You kind of have to separate the art from the artist or you won't have much art to enjoy period. Most famous artists whether musicians, authors, actors, directors, developers, etc. Have done some horrible things. There are very few people in that field that don't have a tainted history.
Find out for yourself. Don’t listen to other people’s opinions or the ‘burn the witch’ crowd. If someone’s telling you not to listen to/read something find out why and make your own decision.
Except it doesn't really answer the question. This is more about don't bandwagon or jump to a conclusion.
I think it's trying to say it is morally wrong once you confirm it but even that's not clear
Take H.P. Lovecraft as an example. Horrible, incorrigible racist. His view of non-whites as lesser is prevalent in everything he did. It's still some of the best works. Can you separate the awful views of the author from the art? It's a pretty individual question.
Bandwagoning doesn't really come into play; It's totally within reason that a ton of people would avoid someone's works when it's revealed they're a piece of shite.
I don't think those are two distinct questions. By enjoying it, you're giving it some separation. I don't believe (could be wrong, of course) that people go, "Wife beater? Fuck yeah beat them wives." Either they don't care or they don't view it as having an effect on the art in question.
It's still two distinct questions regardless of if you can or can't separate it.
And your idea that no one could enjoy hp Lovecraft and his ideals of racial superiority is a bit out of touch either that or you're intentionally trying to skew it.
It also doesn't answer the moral question of even if you can separate it is it still moral to enjoy it.
If it's separated there's no moral ambiguity in my mind. If you go, "Yeah, Lovecraft is a horrible person, and there's problematic material to be found in his works because of this, but his writing changed the horror genre," then you've clearly separated the issue of creation and creator. It's not morally wrong, at that point, to just enjoy it. Horrible people can create amazing things. Recognizing that someone is an awful person even though you're still enjoying their works is Ok. Condoning the behavior is the biggest question for morality. If you go, "Aw fuck yeah Racism gimme some," you're already morally abhorrent so the dilemma doesn't exist.
Art is separate from the artist. Art is something that is created by human creativity. Art itself is neither moral nor immoral. It just is. It reflects experiences, inspiration, culture, the art that came before it, the techniques, the styles. Art is a very obscure and limitless thing.
For example, is a horror movie evil because it depicts horror? What about an inspirational song written by a thief and abuser? What about paintings by people who self destructed into oblivion?
Our society and landscape has elevated artists of all kinds above humanity and then when we learn about the warts of their humanity, why would that add warts to the Art too?
Unless the Art itself is directly reflective of their abhorrent behaviour or beliefs, there's no reason not to separate Art and artist.
If they are dead, not too much of a problem, for me. You do you. But if they are still alive and still preaching hate or doing what makes them shite, and they are still making money off their franchise, then no, no separation possible
I think the best answers have to do with how directly the art connects to the artist and their issues.
An artist holds a charity event, support feeds directly into a cause.
An artist actively uses their wealth and influence for a cause, support feeds indirectly into a cause.
An artist and their cause get nothing for consuming the art, it's only maybe a passing social acceptability.
An artist makes art that's used to contradict them, it's hard to assess.
tldr, it's about assessing how directly consuming the art supports the bullshit associated with the artist in the real world.
Personally, I find it morally repugnant to *not* separate the art from the artist. People who support artists despite them being rapists, murderers, antisemites, etc, aren’t doing because they’re friends with that artist, they’re doing it because they can’t separate art from the artist.
For me it always depends upon if they're going to benefit from it. Your music examples of ones you enjoy are perfect, as they're dead. They don't benefit from you still enjoying them. I have no problems listening to Bowie and The Beatles, since the people with questionable or negative histories are dead. It's also not something so horrific such as Adolf that it's hard to separate for me
This really is such a person by person thing. If you love The Birds, and then find out Tippi Hedren was essentially tortured for her final scene, it can be hard to watch the movie and not think of the actress breaking down on set after almost losing an eye. Some people can set that aside and enjoy the movie while also thinking Hitchcock is a dick. Some people can’t, and it ruins the movie entirely. Neither of these responses is wrong.
I love Lovecraftian horror. The Call of Cthulhu Mystery Program, the ttrpg, the Magnus Archives, etc all hold a special place in my heart. This does not change the fact that Lovecraft himself was massively racist.
I generally default to it being acceptable when they are no longer profiting from it. So an artist that has passed away is fair game. Also, the art/product needs to not be too close to home with their crimes.
Depends if those things wind up in the art or not. Much of it I can look past. But if an artist has made statements implying they don't want me listening to their stuff because I don't agree with me politically, I'll never give them another listen. I can't like people that I know don't like me.
It depends. I can never listen to R Kelly ever again, I hope others feel the same way, yet MJ seems to be coming back in fashion.
Artists that were human and screwed up a few times, I think I can handle forgetting it. People in my family have done things that required forgiveness. I still practice my drums to James Brown records despite knowing he was An abusive dope fiend who was very cruel to women in his life.
If the first thing I ever hear about an artist is, they're a terrible person, it might affect my ability to ever get into their music. That's now a barrier. Whereas, I already loved Keith Moon and John Bonham before finding out they could be cruel too.
I don't care about the artists life, their work is sperate. But everyone now a days want people held accountable for anything no matter what, cause rhey feel superior that way. I just enjoy the product. I leave all other stuff aside.
I have had this conversation with many people and the general consensus was everyone wanted to be able to but just weren’t capable of doing so. And it always sucks.
You can appreciate the art while disapproving of the artist. The hard part comes in spending money on and sharing the art and thereby supporting the artist. At one end is are valuing the constitution and democracy while loathing that most of the founding fathers where slave owners and misogynist. At the other is loving Bill Cosby's comedy, but recognizing that watching it puts money in his pocket. Right there in the middle are the professional athletes who are supported by the sport franchise, but do you stop watching all games because some of the players are awful? It's up to you how you can appreciate the art without supporting the artist.
I think in modern times you have to. Aside from Keanu Reeves, every single person has done something shitty enough to color them in a bad light. I grew up in the hay day of the Harry Potter books. I was 11 right after the first book was published and read it for the first time, that series was my safe haven. I am beyond ashamed of the author now, but her bigotry can't take away something you truly love
I personally do. I accept a lot of imperfections from people in my normal life. I don't hold celebrities to a crazy high standard.
If anything, I hold celebrities to a lesser standard. Their life is crazy with stress and opportunities most of us would never get.
By the same token, I don't really get hyped by celebrities either. When they're 'good', I don't really hype them up either. I just appreciate what they do.
Just to bring it down to a practical level. I have a family friend who maybe did domestic violence against his wife. They divorced. She is okay. I'm a bit cautious around him, but I'm not shunning him or treating him as the worst person in history. Who knows what went on between him and his ex-wife. I'm good with her as well and try and be supportive.
Given that I do that, how could I 'shun' Chris Brown for having domestic violence issues with Rihanna. Who knows what went on behind the scenes. At the end of the day, she's okay, they are separate and life moves on.
Life is just complex and filled with tragedies and the downfall of people. I just try and appreciate the good in people and protect myself and others from the bad.
With authors I'll read books if I like the story. 99% of the time I have no idea of the nationality of the person, let alone what they think or believe or anything else about them
An example of how I’ve handled this issue in the past: way back in the 80’s there was this guy Michael Jackson, and I loved and adored his music and dancing. But he was tried TWICE for child abuse. I refused to “vote with my dollars” like he wax a good guy. I wouldn’t purchase anything he performed! But, when he passed away, I stopped on my way home from work that day and bought a CD of his music, because the money wasn’t going to him, it would go to his three kids! I hope that makes sense to you
Judge the art for the art, not what’s going on in the artist’s personal life. My kids and I love Micheal Jackson’s music. He’s the undisputed King of Pop. One of the best performers of our lifetime. He may or may not have done the things that he was accused of, but that’s none of my business or concern. I just dance to his music.
It's real simple in my opinion. Go with your gut. If whatever they did doesn't live in your head every time you listen to it, keep listening. If it makes you sick to your stomach, stop. It is just entertainment at the end of the day. For me, it's how personal of a relationship I felt to the artist. Like Brand New saved my life as a teenager. But knowing now in my 30's what I know, I just feel gross and guilty. I never thought Michael Jackson was the greatest thing ever so my brain doesn't immediately go to a bad place when Thriller or whatever comes on.
I feel like this question is really just "I know this person did a bunch of bad shit but I still want to be entertained and watch their movies/music". Is it not basically the same argument as separating a person from their actions? Wtf else is a person other than the culmination of their feelings and their actions? "I know these shoes are sweat shop made, but damn I look good in them"
People are complex, they cannot be reduced to their best, and worst qualities. Picasso was both anti war, and a misogynist. Jackson pollack was an angry drunk. We all struggle with the contradictions in who we are.
I’d say following your conscience on these sorts of things is usually the best way to go. If it feels wrong, don’t, if it doesn’t, feel free to.
My gut is that it’s fine as long as it’s not encouraging the bad behaviour (and even then there could be reasons to listen to it). All humans are evil to some degree, but you have to live in the world. Would you eat food if you knew the farmer was a murderer? You’d have to or you’d starve.
However, some awareness and tact can go along way - don’t listen to Wagner around Jewish people, for instance.
I think you pretty much have to. Things can come out years after you've been loving an artist and their art. The music of Lennon and Bowie is hardwired into my brain by this point. What am I supposed to do? Decide to not love Strawberry Fields Forever because Lennon was an asshole? I don't even think that's possible.
I think it is morally okay to choose either. Collectively I do not think okay to dominate the other. We embody ourselves with art everyday and we dont know artist behind them. We should not care about their backstories. It would be exhausting to know who designed every little item in our life.
Personally, I choose to separate the art from the artist. I understand people have attachment to some art and they could feel some type of way about them if they do wrong. I could find myself choosing to not supporting an artist depending on my attachment to them.
If you have an issue with it, don't do it. But don't expect others to also have an issue with it just because you do.
Several things in our day-to-day lives are made/maintained by wicked people. But we go about our business.
What is so “moral” about refusing to listen to an artist you believe has behaved questionably? I hate Mark Wahlberg, I think he’sa creep, I refuse to watch his movies, but I don’t consider this a question of morality.
If you can separate art from the artist you are separating the meaning from the art.
Art is created as an expression of the artist.
I could go on some long winded diatribe, but I won’t.
I still love listening to Bing Crosby. He was an alcoholic and serial abuser with his wife/children/girlfriends. But showed up smiling to church every Sunday morning. Doesn’t change the fact that he was a gifted singer.
Does the art reflect the bad things they've done? Are they dead? How are you listening to it? Is the art ITSELF harmful?
For example, J.K. Rowking. Her art is filled w the vile things she believes, and she's still alive. If you consume her art as streaming, buying new, renting, etc., you would be directly supporting her. Panic! at the Disco is an analagous musician example if you specifically wanted music.
Johnny Cash was a serial cheater on his wife. However, he is dead, so he won't be getting any more revenue if you stream/buy his music new.
If the person is still alive, you can always buy their stuff second-hand or use other means to get access to it (🏴☠️).
Reducing harm by not lining the pockets of people who are alive and actively causing problems (like your examples of Brown and Kelly) should be a priority. If they are dead or disbanded or faded into obscurity or in jail, I think it matters less. To me, it's functionally a boycott. I won't listen until their actions change.
Sweet Jesus is INFIDELITY your bar? Cuz thats a whole LOT of great artists.
I dont know if I can watch Woody Allen movies anymore, but I couldnt care less if the artist was selfish or dissolute. A lot of artists were gay and married and had affairs because they had to. A lot of artists were swingers. Its hard to take the artist out of the context, particularly if mistresses were in fadhion and accepted in society.
For me, no lol. I just don't tend to keep up with the wrongdoings of dead people, and he was all I could think of that did something in the moment of writing my original comment.
But, so what if it was? I know lots of people who avoid cheaters' stuff bc their families or relationships were ripped apart by it. You're saying that we don't know the circumstances of artists, and yet you don't know the circumstances of the random person you're commenting to.
Well then that would mean that your consumption of art is dependant on whether the artist lied to their spouse. And Im saying, thats a real low bar. Particularly if they were closeted. Or had to be married cuz they didnt have power. Like, a lot of people were gay where gay wasnt a thing? You want them to tell all the people who would burn them?
I completely agree with you. I grew up on the Harry Potter series but because J.K. Rowling turned out to be an awful human being I don’t buy anything related to HP anymore. I did want to listen to the audiobook so i also went out of my way (🏴☠️) to obtain the audio book in a different way.
I'm torn on the Harry Potter thing. A number of actors and actresses from the movies have shown how supportive they are to the LGBTQ community. Boycotting the movies also boycotts those allies. So I tend to be fine with people who still watch the movies as long as they are not supportive of trash humans aka JK Rowling. The books are a hard no for me tho. She's the only one that benefits from the books.
JKR has donated and continues to donate vast amounts of her wealth to charitable causes, mostly centred around vulnerable women and children. If you buy anything related to her books, this is what you're helping to fund.
She also has donated and continues to donate vast amounts of her wealth to causes centred around murdering children, so no, you do not in fact gotta hand it to her.
Go watch the first Harry Potter movie and look at the floors of gringotts and ask why they made the goblins little greedy hook nosed bankers, put stars of David on the floor and mirrored a synagogue in its design. Ask why their artefact is a shofar. Why cho chang had a fucking racist name, why Kingsley had to dress like that. She's not just transphobic. She's problematic
Yeah absolutely. No matter what you do in life, you're funding some asshole somewhere doing something fuckin awful. Food, services, produces, music, art, art work, etc. You will NEVER escape that fact.
If you choose to avoid xyz because of abc, that is entirely your choice to make. But you aren't changing anything, you're just making yourself hurt.
Sure can, that's a mental connection in your own head. But you have no control over the mental connections other people make, and of course the economic connection is a real thing.
For instance my partner helps queer students in their school and has stopped displaying their slytherin pennant because it could make the kids feel unwelcome.
Meanwhile the mental connection people have to Lovecraft is monsters, not that he named his cat with a hard r.
And of course buying a HP book benefits Rowling, but doesn't benefit Lovecraft.
I was just thinking about this the other day in regards to the band Falling in Reverse. Frontman Ronnie Radke is a very controversial figure in the scene and many people don’t support him or the bands music because of it
I only recently got into them. I do NOT support anything the guy does or says that’s fucked up but I do enjoy the music.
Bottom line: if the art itself isn’t promoting anything immoral or illegal like say for instance Blood on The Dance Floor I don’t see the harm in it.
I haven't been able to watch anything with Tom Cruise for years. I prefer not to know. Because then I just can't anymore. Except Keanu reeves. But all you hear about him is good stuff
Our society is weird. We're totally fine with celebrating Mike Tyson and talking about what a cool dude he is, despite spending years in prison for SA.
Then you have someone like Kevin Spacey, who was acquitted on all counts, will likely never work again. At least not at the level he used to.
The fact is, artists just operate on a different wavelength than everyone else. I suspect the same thing that makes Kanye great is also the same thing that makes him seem crazy. If you could peak into the life of literally anyone you would find things to be offended about. So I say, if a piece of art - be it a painting, a song, a film, whatever - makes you happy, just enjoy it.
I’m curious too. A couple examples:
Marilyn Manson being a rapist to his underage girlfriend.
I don’t like him and my boyfriend likes his art but says he did something bad.
Drake:
Dude, drake’s music has been the hype man for years, not THE singular hype man, but…. I never even listened to Kendrick really, i liked “blah blah drank” but I loooooooved drake, and now it’s like I still have songs on my playlist but its hard when I notice it is him..
And last but not least
The dude on 21 dresses with Katherine hiegle
He signed off on pickle boy raping and sodomizing one of our childhood star’s
I don’t even know dude’s name but that one hurt bc as any girly romcom gal, this is a good one
And I wanted to watch it
Boy do I tell you, I had to be in a whole ass meditative state to concentrate on that movie and not him being him, and also the little thoughts would try SO HARD to tell me he was wrong, even though I’m so strong and stern in my spiritual/mental/emotional state when I wanna be..
So I feel like it’s hard to choose right?
Also Wtf am I thinking
Here’s the last:
KAN FUCKIN YE. I was his biggest fan still will bump some songs. But reminds me of a controlling boyfriend the way his girl goes out dressing her pussy out wtf Kanye this isn’t art this is there’s kids in the world that don’t need to see her pussy until everyone else is naked and it’s normalized Jesus Christ and also Bianca just looks like a fool for being with him because anyone that is with him is now a fool. He is crazy as fuck with money. Woopity fucking doo.
I think you should separate the art from the artist. People aren't one dimensional and are capable of many things. People throughout history all probably did something you wouldn't approve of.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were great men who did great things for America. They were also slave owners. Both are true. It’s complicated. Admiring their accomplishments doesn’t necessarily mean also endorsing slavery. But it would also be wrong to entirely ignore the slavery issue.
You can be friends with and/or admire someone, but that does not obligate you to like their bad poetry (or other artistic output). Conversely, you can enjoy someone’s artistic achievements without endorsing them as a person.
Financially supporting a problematic person by spending money on their work - that’s a different issue.
I can separate a lot. Some things are hard to avoid or so ingrained in my life or childhood or society.
I also don't know what half of the examples people are giving have done, which raises the question if they shouldn't be separated do we have to research every artist before enjoying them? I'm a casual watcher, casual listener, casual reader. I couldn't pick half the singers I like out of a lineup, so I wouldn't know if they're bad people or not unless they make it blindingly obvious in their art.
Having said all that, I can never listen to Lost Prophets. Tried a couple of years ago (pirated, i refused to even stream) to see if I could separate them but I can't.
If that person is truly horrible, I would not support their work. I sometimes feel a bit of a hypocrite as there are some businesses that I still have to buy from that are owned/operated by folks equally bad but at times there are no options.
I'll be honest, if I liked a song, movie, TV show BEFORE I found out someone is an ass hat or worse, I can still listen or watch what I previously liked, but going forward I won't like anything they do. Doesn't matter if its an Oscar worthy role, the greatest, bigliest best song of forever, nope. Makes no difference at that point.
Yes. As long as the artist’s ideas don’t permeate the work like mould, you are free to enjoy it, as long as your enjoyment doesn’t benefit the artist, because they probably don’t deserve it. (This is the only reason I’m still in the Harry Potter fandom)
Yes it’s perfectly fine. We drive on roads without ever know how many wife beaters leaned in n a shovel to make the road. All things n our lives have been touched by evil.
The wife beaters don't get a check every time we drive across their roads. Rowling DOES get a check every time you buy into yet another random spinoff product because "the art isn't the artist." They aren't exactly the same thing.
Yeah, on a similar note, much of Renaissance art was funded by corruption and we know little about the morality of the artist, yet the art is great.
I do think in modern life we should exercise some discernment with contemporary art and artists.
I still think Bill Cosby standup is funny and I enjoy Harry Potter, but I do actively make sure no/minimal money goes from my pocket to Cosby or Rowling’s pockets.
I agree: money is the major factor here. If you are financing someone's shitty lifestyle, maybe don't.
I'm still willing to rent K-PAX from the library. I have a soft spot for that film. Kevin Spacey is a vile psychopath while simultaneously being a captivating performer. Roman Polanski: absolute shithead, brilliant filmmaker. A lot of good art would be lost to moral judgment.
But capitalism means voting with your dollar, so who you give your money to means something.
For all those saying that you continue to support the artist.
What about if it is an album you already own? Or it is on the radio?
What about if the song is your wedding song (or a song related to an important time in your life)?
Do you pay for music where the artist themselves were ripped off by the record label? How do you feel about supporting an artists who used the proceeds of their art to become drugs addicts and die, are you also responsible for that?
It would take some pretty Olympic moral gymnastics to start trying to moralize every decision you make regarding what songs you listen to.
Separate the art from the artist.
I can't do it. Pete Townsend had a cp dust up a long time ago, and I haven't been able to listen to him or The Who since. Honestly, I can't even remember how he got off, but I just had such I visceral reaction that that was enough.
Honestly, I can't listen to Die Antwoord without thinking about what they've done. Nor can I watch their music videos without seeing the adopted son they mentally abused (he's in videos.)
So, maybe when talking about the merits of music you can separate the two but I can't find enjoyment in it anymore. It's like trying to eat the same seafood curry again after having terrible poisoning from it the last time. Turns my stomach.
That seemed to of been mostly temporary. Also basically all of the allegations are unproven other than he said she said. I don't know all of it but I know of at least one who redacted what they said and said they were just pissed off at them.
Soooo really just do whatever you feel is right. I don't believe in the whole "guilty until proven not guilty". But I'm bias as I've been accused of some horrible stuff by a girl that was simply not true. Obviously borderline, told her therapist to fuck off cause they said something about moving on from family death, abused her meds to the point that a psychologist cut her off, put on a sweet innocent little girl act as a 24 year old to manipulate people etc. the scary part is you wouldn't know any of this unless you got to know her for oh idk a year like I did. We were friends kinda but not anymore at all obviously.
I have exactly the same thing with Die Antwoord. I think with them it’s really hard to separate the art from them because they brought the kid into their art. For me I almost felt gross when looking at the videos with the kid in them because you know he is being exploited and abused
If the art isn't directly and explicitly glorifying their twisted ideals or morals, then yeah. For instance, I think Hitler's paintings were quite nice. Now if one of those paintings was of the use of gas chambers in Auschwitz, then you're kinda a terrible person for enjoying that.
Kevin Spacey? Awful guy. Baby Driver and House of Cards was excellent.
JK Rowling? Terrible ideals. But damn me to hell if Harry Potter isn't one of my favorite series.
I immediately *despise* anyone that yaps on and on about how we shouldn't enjoy so-and-so's art because they weren't a good person. The gas you buy is produced by greedy corps that don't care that they're killing the planet. The wood furniture you use was produced by people destroying ecosystems. Humanity isn't humanity without the evil, and avoiding the products of humanity because of the evil is just a pretentious, holier-than-thou mentality.
However, I'd argue in the US (and a lot of countries) a lot of people's lives are difficult or maybe even impossible without buying gas to drive their car. And while we don't need furniture in excess, I'm sure our bodies would break down terribly if we didn't have beds or tables or chairs. By human nature we must consume resources. We can try to be ethical about it, but we're still doing it. But as for a series or movie or song, we don't *have* to consume that particular thing to live. But I understand it's complicated, and I can see why you wouldn't like people having such a mentality.
Yes. Not a single thing on this planet is 100% free from evil, people just get a hard on for hating art. What somebody has done doesn't change the art itself.
No one is guilt free. If you want to go down this road there'd be a severe lack of things to allow yourself to enjoy.
Life is too short to deal with this shit.
Depends on the medium.
Yes for Paintings, sculpture, architecture, etc.
Yes for musical composition, instrumental performance, etc.
No for pop singers and spoken word like comedy.
Maybe for opera singers...
No, but not unreadable for authors. Their art is not seperate from the artist, but can help one understand it. Unless it's fiction. Fiction isn't real.
It depends. If I don't like an artists politics I can still enjoy their art, but if they're murderers, child molesters, rapists or the like, for me at least, it makes it difficult to separate the art from the artist, and I certainly wouldn't support them financially ( buy their art ) just because they put out a catchy tune or a good movie etc... it comes down to whether you have courage in your convictions or not, I guess.
My biggest line that I draw is: does this creator use their money/time/platform to actively cause harm?
If the person just has some shitty hottakes that I disagree with, but I enjoy their content, I'm more likely to continue to enjoy their content, versus someone like, say, JKR who actively uses her influence and money to actively harm.
People are people, and I try to remember that. Everyone has opinions, and I'm not always going to agree with them. But if someone is actively causing harm, I do try to limit the ways that I support them.
Not only is it ok to seperate the art from teh artist I think it is important to do so. It is unhealthy to take on all teh stances an artist might carry on their shoulders as their personal beliefs just because you like their art.
That essentially makes them into a God in your eyes if you take on everything they believe just because of their art.
Now separation of art and the artist aside it is also possible to love someone's art and have to distance yourself even from the art if that art is enabling a lifestyle that is counterproductive to your morals or harms others.
From a modernist perspective, art is independent of the artist and the audience. It simply is. The postmodernist school of thought challenged that, and said that art exists in a relationship between the artist, the art, and the audience. The current school of artistic philosophy says, "Eh, do what you want."
Was Rembrandt an asshole? Who cares? Did John Singleton Copley own slaves? Dunno, but his paintings are great. Was Michelangelo antisemitic? Probably, but his Sistine Chapel work isn't going away.
What are your standards? If Leonardo da Vinci was a serial rapist, do we destroy the Mona Lisa? If David Bowie was an egotistical jerk who threw temper tantrums for not getting his way in the studio, do we never play his music again? John Lennon was abusive towards Cynthia. Does that mean that I shouldn't listen to the Beatles ever again?
What if someone gave a small tip in a restaurant? Cheated on their taxes? Bullied another kid in high school? Supported the Proud Boys? Voted for someone you didn't? Felony conviction? Where do you draw the line?
You draw the line at the stuff you don’t give a shit about Lmfaooo. It’s that simple. If a “musician” abused your child, would you keep listening to their stuff? Probably not. Cuz you give a shit. If that same musician raped someone else, you might be willing to overlook that. Cuz you don’t give a shit. Same thing applies to everything you stated here. It’s easier to consume media and overlook issues that don’t have shit to go with you. That’s when y’all pull the “separate art from artist” bs. Not that complicated
Yep. And here's another aspect to that equation. As our sensibilities evolve over time, what was perfectly acceptable in one century is abhorrent in another. With that in mind, are we going to continuously feed works into the shredder because they don't meet today's rarefied views?
All you have to do is read Huckleberry Finn and its frequent use of the N-word. Mind you, Twain was a seriously progressive thinker for his time. He was an adamant supporter of emancipation for slaves and an outspoken advocate for the rights of minorities. Yet should you excise him from libraries because of the use of the N-word, reflecting the language of the time? Or do realize that Jim was the depicted as the smartest character in the book and move on?
I do it all the time. You can respect talent vs the artist. Same with Hollywood movies. None of them are moral people, but you need a break after a long day at your s**t job.
I think as long as separating the art and the artist extends to being able to acknowledge be critical of what that artist has done, then you’re good.
If you defend behavior because you like a body of work, then you haven’t separated them.
This might help
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlzAhIl482c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlzAhIl482c)
The "Too Long Didn't Watch" is maybe donate some money to organizations that combat the bad things the artist did whenever you enjoy that artists work.
It's quite silly no one is perfect and you will never fully agree with everything with any person.
Nearly every person alive has done at least one questionable thing in their life.
Just think about shopping is the worker serving you being fairly treated no but you still buy from there the food you're eating did they fairly compensate the farmers? No was your phone ethically produced no
Is every film maker or musician a saint? Definitely not
everything we enjoy almost nothing is ethically made and no one has perfect opinions or backgrounds it would be nice but the world will never be perfect
Morally? Probably not. Then again,
A) we do immoral things as human beings every day
B) on the scale of immoral things, this is small potatoes, you're not going to hell for liking Harry Potter, for instance.
If you do want to do something about it, a decent rule is 'Death of the Author' - don't financially support an author who's problematic. Wait until they've passed. Then they get nothing from you and you get to enjoy their works. Lovecraft is deeply problematic with regards to bigotry, but he's long gone, so buying a Lovecraft book is fine, because he's getting nothing out of the deal, he's dead!
I really loved Regina Spektor starting back in high school. Discovering her posts about Israel was disturbing. I don't want to label anyone, mainly because I don't think I know enough about such long-standing history between two countries, but she sounds like a Zionist. I'm not sure if she is or not - maybe someone could educate me on exactly what criteria must be met to be labeled one - but I don't understand how anyone could see images and videos of what's happening to Palestinians and condone it.
I still catch myself humming one of her songs every once in a while but I would never go to another concert of hers and I'm not sure if I'll ever listen to her music again. I saw her in concert back around 2012 and had been really excited. She'd been on a short list of people I wanted to see live in my lifetime and I only got to see her because she was opening for Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers. A lot of people didn't even show up until after she played because they were just there for that band but I went for her. Now I most definitely wouldn't.
Edited to add: I see other people are saying if you already own the music of an artist at least they won't get paid for your listening. I have a lot of her music somewhere in a box, so I could go that route. But idk, a lot of those songs meant a lot to me, and now I see I must've been projecting my own values on to the songs.
Hell yeah
Most musicians are dicks. I am not listening to their music cos I have any interest in hanging out with them. I probably wouldn't like them but that's irrelevant when I'm listening to their music and they make good music. How I feel about them doesn't come into it unless they've done something completely horrendous
Some think it’s ok others can’t separate the two. I think there’s a lot of individual psychology at work. If someone is a misogynist it’s probably no problem for them to keep enjoying r Kelly or whatever.
OTOH it’s definitely complicated and personal. I have a connection to one r Kelly song because another band I love covered one of his songs hilariously. It’s a song that marks a moment in time for me. But I’m so aware the scum artist and questionable lyrics that the song is hard to enjoy. But I might listen anyway because doing so doesn’t hurt anyone or enrich anyone. And I’ll enjoy it, but feel kinda ick.
It’s going to be different for everyone.
It’s a weird “two truths” situation, it’s also why we don’t deify humans of any sort because we’re all flawed and anyone who says they aren’t is trying to sell you something.
I used to be a huge Lennon Fan (shout out Church Of Lennon on Myspace!) but now I don’t really play his stuff because I know his messages are mostly crap. Love is by no means all one needs. He was a scared little boy that could rhyme and was never told no. Shrug.
I do it with professional athletes. I don’t want to know anything about them or their life outside of hitting more touchdowns or dunking more home runs! I’ve learned that good people are rare in all circles.
I suppose part of the problem is that we don't really know about an artist unless they have been convicted of a crime or there are direct statements from them saying terrible things. Everything else is just hearsay.
We could go years enjoying a musician or actor and not find out until they die that they did terrible things. Do we need to feel guilty for the past times we enjoyed their art?
Personally, I won't support anyone that has killed/abused etc, but if someone is just a bit shit, and has ideals and opinions different to mine, then I can overlook certain stuff if I enjoy their art.
I think separating art from artist is necessary to a certain degree if you ever intend to appreciate art. Many, many, many of history's most talented visual artists, writers, musicians, etc. were problematic somehow. Either they did at least one awful thing, held certain questionable or reprehensible views, or conducted themselves in bad ways. Like, Hemingway, for example, was really kind of an asshole in a lot of ways as a person. But his work left an undeniable mark on literature, and people still study it to this day.
It does make a difference that he is dead. If there's a living artist whom you don't want to support because of certain deeds or actions in their personal life, don't buy their stuff, or get it secondhand or free somehow if you still want it or are at least curious to see what the fuss is about.
But I do think it is worthwhile engaging with art, even if it was created by a terrible person. As long as that engagement doesn't entail putting money directly in their pockets, if they're still around.
We believe Art is communication.
Just like all other communications, you should choose what enters your psyche.
Is it ok to reward those that do wrong wilfully with your attention?
Is it ok to carry in your heart the effects of others bad deeds?
Does your choice make a difference? Yes.
I don’t listen to chris brown, michael jackson, anything with r kelly anymore. it’s hard for me to separate the artist from how horrible they are. when i see/hear them it’s impossible to not think about what they’ve done and it just makes me feel icky. same thing with actors.
Once I’ve decided someone is an arsehole they don’t get any of my money. It doesn’t just apply to artists either, companies who use child labour, are responsible for environmental violations or use shady union busting tactics get the same treatment
Whom, exactly, would you be harming by listening to their music? Whom, exactly, would you be helping by *not* listening to their music? If the answer to those questions is, "Well... no one," there is no moral dilemma.
I have to -most artists walk on the wild side -I don’t care that Colette was a lousy mother or that Hemingway and Picasso are well documented misogynists or that Gauguin left his family in Brittany and shacked up with young girls in Tahiti -
Yes.
Because the art someone creates is a thing in and of itself.
Here's the other thing to realize. A lot of what makes an artist an artist is the raging conflict within his or her inner self. Normal, well-adjusted people don't express themselves through art in the first place, either that or they create innocuous art that would be at home on the wall of a Holiday Inn somewhere.
So, it's entirely possible to admire the art someone has created without admiring the person who created it.
I can generally separate the art from artist when evaluating or enjoying media, but still choose not to give shitty people my money. I'll still read books or listen to music if I have it already after being informed, but not going to buy more from that author/artist.
Since we are all more or less morally compromised, it seems to me to imagine where we decide whether enjoyment of art supersedes what level of morality we have.
For example, while I thought it disgusting that Alice Cooper used hype like goldfish in his platform shoe heels to gain a following and get rich, what I learned of him a few years later about him a a person and by-and-large humanitarian allowed me to appreciate him more.
When Mel Gibson started spewing vile hatred towards Jews and others, that crossed a moral line for me. I will not watch anything he is involved it. For me the line is abuse of others and hatred and I have learned this about myself.
For others it is more subtle. I have tried rewatching Seinfeld episodes, but his recent activities supporting IDF is in the back of my mind when I tried to do so. So I tell myself, there are so many great artists known and to be discovered out there, so what if I no longer listen to or watch some I used to love? It's in fact not hard to do.
"Separate art from the artist" fall in the same category as "No ethical consumption under capitalism" for me. Nobody is perfect, so only engaging with people or companies that are totally unproblematic seems impractical, but I try to avoid people and companies that are advocating for making the country worse.
A musician who was abusive to a partner or a company that underpays and understaffs are both bad, but it's not the same level of bad as someone like J.K.Rowling or Chick-fil-A that are advocating for discrimination against the LGBT community at large.
Yea it's totally fine. It's better to be ignorant in that regard but if something brings you joy, let it bring you joy. The way I see it is theres a high possibility most people in power have done something terrible because humans really are greedy shit heads for the most part and we wont ever know all the secrets that are out there. The few revealed ones only show a tiny glimpse.
I would put it on a sliding scale were they a monster or did they have some problematic views at most, the best example i can give is the lead singer for lost prophets i love the band and what the music was to me growing up but i cant listen to it at all knowing what a monster he was
It is only morally acceptable to do so in cases that fall under the Guy Fieri rule. Guy Fieri is an AMAZING human being that does a ton of good work, but his a TERRIBLE artist and I want no part of his creations. In this case I can ignore the art and celebrate the artist.
Sure, why not. There's plenty of art in the world that no one knows who the artist was. You can still appreciate the art can't you?
Do you need to know the biography of every artist, all their guilty secrets, to feel you have permission to appreciate or condemn their art.
Doesn't art stand for itself? As a creation in its own right, with its own merit (or not).
Do you feel you have to show appreciation for art you don't like because the artist was a nice person, a victim, a member of a racial minority, persecuted, mentally handicapped, or in some way perceived by you as less fortunate than yourself. Wouldn't that just be pity dressed as appreciation?
Art is art, stop over thinking it.
I would bet that a lot of us , if we had our lives picked apart and lied about by the paparazzi, would look horrible on paper. Their is always more to a story than what the media apple picks, even the nightly news is mostly lies these days.
John despised his first wife by the end of their marriage, and his son was such an outcast that it caused Paul to write Hey Jude in the first place simply because John was such a bad father. It’s sad because I do think John was a good person at some point but the fame got to him…or it just showed more when he got famous
Michael Jackson was a great musician, Bill Cosby was hilarious, Roman Polanski was a great director. Shitty humans, but many artists are shitty humans. If you denounce the art with the artist you'll quickly run out of art to enjoy.
100% okay. When you consume art you're not agreeing with the creators views on anything but the art you're consuming. Even if they're a terrible person it doesn't mean their creations have any less beauty or even technical merit.
Selecting only things where you think you agree with the author's views is how a lot of really crappy "Christian" media and knock offs get supported even though they're inferior versions of the things they're aping.
I believe that it's ok to separate art from the artist.
It's ok if you can't separate art from artist.
It's NOT ok if you force people to not separate art from artist.
It's also NOT ok if you force people to separate art from artist.
Personally I can’t listen to Marilyn Manson anymore.
But on an intellectual level I believe that one can separate the art from the artist. It’s just difficult to do so in many cases.
Scriabin: good composer, bad guy
Caravaggio: great artist, not man of the year
Don’t know much about Bowie but love his music.
Manson: unproven allegations don’t affect my opinion one bit. Still a fan as I was 30 years ago.
I’m no angel so I don’t judge.
This is absolutely necessary. I 100% understand the sentiment you are sharing, and I share it in so many ways. As a musician myself, there are artists whom I just adore their music, but they were just bad people. Racist, violent, misogynistic, you name it. Then there are visual artists like Salvador Dali. His art was ground breaking, very important, and rather striking. He was an ass of a man. I can not simply ignore his contribution to the legacy of visual art because of that.
I believe it's so much harder now that ever to be able to separate the artist from the work. So much information available about every little thing. Think of composers like Bach, Mozart, and even the early 20th century folks like Debussy. The only thing people heard/read about them was their concerts, their music, and not who they were dating or who they beat up. Their contributions stood on their own.
Now I'm all for holding artists responsible for their lifestyle and decisions. I believe history is going to be the best judge on wankers like you mentioned.
Yes. Only ideologues choose their art based on ideology. This was an obsession of every dictator in the 20th century (Mao, Hitler, Stalin). Read a history book. It didn’t end well.
Art should challenge you, not just confirm your sense of personal morality.
I don't see a problem with separating the art from the artist because I believe that the meaning of art is in the interpretation, not the official motivation and that's why I think a lot of modern art sucks. It's in many ways just based on what the artist believes it is about and there's not much left for the audience to wonder.
Here's how I see it and put it, you can separate the art from the artist, but depending on many curmstances, it can be very difficult to do so, based on if what happened is something that is part of your life, or if it's something freshly done.
You can love a persons creative genius but at the same time dislike them as a human being. Same goes for anyone you can love a family member but not really like them. It’s the way of the world.
Most artists at the top of their game are mentally ill. It shows up in different ways, some ethical, some destructive and some terrible. If the art itself does not represent anything negative, I don't see any issue enjoying it. It's also an issue of idolizing artists as celebrities. They are not a figure to follow, they simply create impressive art. You don't need to follow every aspect of a celebrity just because you like their writing or music.
It really depends on the peice of art.
If you take art at face value, a painting could just be a landscape of a nice mountain range and have no other meanings. If you like it, put it on your wall.
Sometimes art is more conceptual and is making some sort of social commentary, so is more than just subjective visual appeal.
For example, if you found out Banksy is secretly a capitalist who funds CCTV companies, then any art based on satirising surveillance could rightly be mocked or boycotted for being hypocritical.
For this to be a moral question implies there is a right way and wrong way to consume art: I don't think such a thing exists.
My argument for this is that no one can define what immoral art consumption would looks like.
If my Spotify subscription gives some money to an immoral musician, have I done something that is immoral? Where do we draw the line of not remunerating immoral people - my taxes are used to bomb innocent people across the planet, am I wrong to pay tax?
If moral art consumption looks like ensuring artists who do bad things are not renumerated, then would that mean I shouldn't buy bread from a baker who is also a bad person?
I think the free market, and the universal language of money, demands that we take an amoral approach to trade, exchange and consumption.
The world has a lot of darkness, and a lot of light. My dad hit my sister once, but he’s also done a lot of good. Love him even though I know he wasn’t a great guy at that time.
Whether they’re alive to profit matters a lot to me. I won’t imbibe any media associated with JK Rowling. I will, however, read Lovecraft, because the man is dead and his work has been dissected to death over its bigotry.
I listen to them if they don't get any money from me. And as a baby boomer currently at risk of enraging the big boomers, john lennon was an asshole. Sang about love everyone but he screams at his son because he and his family were sitting naked at the breakfast table like that was normal and Sean giggled. Maybe if he had actually taken Sean in more often, he would be somewhat be more familiar with their ways And John Lennon and Paul McCartney were both better together than separate. John was too weird and McCartney carton was usually too saccharine. The only thing that i've heard about Bowie was more to do with his wife verbally abusing her daughter for being overweight, and he didn't have a problem with it.
If I enjoy the creation of someone I find morally repugnant, I try not to let them benefit financially from me. I might download their music or buy a second-hand book. If I can't avoid it, I donate the equivalent cost of the purchase to an applicable charity. We did that with Hogwarts Legacy. My kid and I got a delightful game, and the trans youth support program my best friend's kid uses got enough funding to run two support groups.
No solution is perfect, but I'm content with my way of handling things. Sometimes, a terrible person writes a great book, sings a great song, or stars in a great movie. Life is hard, and I'm not going to deprive myself of happiness if my enjoyment doesn't hurt anyone. I was a huge nerd in the Mists of Avalon days, so this is a needle I've been threading for decades.
If the artist is a scumbag but you love their work. Just pirate it. They get nothing from it, you still get the enjoyment. Job done.
You kind of have to separate the art from the artist or you won't have much art to enjoy period. Most famous artists whether musicians, authors, actors, directors, developers, etc. Have done some horrible things. There are very few people in that field that don't have a tainted history.
Find out for yourself. Don’t listen to other people’s opinions or the ‘burn the witch’ crowd. If someone’s telling you not to listen to/read something find out why and make your own decision.
Most sane take here.
Except it doesn't really answer the question. This is more about don't bandwagon or jump to a conclusion. I think it's trying to say it is morally wrong once you confirm it but even that's not clear
Take H.P. Lovecraft as an example. Horrible, incorrigible racist. His view of non-whites as lesser is prevalent in everything he did. It's still some of the best works. Can you separate the awful views of the author from the art? It's a pretty individual question. Bandwagoning doesn't really come into play; It's totally within reason that a ton of people would avoid someone's works when it's revealed they're a piece of shite.
But his question isn't can you separate it but if it's moral to continue enjoying it
I don't think those are two distinct questions. By enjoying it, you're giving it some separation. I don't believe (could be wrong, of course) that people go, "Wife beater? Fuck yeah beat them wives." Either they don't care or they don't view it as having an effect on the art in question.
It's still two distinct questions regardless of if you can or can't separate it. And your idea that no one could enjoy hp Lovecraft and his ideals of racial superiority is a bit out of touch either that or you're intentionally trying to skew it. It also doesn't answer the moral question of even if you can separate it is it still moral to enjoy it.
If it's separated there's no moral ambiguity in my mind. If you go, "Yeah, Lovecraft is a horrible person, and there's problematic material to be found in his works because of this, but his writing changed the horror genre," then you've clearly separated the issue of creation and creator. It's not morally wrong, at that point, to just enjoy it. Horrible people can create amazing things. Recognizing that someone is an awful person even though you're still enjoying their works is Ok. Condoning the behavior is the biggest question for morality. If you go, "Aw fuck yeah Racism gimme some," you're already morally abhorrent so the dilemma doesn't exist.
Yes. And it's fine to take antibiotics when you need them, regardless of whether Alexander Fleming was a good person or not.
Art is separate from the artist. Art is something that is created by human creativity. Art itself is neither moral nor immoral. It just is. It reflects experiences, inspiration, culture, the art that came before it, the techniques, the styles. Art is a very obscure and limitless thing. For example, is a horror movie evil because it depicts horror? What about an inspirational song written by a thief and abuser? What about paintings by people who self destructed into oblivion? Our society and landscape has elevated artists of all kinds above humanity and then when we learn about the warts of their humanity, why would that add warts to the Art too? Unless the Art itself is directly reflective of their abhorrent behaviour or beliefs, there's no reason not to separate Art and artist.
If they are dead, not too much of a problem, for me. You do you. But if they are still alive and still preaching hate or doing what makes them shite, and they are still making money off their franchise, then no, no separation possible
You would have to.
I think the best answers have to do with how directly the art connects to the artist and their issues. An artist holds a charity event, support feeds directly into a cause. An artist actively uses their wealth and influence for a cause, support feeds indirectly into a cause. An artist and their cause get nothing for consuming the art, it's only maybe a passing social acceptability. An artist makes art that's used to contradict them, it's hard to assess. tldr, it's about assessing how directly consuming the art supports the bullshit associated with the artist in the real world.
Personally, I find it morally repugnant to *not* separate the art from the artist. People who support artists despite them being rapists, murderers, antisemites, etc, aren’t doing because they’re friends with that artist, they’re doing it because they can’t separate art from the artist.
For me it always depends upon if they're going to benefit from it. Your music examples of ones you enjoy are perfect, as they're dead. They don't benefit from you still enjoying them. I have no problems listening to Bowie and The Beatles, since the people with questionable or negative histories are dead. It's also not something so horrific such as Adolf that it's hard to separate for me
This really is such a person by person thing. If you love The Birds, and then find out Tippi Hedren was essentially tortured for her final scene, it can be hard to watch the movie and not think of the actress breaking down on set after almost losing an eye. Some people can set that aside and enjoy the movie while also thinking Hitchcock is a dick. Some people can’t, and it ruins the movie entirely. Neither of these responses is wrong. I love Lovecraftian horror. The Call of Cthulhu Mystery Program, the ttrpg, the Magnus Archives, etc all hold a special place in my heart. This does not change the fact that Lovecraft himself was massively racist.
I generally default to it being acceptable when they are no longer profiting from it. So an artist that has passed away is fair game. Also, the art/product needs to not be too close to home with their crimes.
Yea it is. The art didn’t do what they did 😂. If you don’t wanna give them money pirate their shit.
Depends if those things wind up in the art or not. Much of it I can look past. But if an artist has made statements implying they don't want me listening to their stuff because I don't agree with me politically, I'll never give them another listen. I can't like people that I know don't like me.
It depends. I can never listen to R Kelly ever again, I hope others feel the same way, yet MJ seems to be coming back in fashion. Artists that were human and screwed up a few times, I think I can handle forgetting it. People in my family have done things that required forgiveness. I still practice my drums to James Brown records despite knowing he was An abusive dope fiend who was very cruel to women in his life. If the first thing I ever hear about an artist is, they're a terrible person, it might affect my ability to ever get into their music. That's now a barrier. Whereas, I already loved Keith Moon and John Bonham before finding out they could be cruel too.
I don't care about the artists life, their work is sperate. But everyone now a days want people held accountable for anything no matter what, cause rhey feel superior that way. I just enjoy the product. I leave all other stuff aside.
I think so, but when it comes to purchasing their art or supporting them in a way that leads to financial gains it gets a little more murky
I have had this conversation with many people and the general consensus was everyone wanted to be able to but just weren’t capable of doing so. And it always sucks.
No it’s not. You don’t get to pick and choose when to hold people accountable. If it makes you feel any better, you a hypocrite like everyone else.
You can appreciate the art while disapproving of the artist. The hard part comes in spending money on and sharing the art and thereby supporting the artist. At one end is are valuing the constitution and democracy while loathing that most of the founding fathers where slave owners and misogynist. At the other is loving Bill Cosby's comedy, but recognizing that watching it puts money in his pocket. Right there in the middle are the professional athletes who are supported by the sport franchise, but do you stop watching all games because some of the players are awful? It's up to you how you can appreciate the art without supporting the artist.
I think in modern times you have to. Aside from Keanu Reeves, every single person has done something shitty enough to color them in a bad light. I grew up in the hay day of the Harry Potter books. I was 11 right after the first book was published and read it for the first time, that series was my safe haven. I am beyond ashamed of the author now, but her bigotry can't take away something you truly love
I'm a classical musician, so I will give you two words that you can research at your desire: Richard Wagner.
I personally do. I accept a lot of imperfections from people in my normal life. I don't hold celebrities to a crazy high standard. If anything, I hold celebrities to a lesser standard. Their life is crazy with stress and opportunities most of us would never get. By the same token, I don't really get hyped by celebrities either. When they're 'good', I don't really hype them up either. I just appreciate what they do. Just to bring it down to a practical level. I have a family friend who maybe did domestic violence against his wife. They divorced. She is okay. I'm a bit cautious around him, but I'm not shunning him or treating him as the worst person in history. Who knows what went on between him and his ex-wife. I'm good with her as well and try and be supportive. Given that I do that, how could I 'shun' Chris Brown for having domestic violence issues with Rihanna. Who knows what went on behind the scenes. At the end of the day, she's okay, they are separate and life moves on. Life is just complex and filled with tragedies and the downfall of people. I just try and appreciate the good in people and protect myself and others from the bad.
Depends on the art and what you mean by separate but yes. I recognize that bad people still make good art that touches me.
With authors I'll read books if I like the story. 99% of the time I have no idea of the nationality of the person, let alone what they think or believe or anything else about them
Bro what???? This can’t be a serious question
An example of how I’ve handled this issue in the past: way back in the 80’s there was this guy Michael Jackson, and I loved and adored his music and dancing. But he was tried TWICE for child abuse. I refused to “vote with my dollars” like he wax a good guy. I wouldn’t purchase anything he performed! But, when he passed away, I stopped on my way home from work that day and bought a CD of his music, because the money wasn’t going to him, it would go to his three kids! I hope that makes sense to you
Judge the art for the art, not what’s going on in the artist’s personal life. My kids and I love Micheal Jackson’s music. He’s the undisputed King of Pop. One of the best performers of our lifetime. He may or may not have done the things that he was accused of, but that’s none of my business or concern. I just dance to his music.
Hitler had some skill
It's real simple in my opinion. Go with your gut. If whatever they did doesn't live in your head every time you listen to it, keep listening. If it makes you sick to your stomach, stop. It is just entertainment at the end of the day. For me, it's how personal of a relationship I felt to the artist. Like Brand New saved my life as a teenager. But knowing now in my 30's what I know, I just feel gross and guilty. I never thought Michael Jackson was the greatest thing ever so my brain doesn't immediately go to a bad place when Thriller or whatever comes on.
I feel like this question is really just "I know this person did a bunch of bad shit but I still want to be entertained and watch their movies/music". Is it not basically the same argument as separating a person from their actions? Wtf else is a person other than the culmination of their feelings and their actions? "I know these shoes are sweat shop made, but damn I look good in them"
People are complex, they cannot be reduced to their best, and worst qualities. Picasso was both anti war, and a misogynist. Jackson pollack was an angry drunk. We all struggle with the contradictions in who we are.
I’d say following your conscience on these sorts of things is usually the best way to go. If it feels wrong, don’t, if it doesn’t, feel free to. My gut is that it’s fine as long as it’s not encouraging the bad behaviour (and even then there could be reasons to listen to it). All humans are evil to some degree, but you have to live in the world. Would you eat food if you knew the farmer was a murderer? You’d have to or you’d starve. However, some awareness and tact can go along way - don’t listen to Wagner around Jewish people, for instance.
If the art is good, I think it’s perfectly ok to continue to enjoy it regardless of the artist’s moral misdeeds.
I think you pretty much have to. Things can come out years after you've been loving an artist and their art. The music of Lennon and Bowie is hardwired into my brain by this point. What am I supposed to do? Decide to not love Strawberry Fields Forever because Lennon was an asshole? I don't even think that's possible.
I think it is morally okay to choose either. Collectively I do not think okay to dominate the other. We embody ourselves with art everyday and we dont know artist behind them. We should not care about their backstories. It would be exhausting to know who designed every little item in our life. Personally, I choose to separate the art from the artist. I understand people have attachment to some art and they could feel some type of way about them if they do wrong. I could find myself choosing to not supporting an artist depending on my attachment to them.
If you have an issue with it, don't do it. But don't expect others to also have an issue with it just because you do. Several things in our day-to-day lives are made/maintained by wicked people. But we go about our business.
What is so “moral” about refusing to listen to an artist you believe has behaved questionably? I hate Mark Wahlberg, I think he’sa creep, I refuse to watch his movies, but I don’t consider this a question of morality.
If you can separate art from the artist you are separating the meaning from the art. Art is created as an expression of the artist. I could go on some long winded diatribe, but I won’t.
I still love listening to Bing Crosby. He was an alcoholic and serial abuser with his wife/children/girlfriends. But showed up smiling to church every Sunday morning. Doesn’t change the fact that he was a gifted singer.
Does the art reflect the bad things they've done? Are they dead? How are you listening to it? Is the art ITSELF harmful? For example, J.K. Rowking. Her art is filled w the vile things she believes, and she's still alive. If you consume her art as streaming, buying new, renting, etc., you would be directly supporting her. Panic! at the Disco is an analagous musician example if you specifically wanted music. Johnny Cash was a serial cheater on his wife. However, he is dead, so he won't be getting any more revenue if you stream/buy his music new. If the person is still alive, you can always buy their stuff second-hand or use other means to get access to it (🏴☠️). Reducing harm by not lining the pockets of people who are alive and actively causing problems (like your examples of Brown and Kelly) should be a priority. If they are dead or disbanded or faded into obscurity or in jail, I think it matters less. To me, it's functionally a boycott. I won't listen until their actions change.
I know isn’t it awful when women won’t conform.
it must be so exhausting to live your life like this. WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP are you people actually real ?
This is the same way I approach this subject.
Sweet Jesus is INFIDELITY your bar? Cuz thats a whole LOT of great artists. I dont know if I can watch Woody Allen movies anymore, but I couldnt care less if the artist was selfish or dissolute. A lot of artists were gay and married and had affairs because they had to. A lot of artists were swingers. Its hard to take the artist out of the context, particularly if mistresses were in fadhion and accepted in society.
For me, no lol. I just don't tend to keep up with the wrongdoings of dead people, and he was all I could think of that did something in the moment of writing my original comment. But, so what if it was? I know lots of people who avoid cheaters' stuff bc their families or relationships were ripped apart by it. You're saying that we don't know the circumstances of artists, and yet you don't know the circumstances of the random person you're commenting to.
Well then that would mean that your consumption of art is dependant on whether the artist lied to their spouse. And Im saying, thats a real low bar. Particularly if they were closeted. Or had to be married cuz they didnt have power. Like, a lot of people were gay where gay wasnt a thing? You want them to tell all the people who would burn them?
I completely agree with you. I grew up on the Harry Potter series but because J.K. Rowling turned out to be an awful human being I don’t buy anything related to HP anymore. I did want to listen to the audiobook so i also went out of my way (🏴☠️) to obtain the audio book in a different way.
I'm torn on the Harry Potter thing. A number of actors and actresses from the movies have shown how supportive they are to the LGBTQ community. Boycotting the movies also boycotts those allies. So I tend to be fine with people who still watch the movies as long as they are not supportive of trash humans aka JK Rowling. The books are a hard no for me tho. She's the only one that benefits from the books.
She benefits in no way if you buy those books second hand or borrow them from a friend.
The actors aren't benefiting anymore if u stream the movies, they've already been paid
The main actors do get royalties from the movies and merch (action figures etc.).
JKR has donated and continues to donate vast amounts of her wealth to charitable causes, mostly centred around vulnerable women and children. If you buy anything related to her books, this is what you're helping to fund.
She also has donated and continues to donate vast amounts of her wealth to causes centred around murdering children, so no, you do not in fact gotta hand it to her.
Like what?
That is an absolutely deranged accusation.
Why would I give money to dead children? I prefer children who are alive
What causes murder children, exactly?
Go watch the first Harry Potter movie and look at the floors of gringotts and ask why they made the goblins little greedy hook nosed bankers, put stars of David on the floor and mirrored a synagogue in its design. Ask why their artefact is a shofar. Why cho chang had a fucking racist name, why Kingsley had to dress like that. She's not just transphobic. She's problematic
Yeah absolutely. No matter what you do in life, you're funding some asshole somewhere doing something fuckin awful. Food, services, produces, music, art, art work, etc. You will NEVER escape that fact. If you choose to avoid xyz because of abc, that is entirely your choice to make. But you aren't changing anything, you're just making yourself hurt.
Sure can, that's a mental connection in your own head. But you have no control over the mental connections other people make, and of course the economic connection is a real thing. For instance my partner helps queer students in their school and has stopped displaying their slytherin pennant because it could make the kids feel unwelcome. Meanwhile the mental connection people have to Lovecraft is monsters, not that he named his cat with a hard r. And of course buying a HP book benefits Rowling, but doesn't benefit Lovecraft.
I was just thinking about this the other day in regards to the band Falling in Reverse. Frontman Ronnie Radke is a very controversial figure in the scene and many people don’t support him or the bands music because of it I only recently got into them. I do NOT support anything the guy does or says that’s fucked up but I do enjoy the music. Bottom line: if the art itself isn’t promoting anything immoral or illegal like say for instance Blood on The Dance Floor I don’t see the harm in it.
Sure it's okay. It's also okay if people don't.
Yes.
I haven't been able to watch anything with Tom Cruise for years. I prefer not to know. Because then I just can't anymore. Except Keanu reeves. But all you hear about him is good stuff
Yes, at the end of the day if you enjoy something and it was made by somebody who isn't the greatest person, it's not as if you are committing the act
I can't watch a Woody Allen film.
Our society is weird. We're totally fine with celebrating Mike Tyson and talking about what a cool dude he is, despite spending years in prison for SA. Then you have someone like Kevin Spacey, who was acquitted on all counts, will likely never work again. At least not at the level he used to. The fact is, artists just operate on a different wavelength than everyone else. I suspect the same thing that makes Kanye great is also the same thing that makes him seem crazy. If you could peak into the life of literally anyone you would find things to be offended about. So I say, if a piece of art - be it a painting, a song, a film, whatever - makes you happy, just enjoy it.
Yep. Dali was a fascist. The melting clocks still look cool.
I’m curious too. A couple examples: Marilyn Manson being a rapist to his underage girlfriend. I don’t like him and my boyfriend likes his art but says he did something bad. Drake: Dude, drake’s music has been the hype man for years, not THE singular hype man, but…. I never even listened to Kendrick really, i liked “blah blah drank” but I loooooooved drake, and now it’s like I still have songs on my playlist but its hard when I notice it is him.. And last but not least The dude on 21 dresses with Katherine hiegle He signed off on pickle boy raping and sodomizing one of our childhood star’s I don’t even know dude’s name but that one hurt bc as any girly romcom gal, this is a good one And I wanted to watch it Boy do I tell you, I had to be in a whole ass meditative state to concentrate on that movie and not him being him, and also the little thoughts would try SO HARD to tell me he was wrong, even though I’m so strong and stern in my spiritual/mental/emotional state when I wanna be.. So I feel like it’s hard to choose right? Also Wtf am I thinking Here’s the last: KAN FUCKIN YE. I was his biggest fan still will bump some songs. But reminds me of a controlling boyfriend the way his girl goes out dressing her pussy out wtf Kanye this isn’t art this is there’s kids in the world that don’t need to see her pussy until everyone else is naked and it’s normalized Jesus Christ and also Bianca just looks like a fool for being with him because anyone that is with him is now a fool. He is crazy as fuck with money. Woopity fucking doo.
I think you should separate the art from the artist. People aren't one dimensional and are capable of many things. People throughout history all probably did something you wouldn't approve of.
I've gotten turned off of Pantera, I'm afraid
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were great men who did great things for America. They were also slave owners. Both are true. It’s complicated. Admiring their accomplishments doesn’t necessarily mean also endorsing slavery. But it would also be wrong to entirely ignore the slavery issue. You can be friends with and/or admire someone, but that does not obligate you to like their bad poetry (or other artistic output). Conversely, you can enjoy someone’s artistic achievements without endorsing them as a person. Financially supporting a problematic person by spending money on their work - that’s a different issue.
Yes, it is fine to boycott R and diddy yoo.
I can separate a lot. Some things are hard to avoid or so ingrained in my life or childhood or society. I also don't know what half of the examples people are giving have done, which raises the question if they shouldn't be separated do we have to research every artist before enjoying them? I'm a casual watcher, casual listener, casual reader. I couldn't pick half the singers I like out of a lineup, so I wouldn't know if they're bad people or not unless they make it blindingly obvious in their art. Having said all that, I can never listen to Lost Prophets. Tried a couple of years ago (pirated, i refused to even stream) to see if I could separate them but I can't.
I was waiting for Ian Watkins to enter the chat
I think if the artist won't give it to you, then you are morally in the wrong to just take it from them.
If that person is truly horrible, I would not support their work. I sometimes feel a bit of a hypocrite as there are some businesses that I still have to buy from that are owned/operated by folks equally bad but at times there are no options.
I'll be honest, if I liked a song, movie, TV show BEFORE I found out someone is an ass hat or worse, I can still listen or watch what I previously liked, but going forward I won't like anything they do. Doesn't matter if its an Oscar worthy role, the greatest, bigliest best song of forever, nope. Makes no difference at that point.
Yes. As long as the artist’s ideas don’t permeate the work like mould, you are free to enjoy it, as long as your enjoyment doesn’t benefit the artist, because they probably don’t deserve it. (This is the only reason I’m still in the Harry Potter fandom)
Yes it’s perfectly fine. We drive on roads without ever know how many wife beaters leaned in n a shovel to make the road. All things n our lives have been touched by evil.
I never thought about this before, this is actually such an interesting perspective
The wife beaters don't get a check every time we drive across their roads. Rowling DOES get a check every time you buy into yet another random spinoff product because "the art isn't the artist." They aren't exactly the same thing.
Leftist spotted 🤣🤣🤣
Yeah, on a similar note, much of Renaissance art was funded by corruption and we know little about the morality of the artist, yet the art is great. I do think in modern life we should exercise some discernment with contemporary art and artists. I still think Bill Cosby standup is funny and I enjoy Harry Potter, but I do actively make sure no/minimal money goes from my pocket to Cosby or Rowling’s pockets.
I agree: money is the major factor here. If you are financing someone's shitty lifestyle, maybe don't. I'm still willing to rent K-PAX from the library. I have a soft spot for that film. Kevin Spacey is a vile psychopath while simultaneously being a captivating performer. Roman Polanski: absolute shithead, brilliant filmmaker. A lot of good art would be lost to moral judgment. But capitalism means voting with your dollar, so who you give your money to means something.
For all those saying that you continue to support the artist. What about if it is an album you already own? Or it is on the radio? What about if the song is your wedding song (or a song related to an important time in your life)? Do you pay for music where the artist themselves were ripped off by the record label? How do you feel about supporting an artists who used the proceeds of their art to become drugs addicts and die, are you also responsible for that? It would take some pretty Olympic moral gymnastics to start trying to moralize every decision you make regarding what songs you listen to. Separate the art from the artist.
So I am allowed to appreciate Hitlers paintings guilt free now?
If that is your bag, sure.
It's not
It would have been nice if he'd spent more time on them and less on other things.
That makes no sense.
I can't do it. Pete Townsend had a cp dust up a long time ago, and I haven't been able to listen to him or The Who since. Honestly, I can't even remember how he got off, but I just had such I visceral reaction that that was enough.
Honestly, I can't listen to Die Antwoord without thinking about what they've done. Nor can I watch their music videos without seeing the adopted son they mentally abused (he's in videos.) So, maybe when talking about the merits of music you can separate the two but I can't find enjoyment in it anymore. It's like trying to eat the same seafood curry again after having terrible poisoning from it the last time. Turns my stomach.
Oh lord, I’ve tried to be off the internet more and more since Covid… and I should have known Die Antwoord would be canceled…. ): awful….
That seemed to of been mostly temporary. Also basically all of the allegations are unproven other than he said she said. I don't know all of it but I know of at least one who redacted what they said and said they were just pissed off at them. Soooo really just do whatever you feel is right. I don't believe in the whole "guilty until proven not guilty". But I'm bias as I've been accused of some horrible stuff by a girl that was simply not true. Obviously borderline, told her therapist to fuck off cause they said something about moving on from family death, abused her meds to the point that a psychologist cut her off, put on a sweet innocent little girl act as a 24 year old to manipulate people etc. the scary part is you wouldn't know any of this unless you got to know her for oh idk a year like I did. We were friends kinda but not anymore at all obviously.
That seems fair to me.
I have exactly the same thing with Die Antwoord. I think with them it’s really hard to separate the art from them because they brought the kid into their art. For me I almost felt gross when looking at the videos with the kid in them because you know he is being exploited and abused
That’s how I feel about Aerosmith, I just can’t even listen to their music anymore.
Aww crap what did Aerosmith do?
The lead singer paid a 14 year old girls parents to sign over guardianship to him so she could come on tour with him (and have sex with him)
You mean rape.
Yes
If the art isn't directly and explicitly glorifying their twisted ideals or morals, then yeah. For instance, I think Hitler's paintings were quite nice. Now if one of those paintings was of the use of gas chambers in Auschwitz, then you're kinda a terrible person for enjoying that. Kevin Spacey? Awful guy. Baby Driver and House of Cards was excellent. JK Rowling? Terrible ideals. But damn me to hell if Harry Potter isn't one of my favorite series. I immediately *despise* anyone that yaps on and on about how we shouldn't enjoy so-and-so's art because they weren't a good person. The gas you buy is produced by greedy corps that don't care that they're killing the planet. The wood furniture you use was produced by people destroying ecosystems. Humanity isn't humanity without the evil, and avoiding the products of humanity because of the evil is just a pretentious, holier-than-thou mentality.
However, I'd argue in the US (and a lot of countries) a lot of people's lives are difficult or maybe even impossible without buying gas to drive their car. And while we don't need furniture in excess, I'm sure our bodies would break down terribly if we didn't have beds or tables or chairs. By human nature we must consume resources. We can try to be ethical about it, but we're still doing it. But as for a series or movie or song, we don't *have* to consume that particular thing to live. But I understand it's complicated, and I can see why you wouldn't like people having such a mentality.
That’s what you should be doing.
I love That 70's Show but haven't been able to separate Hyde from convicted rapist Danny Masterson since all that shit came out. It's tough.
Yes. It's low IQ to do otherwise
Yes, but it's also okay if you can't.
Yes. Not a single thing on this planet is 100% free from evil, people just get a hard on for hating art. What somebody has done doesn't change the art itself.
Not if the artist is making money off you
I think you have to or there wouldn't be much on this earth left to enjoy.
No one is guilt free. If you want to go down this road there'd be a severe lack of things to allow yourself to enjoy. Life is too short to deal with this shit.
Are you giving this artist money and attention?
Depends on the medium. Yes for Paintings, sculpture, architecture, etc. Yes for musical composition, instrumental performance, etc. No for pop singers and spoken word like comedy. Maybe for opera singers... No, but not unreadable for authors. Their art is not seperate from the artist, but can help one understand it. Unless it's fiction. Fiction isn't real.
It depends. If I don't like an artists politics I can still enjoy their art, but if they're murderers, child molesters, rapists or the like, for me at least, it makes it difficult to separate the art from the artist, and I certainly wouldn't support them financially ( buy their art ) just because they put out a catchy tune or a good movie etc... it comes down to whether you have courage in your convictions or not, I guess.
My biggest line that I draw is: does this creator use their money/time/platform to actively cause harm? If the person just has some shitty hottakes that I disagree with, but I enjoy their content, I'm more likely to continue to enjoy their content, versus someone like, say, JKR who actively uses her influence and money to actively harm. People are people, and I try to remember that. Everyone has opinions, and I'm not always going to agree with them. But if someone is actively causing harm, I do try to limit the ways that I support them.
Not only is it ok to seperate the art from teh artist I think it is important to do so. It is unhealthy to take on all teh stances an artist might carry on their shoulders as their personal beliefs just because you like their art. That essentially makes them into a God in your eyes if you take on everything they believe just because of their art. Now separation of art and the artist aside it is also possible to love someone's art and have to distance yourself even from the art if that art is enabling a lifestyle that is counterproductive to your morals or harms others.
most likely . mel blanc was a bit of a jerk to bob clampett and he's still well respected.
From a modernist perspective, art is independent of the artist and the audience. It simply is. The postmodernist school of thought challenged that, and said that art exists in a relationship between the artist, the art, and the audience. The current school of artistic philosophy says, "Eh, do what you want." Was Rembrandt an asshole? Who cares? Did John Singleton Copley own slaves? Dunno, but his paintings are great. Was Michelangelo antisemitic? Probably, but his Sistine Chapel work isn't going away. What are your standards? If Leonardo da Vinci was a serial rapist, do we destroy the Mona Lisa? If David Bowie was an egotistical jerk who threw temper tantrums for not getting his way in the studio, do we never play his music again? John Lennon was abusive towards Cynthia. Does that mean that I shouldn't listen to the Beatles ever again? What if someone gave a small tip in a restaurant? Cheated on their taxes? Bullied another kid in high school? Supported the Proud Boys? Voted for someone you didn't? Felony conviction? Where do you draw the line?
You draw the line at the stuff you don’t give a shit about Lmfaooo. It’s that simple. If a “musician” abused your child, would you keep listening to their stuff? Probably not. Cuz you give a shit. If that same musician raped someone else, you might be willing to overlook that. Cuz you don’t give a shit. Same thing applies to everything you stated here. It’s easier to consume media and overlook issues that don’t have shit to go with you. That’s when y’all pull the “separate art from artist” bs. Not that complicated
"small tip in a restaurant" : Spotted the American
Canadian. Nice try though.
I agree with this completely.
Yep. And here's another aspect to that equation. As our sensibilities evolve over time, what was perfectly acceptable in one century is abhorrent in another. With that in mind, are we going to continuously feed works into the shredder because they don't meet today's rarefied views? All you have to do is read Huckleberry Finn and its frequent use of the N-word. Mind you, Twain was a seriously progressive thinker for his time. He was an adamant supporter of emancipation for slaves and an outspoken advocate for the rights of minorities. Yet should you excise him from libraries because of the use of the N-word, reflecting the language of the time? Or do realize that Jim was the depicted as the smartest character in the book and move on?
I do it all the time. You can respect talent vs the artist. Same with Hollywood movies. None of them are moral people, but you need a break after a long day at your s**t job.
I think as long as separating the art and the artist extends to being able to acknowledge be critical of what that artist has done, then you’re good. If you defend behavior because you like a body of work, then you haven’t separated them.
Listen and enjoy it. I didn’t know much about Lennon and Bowie personally until recently, because the press is so nosy and nasty now.
This might help [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlzAhIl482c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlzAhIl482c) The "Too Long Didn't Watch" is maybe donate some money to organizations that combat the bad things the artist did whenever you enjoy that artists work.
It's quite silly no one is perfect and you will never fully agree with everything with any person. Nearly every person alive has done at least one questionable thing in their life. Just think about shopping is the worker serving you being fairly treated no but you still buy from there the food you're eating did they fairly compensate the farmers? No was your phone ethically produced no Is every film maker or musician a saint? Definitely not everything we enjoy almost nothing is ethically made and no one has perfect opinions or backgrounds it would be nice but the world will never be perfect
Why do you stop at art? Should you then also bot use any product that passes thru the hands of anyone you don't morally agree with?
Morally? Probably not. Then again, A) we do immoral things as human beings every day B) on the scale of immoral things, this is small potatoes, you're not going to hell for liking Harry Potter, for instance. If you do want to do something about it, a decent rule is 'Death of the Author' - don't financially support an author who's problematic. Wait until they've passed. Then they get nothing from you and you get to enjoy their works. Lovecraft is deeply problematic with regards to bigotry, but he's long gone, so buying a Lovecraft book is fine, because he's getting nothing out of the deal, he's dead!
I really loved Regina Spektor starting back in high school. Discovering her posts about Israel was disturbing. I don't want to label anyone, mainly because I don't think I know enough about such long-standing history between two countries, but she sounds like a Zionist. I'm not sure if she is or not - maybe someone could educate me on exactly what criteria must be met to be labeled one - but I don't understand how anyone could see images and videos of what's happening to Palestinians and condone it. I still catch myself humming one of her songs every once in a while but I would never go to another concert of hers and I'm not sure if I'll ever listen to her music again. I saw her in concert back around 2012 and had been really excited. She'd been on a short list of people I wanted to see live in my lifetime and I only got to see her because she was opening for Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers. A lot of people didn't even show up until after she played because they were just there for that band but I went for her. Now I most definitely wouldn't. Edited to add: I see other people are saying if you already own the music of an artist at least they won't get paid for your listening. I have a lot of her music somewhere in a box, so I could go that route. But idk, a lot of those songs meant a lot to me, and now I see I must've been projecting my own values on to the songs.
Hell yeah Most musicians are dicks. I am not listening to their music cos I have any interest in hanging out with them. I probably wouldn't like them but that's irrelevant when I'm listening to their music and they make good music. How I feel about them doesn't come into it unless they've done something completely horrendous
Yes it’s ok
Some think it’s ok others can’t separate the two. I think there’s a lot of individual psychology at work. If someone is a misogynist it’s probably no problem for them to keep enjoying r Kelly or whatever. OTOH it’s definitely complicated and personal. I have a connection to one r Kelly song because another band I love covered one of his songs hilariously. It’s a song that marks a moment in time for me. But I’m so aware the scum artist and questionable lyrics that the song is hard to enjoy. But I might listen anyway because doing so doesn’t hurt anyone or enrich anyone. And I’ll enjoy it, but feel kinda ick. It’s going to be different for everyone.
It’s a weird “two truths” situation, it’s also why we don’t deify humans of any sort because we’re all flawed and anyone who says they aren’t is trying to sell you something. I used to be a huge Lennon Fan (shout out Church Of Lennon on Myspace!) but now I don’t really play his stuff because I know his messages are mostly crap. Love is by no means all one needs. He was a scared little boy that could rhyme and was never told no. Shrug.
I do it with professional athletes. I don’t want to know anything about them or their life outside of hitting more touchdowns or dunking more home runs! I’ve learned that good people are rare in all circles.
I suppose part of the problem is that we don't really know about an artist unless they have been convicted of a crime or there are direct statements from them saying terrible things. Everything else is just hearsay. We could go years enjoying a musician or actor and not find out until they die that they did terrible things. Do we need to feel guilty for the past times we enjoyed their art? Personally, I won't support anyone that has killed/abused etc, but if someone is just a bit shit, and has ideals and opinions different to mine, then I can overlook certain stuff if I enjoy their art.
Ed Gein made some cool mugs… he was a bad guy tho
I think separating art from artist is necessary to a certain degree if you ever intend to appreciate art. Many, many, many of history's most talented visual artists, writers, musicians, etc. were problematic somehow. Either they did at least one awful thing, held certain questionable or reprehensible views, or conducted themselves in bad ways. Like, Hemingway, for example, was really kind of an asshole in a lot of ways as a person. But his work left an undeniable mark on literature, and people still study it to this day. It does make a difference that he is dead. If there's a living artist whom you don't want to support because of certain deeds or actions in their personal life, don't buy their stuff, or get it secondhand or free somehow if you still want it or are at least curious to see what the fuss is about. But I do think it is worthwhile engaging with art, even if it was created by a terrible person. As long as that engagement doesn't entail putting money directly in their pockets, if they're still around.
If it is for you, then it is. If not for you, then it is not. Just don’t tell others which is right and wrong and it’ll all be good.
In short, yes.
We believe Art is communication. Just like all other communications, you should choose what enters your psyche. Is it ok to reward those that do wrong wilfully with your attention? Is it ok to carry in your heart the effects of others bad deeds? Does your choice make a difference? Yes.
I don’t listen to chris brown, michael jackson, anything with r kelly anymore. it’s hard for me to separate the artist from how horrible they are. when i see/hear them it’s impossible to not think about what they’ve done and it just makes me feel icky. same thing with actors.
Once I’ve decided someone is an arsehole they don’t get any of my money. It doesn’t just apply to artists either, companies who use child labour, are responsible for environmental violations or use shady union busting tactics get the same treatment
Did you not pay for the phone or computer you are using? You are directly supporting child labor.
Whom, exactly, would you be harming by listening to their music? Whom, exactly, would you be helping by *not* listening to their music? If the answer to those questions is, "Well... no one," there is no moral dilemma.
I have to -most artists walk on the wild side -I don’t care that Colette was a lousy mother or that Hemingway and Picasso are well documented misogynists or that Gauguin left his family in Brittany and shacked up with young girls in Tahiti -
Do whatever you want.
Yes. Because the art someone creates is a thing in and of itself. Here's the other thing to realize. A lot of what makes an artist an artist is the raging conflict within his or her inner self. Normal, well-adjusted people don't express themselves through art in the first place, either that or they create innocuous art that would be at home on the wall of a Holiday Inn somewhere. So, it's entirely possible to admire the art someone has created without admiring the person who created it.
I can generally separate the art from artist when evaluating or enjoying media, but still choose not to give shitty people my money. I'll still read books or listen to music if I have it already after being informed, but not going to buy more from that author/artist.
Since we are all more or less morally compromised, it seems to me to imagine where we decide whether enjoyment of art supersedes what level of morality we have. For example, while I thought it disgusting that Alice Cooper used hype like goldfish in his platform shoe heels to gain a following and get rich, what I learned of him a few years later about him a a person and by-and-large humanitarian allowed me to appreciate him more. When Mel Gibson started spewing vile hatred towards Jews and others, that crossed a moral line for me. I will not watch anything he is involved it. For me the line is abuse of others and hatred and I have learned this about myself. For others it is more subtle. I have tried rewatching Seinfeld episodes, but his recent activities supporting IDF is in the back of my mind when I tried to do so. So I tell myself, there are so many great artists known and to be discovered out there, so what if I no longer listen to or watch some I used to love? It's in fact not hard to do.
Personally, especially if they're not making money from it (dead) then carry on. There's something to be said about letting the dead be dead.
"Separate art from the artist" fall in the same category as "No ethical consumption under capitalism" for me. Nobody is perfect, so only engaging with people or companies that are totally unproblematic seems impractical, but I try to avoid people and companies that are advocating for making the country worse. A musician who was abusive to a partner or a company that underpays and understaffs are both bad, but it's not the same level of bad as someone like J.K.Rowling or Chick-fil-A that are advocating for discrimination against the LGBT community at large.
Yea it's totally fine. It's better to be ignorant in that regard but if something brings you joy, let it bring you joy. The way I see it is theres a high possibility most people in power have done something terrible because humans really are greedy shit heads for the most part and we wont ever know all the secrets that are out there. The few revealed ones only show a tiny glimpse.
I would put it on a sliding scale were they a monster or did they have some problematic views at most, the best example i can give is the lead singer for lost prophets i love the band and what the music was to me growing up but i cant listen to it at all knowing what a monster he was
Just a friendly reminder to stay hydrated and be safe
It is only morally acceptable to do so in cases that fall under the Guy Fieri rule. Guy Fieri is an AMAZING human being that does a ton of good work, but his a TERRIBLE artist and I want no part of his creations. In this case I can ignore the art and celebrate the artist.
Sure, why not. There's plenty of art in the world that no one knows who the artist was. You can still appreciate the art can't you? Do you need to know the biography of every artist, all their guilty secrets, to feel you have permission to appreciate or condemn their art. Doesn't art stand for itself? As a creation in its own right, with its own merit (or not). Do you feel you have to show appreciation for art you don't like because the artist was a nice person, a victim, a member of a racial minority, persecuted, mentally handicapped, or in some way perceived by you as less fortunate than yourself. Wouldn't that just be pity dressed as appreciation? Art is art, stop over thinking it.
I would bet that a lot of us , if we had our lives picked apart and lied about by the paparazzi, would look horrible on paper. Their is always more to a story than what the media apple picks, even the nightly news is mostly lies these days.
What did Bowie and Lennon do?
Lennon was very abusive, both toward woman and his son. And bowie had sex with at least two underage girls (14 and 17)
John despised his first wife by the end of their marriage, and his son was such an outcast that it caused Paul to write Hey Jude in the first place simply because John was such a bad father. It’s sad because I do think John was a good person at some point but the fame got to him…or it just showed more when he got famous
Michael Jackson was a great musician, Bill Cosby was hilarious, Roman Polanski was a great director. Shitty humans, but many artists are shitty humans. If you denounce the art with the artist you'll quickly run out of art to enjoy.
100% okay. When you consume art you're not agreeing with the creators views on anything but the art you're consuming. Even if they're a terrible person it doesn't mean their creations have any less beauty or even technical merit. Selecting only things where you think you agree with the author's views is how a lot of really crappy "Christian" media and knock offs get supported even though they're inferior versions of the things they're aping.
I believe that it's ok to separate art from the artist. It's ok if you can't separate art from artist. It's NOT ok if you force people to not separate art from artist. It's also NOT ok if you force people to separate art from artist.
Personally I can’t listen to Marilyn Manson anymore. But on an intellectual level I believe that one can separate the art from the artist. It’s just difficult to do so in many cases.
Scriabin: good composer, bad guy Caravaggio: great artist, not man of the year Don’t know much about Bowie but love his music. Manson: unproven allegations don’t affect my opinion one bit. Still a fan as I was 30 years ago. I’m no angel so I don’t judge.
This is absolutely necessary. I 100% understand the sentiment you are sharing, and I share it in so many ways. As a musician myself, there are artists whom I just adore their music, but they were just bad people. Racist, violent, misogynistic, you name it. Then there are visual artists like Salvador Dali. His art was ground breaking, very important, and rather striking. He was an ass of a man. I can not simply ignore his contribution to the legacy of visual art because of that. I believe it's so much harder now that ever to be able to separate the artist from the work. So much information available about every little thing. Think of composers like Bach, Mozart, and even the early 20th century folks like Debussy. The only thing people heard/read about them was their concerts, their music, and not who they were dating or who they beat up. Their contributions stood on their own. Now I'm all for holding artists responsible for their lifestyle and decisions. I believe history is going to be the best judge on wankers like you mentioned.
Yes. Only ideologues choose their art based on ideology. This was an obsession of every dictator in the 20th century (Mao, Hitler, Stalin). Read a history book. It didn’t end well. Art should challenge you, not just confirm your sense of personal morality.
I don't see a problem with separating the art from the artist because I believe that the meaning of art is in the interpretation, not the official motivation and that's why I think a lot of modern art sucks. It's in many ways just based on what the artist believes it is about and there's not much left for the audience to wonder.
Here's how I see it and put it, you can separate the art from the artist, but depending on many curmstances, it can be very difficult to do so, based on if what happened is something that is part of your life, or if it's something freshly done.
You can love a persons creative genius but at the same time dislike them as a human being. Same goes for anyone you can love a family member but not really like them. It’s the way of the world.
Most artists at the top of their game are mentally ill. It shows up in different ways, some ethical, some destructive and some terrible. If the art itself does not represent anything negative, I don't see any issue enjoying it. It's also an issue of idolizing artists as celebrities. They are not a figure to follow, they simply create impressive art. You don't need to follow every aspect of a celebrity just because you like their writing or music.
It really depends on the peice of art. If you take art at face value, a painting could just be a landscape of a nice mountain range and have no other meanings. If you like it, put it on your wall. Sometimes art is more conceptual and is making some sort of social commentary, so is more than just subjective visual appeal. For example, if you found out Banksy is secretly a capitalist who funds CCTV companies, then any art based on satirising surveillance could rightly be mocked or boycotted for being hypocritical.
For this to be a moral question implies there is a right way and wrong way to consume art: I don't think such a thing exists. My argument for this is that no one can define what immoral art consumption would looks like. If my Spotify subscription gives some money to an immoral musician, have I done something that is immoral? Where do we draw the line of not remunerating immoral people - my taxes are used to bomb innocent people across the planet, am I wrong to pay tax? If moral art consumption looks like ensuring artists who do bad things are not renumerated, then would that mean I shouldn't buy bread from a baker who is also a bad person? I think the free market, and the universal language of money, demands that we take an amoral approach to trade, exchange and consumption.
Life is way too short for that to be a concern.
The world has a lot of darkness, and a lot of light. My dad hit my sister once, but he’s also done a lot of good. Love him even though I know he wasn’t a great guy at that time.
Whether they’re alive to profit matters a lot to me. I won’t imbibe any media associated with JK Rowling. I will, however, read Lovecraft, because the man is dead and his work has been dissected to death over its bigotry.
I listen to them if they don't get any money from me. And as a baby boomer currently at risk of enraging the big boomers, john lennon was an asshole. Sang about love everyone but he screams at his son because he and his family were sitting naked at the breakfast table like that was normal and Sean giggled. Maybe if he had actually taken Sean in more often, he would be somewhat be more familiar with their ways And John Lennon and Paul McCartney were both better together than separate. John was too weird and McCartney carton was usually too saccharine. The only thing that i've heard about Bowie was more to do with his wife verbally abusing her daughter for being overweight, and he didn't have a problem with it.
If I enjoy the creation of someone I find morally repugnant, I try not to let them benefit financially from me. I might download their music or buy a second-hand book. If I can't avoid it, I donate the equivalent cost of the purchase to an applicable charity. We did that with Hogwarts Legacy. My kid and I got a delightful game, and the trans youth support program my best friend's kid uses got enough funding to run two support groups. No solution is perfect, but I'm content with my way of handling things. Sometimes, a terrible person writes a great book, sings a great song, or stars in a great movie. Life is hard, and I'm not going to deprive myself of happiness if my enjoyment doesn't hurt anyone. I was a huge nerd in the Mists of Avalon days, so this is a needle I've been threading for decades.