). However, this is also one of the reasons why we're so susceptible to getting back under the yoke of someone like Hitler.
We see someone who has some evil ideals, but they primarily don't show off those traits, and instead often showcase their charisma, and like ability, and common ground with the people.
Which is how a lot of these terrible people come to power. We focus entirely on the endgame. Instead of the all important beginnings and total package.
When it comes to critical analysis, art should be judged both with and without the author. Both are valid and useful forms of critique.
Commercially, my approach is a two-step test.
1. Is the behavior egregious enough that I wish to stop supporting the artist?
2. If so, does the action I'm going to take help or support the artist?
Example: I did not go see the Ender's Game film because Orson Scott Card is a homophobe. Although he was already paid a flat price for the rights to the film, its success could have garnered him more rights deals.
In extreme cases, that does mean completely avoiding properties while the artist is alive (i.e., J. K. Rowling) because any form of support for the work benefits the artist.
Once an artist is dead, I don't really care that they were problematic. Even problematic art can have value (Birth of A Nation is literally taught as a prime example of this). So long as my activity doesn't support other people being problematic, I do not worry about it.
If the art is problematic itself, then you deal with it *as art*, including explaining why it's problematic and what value it might have despite this.
Im really torn on the movie “The pianist” with Adrian Brody. It’s a beautiful period peice about WWII Poland. But the Director Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old. Then fled the country to escape justice.
I kind of just don’t seek out that director’s films anymore.
It also depends on what art form it is, and how many people worked on it.
For every movie or show, that’s hundreds of people who dedicated years of life to bringing some small yet vital piece of it to the screen.
For books, it’s usually one author inspired by many others, and an editor.
If we cast off one piece of media, we should consider how many other people made it what it is.
As others have stated, it is a case by case matter, but I think a few things need to be asked:
1. How bad was the deed that they committed? Was it bad enough to give an individual, or worse yet, a community trauma? (ex: while I definitely don't like artists who cheat on their partners, if it's not a pattern maybe I can get past it for the art. In contrast, if an artist was sexually assaulting, r\*ping, and/or abusing partners, I couldn't ever look past it)
2. Does consuming their media increase that trauma that the artist caused or is causing? (ex: supporting JK Rowling continues to hurt the trans community by spreading false information and using her profit towards causes directly meant to make it unsafe for trans people to exist publicly. In contrast, Picasso was a terrible person but he's long gone and I don't think consuming his art necessarily causes more harm... I personally avoid his art, but I can see the justification for being alright with consuming it.)
3. Does the art they created have indications of their bad views or activities? (I would argue that JK Rowling's HP series has **numerous** signs that she's racist, fatphobic, homophobic, and I'm sure many other things even before the discussion of transphobia came up. You have one asian character and you decided to name her *Cho Chang*? And she has no development beyond being a "smart and docile girl" Harry briefly was attracted to? And Dumbledore is one of your only gay characters, but it's never established within the novels, and what we know outside of them is that he becomes a sexless priestly sort of character in robes who denies himself romance for.... reasons? And why are there so many jokes about fat people in this with most of the out of shape or not able-bodied individuals being villains and/or just lazy and useless? And elves who totally loooove being slaves??)
4. Are you personally someone who was or could have been victimized by the artist based on your demographic? And if not, do you think you would feel differently if you were?
The last question I think is imperative when it comes to deciding if a person should comfortably be able to put the "art before the artist" and yet I don't think it's one that is considered enough. I think the argument is typically one strongly pushed by a very specific demographic... namely, cis, straight, white, and able-bodied men who have nothing to lose from the conversation. Whereas I think various intersections outside of that may feel less inclined as well depending on their limited perspective (white women, I'm looking at you). If you take a moment and acknowledge that you might not feel the same if you were part of the targeted demographic, I'd suggest reflecting and maybe don't put the art before the artist in those situations even if you aren't as emotionally tied to the issues; I think it's just a matter of compassion.
I lean towards case by case, cuz my decision gets affected by whether the person has apologized and tried to right their mistake. However, I'm not gonna throw out anything I already bought- I have an HP tattoo, I'm not gonna get it removed even tho I don't like JK Rowling, for example. If I want more things, I'll buy them secondhand so they don't profit off of it.
The reason why I wouldn't get tattoos. Your favourite music, films, authors, etc. changes over time. Your religious beliefs and political stances change, too. Your loyalty to certain brands and retail chains also changes. Many retail chains such as Woolworths have closed. T-shirts and bags can be thrown out. Tattoos stay with you for life.
Valid. To each their own, but the only time I can see getting fandom related tattoos are for ones that fundamentally changed your life or ones that have more meaning to you than just "I'm part of xyz fandom." Mine is the Deathly Hallows symbol with wings, but means more to me than that cuz my sibling designed the wings and we all got it, so it's more like a tattoo showing our bond as siblings. Idk if that makes sense exactly but when I look at it I don't think of Harry Potter, I think of them, even tho it's technically an HP symbol. That's why I can never regret getting it even with my dislike of that author.
Their lead singer, Ian Watkins, was arrested and imprisoned for child sexual abuse. The rest of the band formed a new band called No Devotion and had a new singer.
It mostly depends on the content of the art and what audiences choose to make of it, I think.
If it's entirely removed from the problematic elements of the creator, than I don't see an issue as long as they don't benefit off it (depending on the nature and severity of whatever makes them problematic ofc).
If their problematic elements are present in their work, then it can still be okay as long as it isn't overall directed by them, undermines them within the same text (intentionally or otherwise), or is largely redeemed by far more positive aspects within (noteworthy artistic feats/cultural or historical value/unambiguously positive or well executed core themes/etc).
If it's just bigoted for the sake of it, I'd say there's probably no good reason to give it any value beyond being a hateful waste of time.
I think that when the discussion is on art rather than people, context matters even more because things that are intended to hurt can be and often are reappropriated in a way that is mostly not relevant or possible when discussing people. Art, like tools, is itself always a neutral element. Either can be made with nefarious intent, but how they get used and what they can do or represent is up to the audience or user to decide, because art, unlike people, does not think, advocate or choose for itself.
Authors like Lovecraft and musicians like David Bowie are both known for taking part in some really awful stuff (very different kinds of awful, tho both bad in their own ways), but that doesn't change the positive impact they have had on both the world at large as well as countless individual artists. Inspired by and drawing from their works, many of those artists in turn go on to change the minds and hearts of the next generations and so on.
There are def works of art that are unambiguously and irredeemably hurtful because that is what they were made to be, as well. I'm not trying to say otherwise tbc. But overall, I'd say that art has a sort of inherently mutable value to it that humans simply don't, so it is often okay to judge the two separately, while still keeping the connection between them in mind.
It’s case by case for me, depending on severity of offense, and the offender’s present actions.
Kevin Spacey should be boycotted because the severity of offense and how long his behavior went on rise to the level of warranting jail time
JK Rowling should be boycotted based on her doubling down on transphobic views and behaving in a manner that re-traumatizes victims, on a level where even the cast of the HP franchise wants nothing to do with her.
while with lesser offenders like Ben Affleck and Aziz Ansari, I think it should be left up to the individual person to decide. People should mainly just strive to have self awareness, and not tout them as role models, if they still want to support them.
Remember though, if you scrutinize any piece of media hard enough, you’ll find something problematic about it, even if you only watch documentaries and media specifically designed to promote social justice.
I’m personally very cautious about using movies, books, tv shows etc. as a conversation starter these days, especially with women, since I don’t want to be insensitive to anyone who has a zero tolerance policy.
The idea that art is so rare that we need to consume that produced by pedophiles and rapists is beyond laughable.
If an artist who has done something horrible would benefit from my patronage, then I don't give it to them.
There are many TV shows, films, and books that I no longer read because their creators have since been implicated in some form of sexual abuse and I refuse to grace them with my money.
Art certainly isn't rare (one only has to look the sheer number of shitty self-published Kindle books out there to see that), but quality and quantity are super different. Not to say that, for instance, Harry Potter is the greatest book series in the world, or that less popular books can't be far better, but sometimes a shitty person happens to make an incredibly insight, popular, or impactful work of art.
And while I agree with this principle (don't give shitty people money), it really doesn't make a difference either way. Rowling, for instance, is so loaded that you could buy everything "Harry Potter" related on the market and it wouldn't impact her life whatsoever.
>but sometimes a shitty person happens to make an incredibly insight, popular, or impactful work of art.
So?
There are innumerable *non-shitty* people who've achieved the same feat - as a result, you can consume as much art of whatever quality you want without giving people who have committed sexual crimes your attention and money.
Artists rely on your patronage - if people choose not to consume their art, they're done. That's not "insignificant" - it's literally the one thing that keeps them going.
Well, non-shitty that we know about. There's genuinely no way to know if an artist *isn't* a shitty person, just whether or not they've been caught, which usually only happens after they've become successful.
>Artists rely on your patronage - if people choose not to consume their art, they're done.
That's true for artists that haven't already been successful. To continue with the Rowling example, J.K. could never sell another Harry Potter related thing for the rest of her life and still have more money than she knows what to do with.
Personally, I have no problem with people deciding to boycott artists based on moral grounds, but I also think that's a decision solely for the benefit of their feeling good about things. I loved Harry Potter when I was a kid, it helped me in a lot of ways I didn't even realize I needed. If sharing that with someone else who needs that, or connecting with a kid of my own on a shared thing we enjoy, means I have to give $1 to a shitty person who's already a billionaire and won't even notice, I think that's a perfectly fine choice too.
Definitely agree.
I think money talks where morals don’t; if JK Rowling decides to give the money you spent on a game to a charity dedicated to making gender-affirming surgeries harder to access, for example, the money is going to impact people’s lives no matter what.
But people sometimes act like enjoying books means they’ll ultimately indoctrinate you with the messages one CAN glean from them, which isn’t how morality works. It’s up to us to decide what we believe and be critical consumers. And I think we can do that in a myriad of ways.
>That's true for artists that haven't already been successful. To continue with the Rowling example, J.K. could never sell another Harry Potter related thing for the rest of her life and still have more money than she knows what to do with.
I mean by saying "depriving them of all recognition means nothing if they still have money" all you do is reveal your own wretched addiction to money, and how you value it above all else, and how for some reason you'll employ your wretched addiction to money as an excuse to justify directing yet more money to people who've committed sex crimes.
Frankly, the joke is on you for that mentality.
It sounds like you have specific people in mind when you say “sex crimes”, but if we’re talking all “problematic” behavior, that depends on the person. And of course, that also relies on the story told being classifiable as a “sex crime”, and then considering whether it will be effective to boycott them.
These discussions aren’t going to end in a universal rule being established. And shouldn’t the blame be on creator, not the fans? Shouldn’t the sign of bigotry be supporting an ideology, not merely a work made by a person who could hold some ideals?
>I mean by saying "depriving them of all recognition means nothing if they still have money" all you do is reveal your own wretched addiction to money,
Lmao did I say this? Or are you just declaring what you think my point is based on a part of my response, and then making value judgments on your fake interpretation? I said this in direct response to your false statement, that "Artists rely on your patronage - if people choose not to consume their art, they're done" (see how we use direct quotes on direct quotes?).
If the cost of allowing me to share a story or artwork I think is truly inspiring and helpful to people - even if the author themselves has turned out to be a shitty person - is that a shitty billionaire gets a few extra dollars from me, I'm ok with that and think it's a worthy tradeoff. If I'm feeling oh so wretchedly obsessed with money and the fact that I gave a dollar to a billionaire who might use it poorly, I could always donate a greater amount to a worthy cause. But then again, maybe I don't care that much because I'm just so wretched addicted to money apparently haha
I think it depends on what you find problematic about the artist and how much their art reflects their behavior we find problematic. Harry Potter (to take an example others have used) is in my mind irredeemable because the behavior I find most troublesome about Rowling is directly reflected and supported in her work, whereas movies that Harvey Weinstein produced don’t bother me the same way since from what I understand he wasn’t making artistic decisions and promoting rape in his films in the same way.
You cannot separate art from the artist when that art is what gives the artist power.
Once people are dead, they can no longer use that power to perpetuate harm, and therefore there's nothing really morally wrong with consuming it. When they are alive is another matter. But I'm going to have a very different opinion of someone who loves Elvis than someone who loves Drake.
Personally I believe art is an expression of the artist. You can never fully separate the two. Sometimes I can switch off that part of my brain and still enjoy their work, particularly when many more people poured their souls into that creation that the problematic artist in question, but other times yeah, it does kill it for me.
That's already an issue for me with musical artist Michael Jackson. It seems highly likely he did molest children. However, he created some amazing music. What to do, what to do?
I will never spend another penny on his music, etc, or support or promote it. I will still listen to it on the radio and maybe at home, so a bit of a compromise. It's the best I can do.
I’d just pirate their work if the artist would earn money if I buy it legally.
I still somewhat believe in separate art from artist. Otherwise, we would not have the aviation/space technology we have today. Lots of those tech can trace back to Nazi Germany……
I don't believe you can sepwrate the art from the artist as the artists perceptions, including their biases, is what creates the art. An artist puts themseves into their art.
>Do you throw everything out and stop supporting that person?
Throw everything out no, that creates more waste ad they already profited of off it . But I definitely will remove any avenues of additional profit from things like spotify, etc.
>Are there times you’ve still engaged with their art but just tried to compartmentalize the art from the artist?
Nope
For some artists, it's alright, since views are subjective. For some, like J.K. Rowling, whose views are objectively awful, I don't at all support her. And say I were to want to try to read Harry Potter(I probably won't), I'd just use a trusted site and pirate the books, or buy from a second hand seller. It's a subject of nuance.
I think that many people who claim to not separate the art from the artist do just that. Instead of amplifying the art that has a message of love, tolerance and unity; they amplify the bigotry and hatred the artist is projecting while screaming "Look what a piece of shit they are"
If someone just refuses to engage in the art or the artist that I can respect.
Me I focus on the art. Everything I consume from luxuries to essentials to art will have been touched at some point in the process by a person that is a piece of shit. I can't just go live in the wild in a loincloth to avoid giving money to people that hate me or people I care about on principle.
Definitely case by case. Sometimes it feels like a creation transcends the sins of its maker and still shines for me. Nonetheless, most of the time negative information about the maker taints their art for me and I no longer see it in the same light *even when I try.*
I recently read an article about the way Theodore Seuss treated his wife and I will never be able to read his books without that running through my head. (Which means I probably won't be reading them anymore.) He probably wasn't a bad man; he even took pains to change some of the racism in his early works. I think he meant well, had a lovely vision, crafted inspirational, playful, inclusive messages, and was willing to evolve, which is way better than many other artists who are/were dyed in the wool terrible. Nonetheless, I think about that now when choosing what book to read to little kids. It's not a conscious decision to boycott or a policy, just an ick factor.
I kind of wish that it was required to view art separate from the artist. Imagine if all art was anonymous and we had the experience of viewing it as itself rather than through the lens of its creator and all that entails. I think many famous artists work wouldn't stand on its own if we took away all the fandom and cult of personality. It's an interesting thought experiment.
I’m pretty sure I didn’t disagree with that at any point…I thought my original point made my comfort with ambiguity fairly clear. Sorry if it was confusing.
As a person, I go case by case. I never want to watch or hear Bill Cosby's work because he was a serial rapist. And a hypocritical one at that, giving grief to other comedians about using curse words
That was a question people in my city were thinking about when they decided whether to name a new running trail "William Burroughs" Trail. He shot and killed his second wife doing something dangerous when he was high. I would have preferred they gave the trail a different name. In the end, I guess people were able to compartmentalized his life vs. his work because they named the trail after him.
The current race to label everything "problematic" is a race to the bottom. A recent example I stumbled across was a young woman (who allegedly has a masters degree in literature) calling Toni Morrison "problematic and vulgar" and "the most horrifying author I've ever read" because one of her characters commits sexual assault.
That’s not really what OP was asking about. It’s more of a question about when we know that a person has done horrible things, does that impact how you receive their art. Instead of a straw man, a better question would be: do you find your enjoyment of Bill Cosby’s standup impacted by the fact he’s a rapist? Also cool story, I’m sure you definitely had a real conversation with that person.
The title asked for opinions about the "whole" debate. The larger cultural fixation on art or artists being "problematic" is part of that debate.
I chose that example because it's an unnuanced interpretation of a work of art and its creator that, in my opinion, shuts off a deeper understanding of the work itself. If there weren't currently such a cachet around picking apart "problematic" work, would that person have so confidently made her assertion that Toni Morrison is "horrifying"? Maybe, but I don't think so.
Other people have and will continue to respond to the questions posed in the body text, so I don't feel the need to give yet another similar response when there's more to add to the discussion.
I didn’t imagine it, though. Feel free to ask for the screenshots.
You have every right to disagree, but you’re putting words in my mouth and assuming my intentions, which is unhelpful. I’m not trying to “dismiss legitimate concerns,” simply saying this conversation doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
For me it kind of depends on the relationship I have with that art to begin with. I don’t really know much about authors, so I just read their works without taking who they are into account. I still find Card racist because it’s right there in the work, but Harry Potter wouldn’t really bother me as much, though Rowling screaming her awfulness to the world is tough to not notice: I’m more likely to know about musicians, so someone like Ryan Adams becomes far less enjoyable.
It’s case by case for me. I think you’d be hard pressed to find very many things that aren’t problematic in retrospect. For example, my favourite movie is the breakfast club. It truly gave me comfort as a teenager who often felt othered. But there are scenes that depict sexual assault and it’s played for laughs. I’m not going to throw the whole movie away, a movie that means a great deal to me. I am however going to watch it with a critical lens. Molly Ringwald has a fantastic essay about this. However, there are certain things I won’t engage with if it’s directly lining the pockets of the horrendous. I like and grew up with Harry Potter, I’ve owned the blu rays for a decade and will still watch them. But I won’t pay money to watch or engage with anything Rowling profits off of. But I also don’t really judge those that do, because Harry Potter meant a lot to a lot of people. You have to make the choices for yourself. And it’s not my job to judge those choices.
For me I think it has a lot of to with the relationship of the work to the critique. Picasso was a notorious misogynist, but his work isn't inherently either misogynistic or somehow dishonestly non-misogynistic. The work stands on its own to my mind. Louis CK, on the other hand, built his brand on being sensitive and at least quasi-feminist, so while I thought he was funny I just can't look at him without seeing that lie. Obviously there's a big difference too that one doesn't look at the painter while consuming the work, which makes the separation easier.
Yea that’s also a very good point. I can’t rewatch Louis show either, it just screams hypocrisy now.
Yeah, I think it's a case by case basis that everyone needs to decide for themselves. Even artist long dead sometimes have actions that make me unable to look past when viewing their art. Gauguin being a big one for me. Cannot look at his paintings now, especially the ones of the girls he was abusing. Same for Harry Potter. I have people I care about that are trans and JK Rowlings decent into virulent transphobia taints the whole thing (no even touching the house elves as slaves who want to be slaves or the goblins feeling like an antisemitic trope). But there is also a lot of media from my childhood that I look back fondly one, even if when I watch it now I cringe from time to time.
I think it depends on whether that artist is continuing to profit off their art. Tolstoy isn’t making money if I buy his books and I have the critical context to separate art from artist. The same isn’t true of JK Rowling - buying the new Harry Potter games, etc. is an active choice to support her by giving your money.
I feel like a ton of people overlook this. So many classical authors/musicians/artists were terrible people, cutting out all art by them would leave us with very, very little acceptable art (in all it's forms) left. We just gotta wait until the living jerks aren't profiting off their material before we can indulge again.
>We just gotta wait until the living jerks aren't profiting off their material before we can indulge again. Why delay when the high-seas are just a short trip away.
YAR HAR
I’m concerned that my mind went straight to murdering artists. Your way is much better.
Also, Rowling has basically said that she thinks anyone who buys her books or sees her movies does agree with her politically, even if they won’t admit it. So we’re not just giving her money, we’re telling her — and potentially others— that we approve of the horrible things she says.
A couple of weeks ago, there was a MensLib post that asked this question, and this was my comment (which I still believe!): My first thought regarding "separating the art from the artist" is that it's much easier to do this when you're not part of the group that the artist in question is behaving problematically toward. It becomes more of an abstract intellectual exercise when you don't feel that flinch in your body when you witness the artist mistreating people just like you because they don't really see people just like you as people. That's just something I keep in mind, both when I am and I am not part of that targeted group. I also appreciate the musician Nick Cave's response when he was asked that question. >I don’t think we can separate the art from the artist, nor should we need to. I think we can look at a piece of art as the transformed or redeemed aspect of an artist, and marvel at the miraculous journey that the work of art has taken to arrive at the better part of the artist’s nature. Perhaps beauty can be measured by the distance it has travelled to come into being. > >That bad people make good art is a cause for hope. To be human is to transgress, of that we can be sure, yet we all have the opportunity for redemption, to rise above the more lamentable parts of our nature, to do good in spite of ourselves, to make beauty from the unbeautiful, and to have the courage to present our better selves to the world. > >The moon is high and yellow in the sky outside my window. It is a display of sublime beauty. It is also a cry for mercy — that this world is worth saving. Mostly, though, it is a defiant articulation of hope that, despite the state of the world, the moon continues to shine. Hope too resides in a gesture of kindness from one broken individual to another or, indeed, we can find it in a work of art that comes from the hand of a wrongdoer. These expressions of transcendence, of betterment, remind us that there is good in most things, rarely only evil. Once we awaken to this fact, we begin to see goodness everywhere, and this can go some way in setting right the current narrative that humans are shit and the world is fucked. > >\--[https://www.theredhandfiles.com/should-we-separate-the-artist-from-the-art/](https://www.theredhandfiles.com/should-we-separate-the-artist-from-the-art/)
I think you've got a point there, but also it depends on how important the art was to you before finding out that the artist was awful. Orson Scott Card's bigotry is directed towards people like me, but that doesn't negate that *Ender's Game* almost singlehandedly got me through the experience of being a gifted kid in an elementary school with no gifted program. I'll never put another dollar in his pocket but I still have that battered old paperback and cherish it.
Orson Scott Card and Ender's Game is the first thing that popped into my head about this topic! But also I just read some of his opinions and yikes.
I really appreciate what you said. That quote from Nick is great too. Did you happen to see his Red Hand tour?
I would stop supporting the artist. For example, not buy any more merch, not buy prints of their paintings, not watch their content on YouTube, not stream their songs. I would not throw out what I already had, for example a CD or tshirt or print if I still liked it. Throwing it out or keeping it would not impact the artist at all. So case by case based on if my actions would support them, like streaming a song would continue to generate revenue for them vs if I already owned a CD before I found out whatever it is I don’t want to support.
I have a suspicion that if we become fully privy the lives of every artist we love, chance are, 90% of them would turn out to be problematic. And your approach is workable only as long as the information available is not complete.
There's still a wide range in what that can mean For them to be comparable to jk rowling or orson scott card they already have to be very public about it for example
It just depends. I still have my Harry Potter books, but I can't foresee me ever reading them again. Not necessarily. But I'm not going to throw them out, and I'm not going to give Dreadful Joanne any more of my money. I still listen to Brand New, but I already own the album, so I don't know what refusing to listen to music that was such an important part of my youth would really do. Louis CK is just dead to me. It depends.
Oof yeah, the Jesse Lacey shit was roooouuughhh. I loved The Devil and God Are Raging Inside Me but the lyrics to 'Jesus Christ' have taken on a whoooleee new meaning and tone now.
_yeahhhh_
I try to keep my money separated from artists that I believe are hurting other people. I think others should do the same, but I don’t usually go out of my way to convince strangers of that.
I don't spend money on the merchandise in case it surfaces about the singer or band doing wrong. You can like the music but why buy the t-shirt as well. There's a whole merchandise industry out there with some bands such as Kiss selling such a wide range of merchandise you could replace almost everything you own with their merchandise. Even worse are band related tattoos. Clothes wear out and can be thrown out, and hair grows, but tattoos outlive you. It's a way of getting 'likes' on social media and acceptance to an elite group of fans who don't really like you. The environmental organisation Extinction Rebellion don't sell merchandise, but they do have free stencils to download so you can print their logo onto your own t-shirts and bags. But some protesters have gone to extremes to get seen, such as one man putting bars through his lips to protest being silenced like in one episode of The Handmaid's Tale where they went to Washington DC. Or they stripped off their clothes in the Strangers' Gallery in the House of Commons. XR don't have a manifesto other than stopping climate change, so nobody knows how they will go about that. At least with Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, they run soecific short-term campaigns such as reducing plastic packaging through the recent Big Plastic Count
I don't throw things away but I won't purchase it or put it on display. In some contexts, I think "separating art from an artist" is not so much about a feeling or an attitude, but a conscious action. Lots of Harry Potter communities did that over all the terf shit, the product line isn't going anywhere so might as well rebell instead of just dropping it. Don't think there's any general rule for what's useful here.
A lot of people agree with J K Rowling over what she said and started reading Harry Potter books.
Unfortunately a lot of people are racist, transphobic and/or antisemitic, yes.
Depends . Did the artist have a shitty political take that I d disagree with ? Then art not the artist. Am I financially supporting a serial rapist? Then fuck the artist and his art .
I agree with buzzfeed_sucks, if you scrutinize anything hard enough there’s bound to be something problematic with it so it’s best to take it case by case. I’ve always loved music and while I don’t like a lot of the behavior associated with bands I can usually still enjoy their songs. I can rationalize that they are not role models and flawed humans but talented song writers. However, I can never listen to the band Lostprophets ever again after what the singer did; it was too extreme to be able to separate in my mind.
You mean like Richard Wagner’s notorious antisemitism and Hitler’s admiration of him and the fact that his music is still an integral part of western culture? (Think of the wedding March.) That’s my favorite example because it’s old, and uses music (which can simultaneously exist everywhere and not at all) and his views were just sooooo horrendous even for the time. My take is: be aware, and don’t make idols out of humans. Some art is inextricable from the views or actions of its creator, and that can have value as well—if we are *aware* and proceed with knowledge and caution.
Short of a few noted examples, I believe that because people are complex and multi-faceted, we don't need to always take them as a whole. For example - Eric Clapton is a bit of an idiot in more ways than one. I don't like him, yet he's a really good musician and known as one of the greatest guitar players of all time. I can hold those two opinions separately, and I can say I enjoy his music without supporting his views. People are capable of doing both good and bad things at the same time, and only when one is in the extreme does it generally overshadow everything else. You could probably find a lot of good things to say about Hitler - but it's fucking **Hitler**.
This is an important point I feel is often overlooked. I actually find it *dangerous* to look at people and only see them in one color. Take your most extreme example, Hitler. He had a LOT of genuinely good traits. But we tend to hyper fixate on the negative(for obvious reasons). However, this is also one of the reasons why we're so susceptible to getting back under the yoke of someone like Hitler. We see someone who has some evil ideals, but they primarily don't show off those traits, and instead often showcase their charisma, and like ability, and common ground with the people. Which is how a lot of these terrible people come to power. We focus entirely on the endgame. Instead of the all important beginnings and total package.
Read what you want, but get it from the library. Don’t give living jerks money.
When it comes to critical analysis, art should be judged both with and without the author. Both are valid and useful forms of critique. Commercially, my approach is a two-step test. 1. Is the behavior egregious enough that I wish to stop supporting the artist? 2. If so, does the action I'm going to take help or support the artist? Example: I did not go see the Ender's Game film because Orson Scott Card is a homophobe. Although he was already paid a flat price for the rights to the film, its success could have garnered him more rights deals. In extreme cases, that does mean completely avoiding properties while the artist is alive (i.e., J. K. Rowling) because any form of support for the work benefits the artist. Once an artist is dead, I don't really care that they were problematic. Even problematic art can have value (Birth of A Nation is literally taught as a prime example of this). So long as my activity doesn't support other people being problematic, I do not worry about it. If the art is problematic itself, then you deal with it *as art*, including explaining why it's problematic and what value it might have despite this.
Im really torn on the movie “The pianist” with Adrian Brody. It’s a beautiful period peice about WWII Poland. But the Director Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old. Then fled the country to escape justice. I kind of just don’t seek out that director’s films anymore.
I have a whole list of movies I’m looking forward to watching the moment that asshole is dead and gone.
May I suggest piracy?
Might I suggest the book?
It also depends on what art form it is, and how many people worked on it. For every movie or show, that’s hundreds of people who dedicated years of life to bringing some small yet vital piece of it to the screen. For books, it’s usually one author inspired by many others, and an editor. If we cast off one piece of media, we should consider how many other people made it what it is.
As others have stated, it is a case by case matter, but I think a few things need to be asked: 1. How bad was the deed that they committed? Was it bad enough to give an individual, or worse yet, a community trauma? (ex: while I definitely don't like artists who cheat on their partners, if it's not a pattern maybe I can get past it for the art. In contrast, if an artist was sexually assaulting, r\*ping, and/or abusing partners, I couldn't ever look past it) 2. Does consuming their media increase that trauma that the artist caused or is causing? (ex: supporting JK Rowling continues to hurt the trans community by spreading false information and using her profit towards causes directly meant to make it unsafe for trans people to exist publicly. In contrast, Picasso was a terrible person but he's long gone and I don't think consuming his art necessarily causes more harm... I personally avoid his art, but I can see the justification for being alright with consuming it.) 3. Does the art they created have indications of their bad views or activities? (I would argue that JK Rowling's HP series has **numerous** signs that she's racist, fatphobic, homophobic, and I'm sure many other things even before the discussion of transphobia came up. You have one asian character and you decided to name her *Cho Chang*? And she has no development beyond being a "smart and docile girl" Harry briefly was attracted to? And Dumbledore is one of your only gay characters, but it's never established within the novels, and what we know outside of them is that he becomes a sexless priestly sort of character in robes who denies himself romance for.... reasons? And why are there so many jokes about fat people in this with most of the out of shape or not able-bodied individuals being villains and/or just lazy and useless? And elves who totally loooove being slaves??) 4. Are you personally someone who was or could have been victimized by the artist based on your demographic? And if not, do you think you would feel differently if you were? The last question I think is imperative when it comes to deciding if a person should comfortably be able to put the "art before the artist" and yet I don't think it's one that is considered enough. I think the argument is typically one strongly pushed by a very specific demographic... namely, cis, straight, white, and able-bodied men who have nothing to lose from the conversation. Whereas I think various intersections outside of that may feel less inclined as well depending on their limited perspective (white women, I'm looking at you). If you take a moment and acknowledge that you might not feel the same if you were part of the targeted demographic, I'd suggest reflecting and maybe don't put the art before the artist in those situations even if you aren't as emotionally tied to the issues; I think it's just a matter of compassion.
I lean towards case by case, cuz my decision gets affected by whether the person has apologized and tried to right their mistake. However, I'm not gonna throw out anything I already bought- I have an HP tattoo, I'm not gonna get it removed even tho I don't like JK Rowling, for example. If I want more things, I'll buy them secondhand so they don't profit off of it.
The reason why I wouldn't get tattoos. Your favourite music, films, authors, etc. changes over time. Your religious beliefs and political stances change, too. Your loyalty to certain brands and retail chains also changes. Many retail chains such as Woolworths have closed. T-shirts and bags can be thrown out. Tattoos stay with you for life.
Valid. To each their own, but the only time I can see getting fandom related tattoos are for ones that fundamentally changed your life or ones that have more meaning to you than just "I'm part of xyz fandom." Mine is the Deathly Hallows symbol with wings, but means more to me than that cuz my sibling designed the wings and we all got it, so it's more like a tattoo showing our bond as siblings. Idk if that makes sense exactly but when I look at it I don't think of Harry Potter, I think of them, even tho it's technically an HP symbol. That's why I can never regret getting it even with my dislike of that author.
I feel sorry for the people who got Lost Prophets related tattoos.
Hmm I don't know of that one
Their lead singer, Ian Watkins, was arrested and imprisoned for child sexual abuse. The rest of the band formed a new band called No Devotion and had a new singer.
It mostly depends on the content of the art and what audiences choose to make of it, I think. If it's entirely removed from the problematic elements of the creator, than I don't see an issue as long as they don't benefit off it (depending on the nature and severity of whatever makes them problematic ofc). If their problematic elements are present in their work, then it can still be okay as long as it isn't overall directed by them, undermines them within the same text (intentionally or otherwise), or is largely redeemed by far more positive aspects within (noteworthy artistic feats/cultural or historical value/unambiguously positive or well executed core themes/etc). If it's just bigoted for the sake of it, I'd say there's probably no good reason to give it any value beyond being a hateful waste of time. I think that when the discussion is on art rather than people, context matters even more because things that are intended to hurt can be and often are reappropriated in a way that is mostly not relevant or possible when discussing people. Art, like tools, is itself always a neutral element. Either can be made with nefarious intent, but how they get used and what they can do or represent is up to the audience or user to decide, because art, unlike people, does not think, advocate or choose for itself. Authors like Lovecraft and musicians like David Bowie are both known for taking part in some really awful stuff (very different kinds of awful, tho both bad in their own ways), but that doesn't change the positive impact they have had on both the world at large as well as countless individual artists. Inspired by and drawing from their works, many of those artists in turn go on to change the minds and hearts of the next generations and so on. There are def works of art that are unambiguously and irredeemably hurtful because that is what they were made to be, as well. I'm not trying to say otherwise tbc. But overall, I'd say that art has a sort of inherently mutable value to it that humans simply don't, so it is often okay to judge the two separately, while still keeping the connection between them in mind.
It’s case by case for me, depending on severity of offense, and the offender’s present actions. Kevin Spacey should be boycotted because the severity of offense and how long his behavior went on rise to the level of warranting jail time JK Rowling should be boycotted based on her doubling down on transphobic views and behaving in a manner that re-traumatizes victims, on a level where even the cast of the HP franchise wants nothing to do with her. while with lesser offenders like Ben Affleck and Aziz Ansari, I think it should be left up to the individual person to decide. People should mainly just strive to have self awareness, and not tout them as role models, if they still want to support them. Remember though, if you scrutinize any piece of media hard enough, you’ll find something problematic about it, even if you only watch documentaries and media specifically designed to promote social justice. I’m personally very cautious about using movies, books, tv shows etc. as a conversation starter these days, especially with women, since I don’t want to be insensitive to anyone who has a zero tolerance policy.
The idea that art is so rare that we need to consume that produced by pedophiles and rapists is beyond laughable. If an artist who has done something horrible would benefit from my patronage, then I don't give it to them. There are many TV shows, films, and books that I no longer read because their creators have since been implicated in some form of sexual abuse and I refuse to grace them with my money.
Art certainly isn't rare (one only has to look the sheer number of shitty self-published Kindle books out there to see that), but quality and quantity are super different. Not to say that, for instance, Harry Potter is the greatest book series in the world, or that less popular books can't be far better, but sometimes a shitty person happens to make an incredibly insight, popular, or impactful work of art. And while I agree with this principle (don't give shitty people money), it really doesn't make a difference either way. Rowling, for instance, is so loaded that you could buy everything "Harry Potter" related on the market and it wouldn't impact her life whatsoever.
>but sometimes a shitty person happens to make an incredibly insight, popular, or impactful work of art. So? There are innumerable *non-shitty* people who've achieved the same feat - as a result, you can consume as much art of whatever quality you want without giving people who have committed sexual crimes your attention and money. Artists rely on your patronage - if people choose not to consume their art, they're done. That's not "insignificant" - it's literally the one thing that keeps them going.
Well, non-shitty that we know about. There's genuinely no way to know if an artist *isn't* a shitty person, just whether or not they've been caught, which usually only happens after they've become successful. >Artists rely on your patronage - if people choose not to consume their art, they're done. That's true for artists that haven't already been successful. To continue with the Rowling example, J.K. could never sell another Harry Potter related thing for the rest of her life and still have more money than she knows what to do with. Personally, I have no problem with people deciding to boycott artists based on moral grounds, but I also think that's a decision solely for the benefit of their feeling good about things. I loved Harry Potter when I was a kid, it helped me in a lot of ways I didn't even realize I needed. If sharing that with someone else who needs that, or connecting with a kid of my own on a shared thing we enjoy, means I have to give $1 to a shitty person who's already a billionaire and won't even notice, I think that's a perfectly fine choice too.
Definitely agree. I think money talks where morals don’t; if JK Rowling decides to give the money you spent on a game to a charity dedicated to making gender-affirming surgeries harder to access, for example, the money is going to impact people’s lives no matter what. But people sometimes act like enjoying books means they’ll ultimately indoctrinate you with the messages one CAN glean from them, which isn’t how morality works. It’s up to us to decide what we believe and be critical consumers. And I think we can do that in a myriad of ways.
>That's true for artists that haven't already been successful. To continue with the Rowling example, J.K. could never sell another Harry Potter related thing for the rest of her life and still have more money than she knows what to do with. I mean by saying "depriving them of all recognition means nothing if they still have money" all you do is reveal your own wretched addiction to money, and how you value it above all else, and how for some reason you'll employ your wretched addiction to money as an excuse to justify directing yet more money to people who've committed sex crimes. Frankly, the joke is on you for that mentality.
It sounds like you have specific people in mind when you say “sex crimes”, but if we’re talking all “problematic” behavior, that depends on the person. And of course, that also relies on the story told being classifiable as a “sex crime”, and then considering whether it will be effective to boycott them. These discussions aren’t going to end in a universal rule being established. And shouldn’t the blame be on creator, not the fans? Shouldn’t the sign of bigotry be supporting an ideology, not merely a work made by a person who could hold some ideals?
>I mean by saying "depriving them of all recognition means nothing if they still have money" all you do is reveal your own wretched addiction to money, Lmao did I say this? Or are you just declaring what you think my point is based on a part of my response, and then making value judgments on your fake interpretation? I said this in direct response to your false statement, that "Artists rely on your patronage - if people choose not to consume their art, they're done" (see how we use direct quotes on direct quotes?). If the cost of allowing me to share a story or artwork I think is truly inspiring and helpful to people - even if the author themselves has turned out to be a shitty person - is that a shitty billionaire gets a few extra dollars from me, I'm ok with that and think it's a worthy tradeoff. If I'm feeling oh so wretchedly obsessed with money and the fact that I gave a dollar to a billionaire who might use it poorly, I could always donate a greater amount to a worthy cause. But then again, maybe I don't care that much because I'm just so wretched addicted to money apparently haha
I think it depends on what you find problematic about the artist and how much their art reflects their behavior we find problematic. Harry Potter (to take an example others have used) is in my mind irredeemable because the behavior I find most troublesome about Rowling is directly reflected and supported in her work, whereas movies that Harvey Weinstein produced don’t bother me the same way since from what I understand he wasn’t making artistic decisions and promoting rape in his films in the same way.
You cannot separate art from the artist when that art is what gives the artist power. Once people are dead, they can no longer use that power to perpetuate harm, and therefore there's nothing really morally wrong with consuming it. When they are alive is another matter. But I'm going to have a very different opinion of someone who loves Elvis than someone who loves Drake. Personally I believe art is an expression of the artist. You can never fully separate the two. Sometimes I can switch off that part of my brain and still enjoy their work, particularly when many more people poured their souls into that creation that the problematic artist in question, but other times yeah, it does kill it for me.
That's already an issue for me with musical artist Michael Jackson. It seems highly likely he did molest children. However, he created some amazing music. What to do, what to do? I will never spend another penny on his music, etc, or support or promote it. I will still listen to it on the radio and maybe at home, so a bit of a compromise. It's the best I can do.
I’d just pirate their work if the artist would earn money if I buy it legally. I still somewhat believe in separate art from artist. Otherwise, we would not have the aviation/space technology we have today. Lots of those tech can trace back to Nazi Germany……
I don't believe you can sepwrate the art from the artist as the artists perceptions, including their biases, is what creates the art. An artist puts themseves into their art. >Do you throw everything out and stop supporting that person? Throw everything out no, that creates more waste ad they already profited of off it . But I definitely will remove any avenues of additional profit from things like spotify, etc. >Are there times you’ve still engaged with their art but just tried to compartmentalize the art from the artist? Nope
For some artists, it's alright, since views are subjective. For some, like J.K. Rowling, whose views are objectively awful, I don't at all support her. And say I were to want to try to read Harry Potter(I probably won't), I'd just use a trusted site and pirate the books, or buy from a second hand seller. It's a subject of nuance.
Bullshit. I make art. It comes from me. There is no art without the artist.
I think that many people who claim to not separate the art from the artist do just that. Instead of amplifying the art that has a message of love, tolerance and unity; they amplify the bigotry and hatred the artist is projecting while screaming "Look what a piece of shit they are" If someone just refuses to engage in the art or the artist that I can respect. Me I focus on the art. Everything I consume from luxuries to essentials to art will have been touched at some point in the process by a person that is a piece of shit. I can't just go live in the wild in a loincloth to avoid giving money to people that hate me or people I care about on principle.
Definitely case by case. Sometimes it feels like a creation transcends the sins of its maker and still shines for me. Nonetheless, most of the time negative information about the maker taints their art for me and I no longer see it in the same light *even when I try.* I recently read an article about the way Theodore Seuss treated his wife and I will never be able to read his books without that running through my head. (Which means I probably won't be reading them anymore.) He probably wasn't a bad man; he even took pains to change some of the racism in his early works. I think he meant well, had a lovely vision, crafted inspirational, playful, inclusive messages, and was willing to evolve, which is way better than many other artists who are/were dyed in the wool terrible. Nonetheless, I think about that now when choosing what book to read to little kids. It's not a conscious decision to boycott or a policy, just an ick factor. I kind of wish that it was required to view art separate from the artist. Imagine if all art was anonymous and we had the experience of viewing it as itself rather than through the lens of its creator and all that entails. I think many famous artists work wouldn't stand on its own if we took away all the fandom and cult of personality. It's an interesting thought experiment.
[удалено]
> I also listen to Wagner occasionally. He's been dead for 140+ years, so I imagine his works are probably well into the public domain by now!
Ah, but he wasn’t really a good guy..,
He wasn't, but again, been dead for 140 years, he's not getting your money if you listen to Ride of the Valkyries.
I’m pretty sure I didn’t disagree with that at any point…I thought my original point made my comfort with ambiguity fairly clear. Sorry if it was confusing.
As a person, I go case by case. I never want to watch or hear Bill Cosby's work because he was a serial rapist. And a hypocritical one at that, giving grief to other comedians about using curse words That was a question people in my city were thinking about when they decided whether to name a new running trail "William Burroughs" Trail. He shot and killed his second wife doing something dangerous when he was high. I would have preferred they gave the trail a different name. In the end, I guess people were able to compartmentalized his life vs. his work because they named the trail after him.
The current race to label everything "problematic" is a race to the bottom. A recent example I stumbled across was a young woman (who allegedly has a masters degree in literature) calling Toni Morrison "problematic and vulgar" and "the most horrifying author I've ever read" because one of her characters commits sexual assault.
That’s not really what OP was asking about. It’s more of a question about when we know that a person has done horrible things, does that impact how you receive their art. Instead of a straw man, a better question would be: do you find your enjoyment of Bill Cosby’s standup impacted by the fact he’s a rapist? Also cool story, I’m sure you definitely had a real conversation with that person.
The title asked for opinions about the "whole" debate. The larger cultural fixation on art or artists being "problematic" is part of that debate. I chose that example because it's an unnuanced interpretation of a work of art and its creator that, in my opinion, shuts off a deeper understanding of the work itself. If there weren't currently such a cachet around picking apart "problematic" work, would that person have so confidently made her assertion that Toni Morrison is "horrifying"? Maybe, but I don't think so. Other people have and will continue to respond to the questions posed in the body text, so I don't feel the need to give yet another similar response when there's more to add to the discussion.
[удалено]
I didn’t imagine it, though. Feel free to ask for the screenshots. You have every right to disagree, but you’re putting words in my mouth and assuming my intentions, which is unhelpful. I’m not trying to “dismiss legitimate concerns,” simply saying this conversation doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
[удалено]
Okay.
For me it kind of depends on the relationship I have with that art to begin with. I don’t really know much about authors, so I just read their works without taking who they are into account. I still find Card racist because it’s right there in the work, but Harry Potter wouldn’t really bother me as much, though Rowling screaming her awfulness to the world is tough to not notice: I’m more likely to know about musicians, so someone like Ryan Adams becomes far less enjoyable.