Rules
If support of the art is in turn supporting the artist in hurting other people, there is no separation, just a lie we tell ourselves to avoid cognitive dissonance.
If the artist is dead, or otherwise unable to hurt people, then and only then is it possible to separate the two
It also depends on the nature of what the artist did. I already own all the Sandman books, so reading them doesn’t further help Neil Gaiman, but I don’t think I’d ever be able to read them again anyway. Other artists whose crimes weren’t as horrible, I might be able to pick up again without greatly degrading my enjoyment of the work (although I can’t think of any authors on my shelf off the top of my head that would apply to)
Usually I'm not in the mood anymore after I get to know some artist is an asshole. It's not like I use my brain and deliberately try to reason about it. Or that I feel hatred towards the book/song now... But I never felt like re-reading Harry Potter after that. Or let Tidal play some artists' songs. The fun is just spoiled, I guess.
It's entirely possible to consume art without benefiting the artist. It's called piracy.
When my grandkids want to watch Harry Potter, JK Rowling doesn't get a penny from the act of me streaming it on an illegal site.
Not while they're alive certainly, and maybe not ever.
Depends.
Is the artist dead? Then sure.
Will they benefit in any way from my support of their work?
Then no.
Did I pay for it before I found out that they were X, Y, or Z?
Then enjoy it, or don't, just don't give them more money.
Yeah, I've got most of Gaiman's books. I still think his collab with Pratchet was brilliant. But he'll never get another cent from me. Roman Polanski? I pirate his shit, he and his estate will never see my money.
Case in point I use Piefed because the dev believes in democracy and human rights.
I think the link between the work and the artist is thin but unbreakable.
If you want to understand a literary work, you need to understand its context*. That context includes the author, but also when it was created, the original medium, the culture it's from… and the readers. Yup, people shape the work as they read it, and sometimes in ways that cancel out what the author said. But the voice of the author is still there. You can't simply ignore it; at most fight against it, and sometimes win.
Now, let's say the author is bad, but the work is good. Then it stops being just a literary matter, to become a moral one. It's all about weighting the harm caused by the author (and, as you said, subsidising that author and their problematic views) versus the benefit that the work itself would give to potential new readers. There isn't a single right answer that'll apply to all works, I think.
For example. Lovecraft was a racist piece of shit. But he kicked the bucket already, and his books are in public domain in most countries. So no matter how much you talk about his books, and how many readers pick them up, you aren't really financing a racist. So I guess it's fine? One might argue the racism leaks into the work, but remember what I said about readers being able to fight against the voice of the author?
Then there are cases like Harry Potter. We know JK Rowling is a bloody TERF. And if you buy her books, it's money being given to someone who will use it to promote her shitty views. One might say "just pirate them!", but plenty people won't pirate, and they'll know about the work because you talked about it. Then IMO it's getting into yucky territory, the odds you're causing harm by promoting that work are getting bigger, for a relatively small benefit people would get from the work itself.
Just my two cents.
*by "context", here, I mean everything around the text that shapes its meaning.
It's hard as fuck these days.
Minecraft and Notch?
Young Kanye vs Nazi Ye?
American Gods and Neil Gaiman?
Harry Potter and TERF Queen?
The hard part is defining the lines.
Is Louie CK as bad as Cosby?
People apologizing for PewDiePie's Nazi shit when he was a kid?
I fucking just heard that Andy Weir has some problematic views.
The pewdiepie thing was just a edgy gag, unless you're talking about something other then the clip that made the rounds on MSM.
He has a strong pattern of spreading Nazi ideas. The first of multiple things is paying people to hold up GAS THE JEWS, they people paid were exploited, and Felix (I think) 'apologizes'
The art is not just the thing - it's impossible to experience it in isolation of it's context which you've constructed from your experiences and feelings and knowledge as well as how the art is situated and framed to you. This might be the point of the Fountain.
So I think it's impossible to separate the work for the artist if you have knowledge pertaining to them. Michael Jackson was an incredible talent, and his music is significant in my memories of my own childhood, but it hits different for me now. If we played his music to an alien freshly arrived from Mars they might think it's perfect, but it never can be again for us.
Mixed feelings. I don't like supporting horrible people but at the same time I simply cannot background check every artist/actor.
Sorta.
Art, or the more general "thing someone has made" that you're referring to, can be judged independently of the person. A terrible person can make beautiful music. Much of our cultural heritage was made by people who are rightfully considered to have problematic views, if for no other reason than they were more common then.
Then there's art as a commercial product. You can't separate the product from the manufacturer. There's no way to give someone you think is bad money that doesn't detract from your statement of disapproval.
Then there's crime and piracy. When it's media piracy I'm pretty ambivalent. Seems easier to just not consume stuff made by people you don't like, but I don't think it's "support" in the way that paying is.
When it's stealing actual physical things, that's just enjoying the good thing and actually costing them money, which is clearly not supporting anyone. That just kinda makes it funny.
At the extreme end is stuff like "that's our confederate flag. We got it when we shot a bunch of confederates and took their flag". Clearly not supportive.
Not while they're alive. If they're long gone, we can talk about it.
Yes and no
Yes insofar as the work really does stand alone - if it was suddenly revealed that Vincent van Gogh was a mass murderer, or a space alien, or a Labrador Retriever, or literally any other thing one might imagine, Starry Night would still look exactly the same.
And no insofar as I don't want my money going to a piece of shit, and to the degree that I can prevent that from happening, I do.
what about the piece of shit's estate? those their shittness end with their life, or does it perpetuate though their family or other estate holders?
If the artist is still alive, then generally no. I don’t support any anti-trans artists because their beliefs and sometimes actions harm me and people I care about. It would be hypocritical and privileged of me to not apply that to artists that harm groups I’m not in.
If the artist is dead however, I’m a bit more flexible. A vast amount of historical artists were sexist or racist or bigoted in some way by modern standards. Not to mention the art the created may be constrained by the norms of the time as well. It would be extremely difficult to find a historical artist without something to take issue with and they’re not actively harming anyone anymore.
so what happens in 50 years when the people then read your internet comments and find them problematic?
I dunno. I honestly believe in what I say and try to be respectful and open-minded. I’m only human, I’m sure I’m not perfectly agreeable. If I’m still alive, I imagine I’d be interested in having a conversation with someone who actually cares that much about the old comments of some random person. Maybe I could learn something from that conversation. If I’m dead, then it won’t really matter to me what happens. At least I could die knowing I tried my best.
At least I could die knowing I tried my best.
Right, and who is to say the people you judge weren't trying their best? I'm confident JK Rowling, the favorite punching bag in these threads, is trying her very best.
The irony of so many people these days is they feel INFINITE GRACE should be given to them, but NONE given to others. It baffles my mind.
Ah okay that’s the actual point you were trying to make. I personally don’t expect “infinite grace” nor do I think I deserve it. Also to that point I think if someone were to tell me my stance on something harms someone else and I still remain firm on my stance against that group, I should be vilified. With the passing of time, A consensus will be reached and I will be either right or wrong and I should be judged accordingly.
J. K. Rowling nor I are deserving of “grace” from others simply because either of us are trying our best. That’s just not fair to the people affected by either of us.
yup. I ususally do not hunt down the hisories on anything in particular I watch. often times I don't even know who all was involved in the creation. if they are especially heinous I might avoid any of my money supporting the work but that is about it.
I do because contiuing to enjoy something that wasn't problematic by itself doesn't suddenly continue supporting the artist by re-reading/re-watching/re-listening to the copy you already own, nor does destroying it take what you already paid back.
You can also pirate it. 🤷♂️
Yes, I'm very "death of the artist". But to me, that mostly means that the artist doesn't get any more say in what a finished piece of art means than anybody else.
If I like a piece of art, but not the artist that made it, that's not a contradiction to me. Bad people can still make great art. Take Ace of Base: I'm never going to give them money, but I still listen to "Cruel Summer". This is a song that is definitely not promoting White Supremacy.
Hol' up. What's up with Ace of Base?
The songwriter was a neonazi.
Wasn't aware of the accusation. I read some articles, and I'm skeptical. I guess it doesn't bother me either way, I never bought any album from them, and I won't start now.
Its a ridiculous concept, "you have to separate the art from the artist," no we don't, in fact it is actively harmful when we do. You know who never says to separate the art from the artist? The artist. And if that artist harmed people, their victims and families aren't gonna be separating the art from the artist either.
Taking of for granted that people should separate the producer from the product -- gee, where have I heard this before? "Oh, you see, you have to look at things in this narrow way that makes no sense" nobody has to do that. All power and value in society is just people doing stuff, the value of the art is created by the time and energy of the artist, the galleries, the socialites, the critics, etc., thinking of art as just some commodity is atrocious, not to mention, the artists time and expertise is in the art.
No piece of art is known by the people who owned it, inly the artist. Like sometimes theres a "collector" that donates or showcases their collection and you hear about those people. But most of the time, most people, don't give a shit who owned the thing.
Finally, think about it the other way. Would anyone ever "separate the art from the artist" when going to sell it? Picasso produced an immense amount of work, few people could tell the difference between a Picasso and like just a bunch of shapes on a page, arranged a certain way, if they had never seen either one before. Some people might prefer the shapes over the Picasso. So if someone found a Picasso in their grandmas attic, and grandma needed a new Cadillac, would they ever try to not sell the work as a Picasso? Like believing the art itself would stand on its own and grandma would get just as much money marketing the artist as unknown rather than marketing it as a genuine Picasso.
The only time people tell you to separate the producer from the product is when they're fucking you over. I think people just hear it and don't wanna sound like a shitty person for liking Ted Nugent, and so they repeat it. It sounds smart I guess, it often makes people at least pause on it, but in reality bit makes no sense whatsoever, and we don't have to mystify it or acknowledge the view as legitimate.
yes. and i don't respect people who can't and who want to lecture me on how enjoying anything is bad if it wasn't made by a perfect person.
to me people who think that way are telling on themselves and their lack of skill in critical thinking and their embrace of hypocrisy.
So you don't recognize the names of people who make art? If you found a $1m Picasso in an attic somewhere, you would be against telling people it was a Picasso, even when trying to sell it, because you don't respect people who won't separate the art from the artist. You believe that the $1m Picasso would sell for just as much money if nobody knew it was a Picasso, and you wouldn't respect anyone who tried to sell it as a Picasso.
Critical thinking doesn't mean "people need to agree with me" it means you have to actually demonstrate that youve thought about or worked with a topic to such a degree, that your opinions are verifiable and stand up as factual, in many different ways. You have not done this.
Are you an artist in any way? If you made art would you want it separated from you? Like physically stolen from you after you made it, or had your name removed from it? When someone else buys it would you remove your name from the art and put the name of the person who bought it?
Name an artist whose art should be separated from their personal lives, and by just saying the name, you are breaking your own rule. Unless you mean that you should be allowed to appreciate art made by bad people, which like, fine. And if people don't like you because of the art you like, then you have to deal with that too.
Like if someone likes Hitler's paintings, but dislikes his more notorious actions, idk maybe its quirky. But sometimes people say they like Hitlers paintings, because they like the other stuff Hitler did, and thats not okay. If the first person defended Hitlers art to someone whose family was killed at Auschwitz, then they would have to deal with the social consequences of defending that particular opinion to that particular person. That's just life.
Being a critical thinker requires being critical of your own ideas and thoughts. So your statement really comes off like someone who just doesn't want to feel judged for liking something. In fact your comment seems to have very little to do with critical thinking or art, and more about not having respect for people who aren't willing to look past abuse.
This might be a controversial take, but yes. In the creative world it's a conversation but there are a multitude of other domains where no one seems to care. IBM made proto-computers for the nazis to keep track of concentration camp prisoners. Volkswagen was created by Hitler. Continuing the nazi theme there are a lot of medical technologies that were made possible by (often) lethal experimentation on prisoners. Just about every publicly traded company is evil to some degree.
When it comes to the creative world we care for some reason. If it bothers you buy the media second hand. The creator gets $0 if you do. Sure it technically supports the secondary market which effects the new purchases because it makes reselling a viable option, but if you're tracking things that far removed from you there is pretty much nothing you can ethically buy. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
That phrase needs to stop being used as it prevents the individual from thinking critically about their choices.
Are we really going to assume that buying from farmer’s markets is the same as buying Walmart.
Or that pro trans anarchist Servo is the same as fascist Ladybird.
It depends. What’s the context? What’s the purpose or goal?
If the goal is to evaluate technical merit or the chemical composition or the audio waves or the pixels, then the artist may be trivial.
If the goal is to establish chains of causality, bolster or undermine moral stances, or simply understand the context of a piece of work, then the artist is central.
Context and purpose are crucial.
Lindsay Ellis has a nice video about this
Some I do, some I don't. Depends on what they did.
You can’t really. For instance Warren Ellis’s (comics version) work is suffused with his self-image as a cantankerous libertine rebel who will speak truth to power but who is fatally blind to his own abuses of power, so it makes reading it pretty ick now given he has apparently no interest in addressing that.
It depends on what the art is, and what the artist has done. I've done both sides of this issue and will probably keep doing so.
I do.
Some of the works I admire the most have been written (or painted, or composed,...) by people I don't like, to say the least.
Humans are complex beings.
Culture, social norms (good vs bad) and historical background (what was considered legal and illegal) are also very complex. And the can be very different from one region to the next, and even in the same region from one time period to the next.
While, on the other hand, the action of judging someone else (or some past time) is often lazy as fuck, based on nothing but personal emotions (hate, anger, sadness,... or their exact opposite), distaste (I don't like to see/hear/taste this or that) and preconceptions (I think people should (not) be allowed to do this or that).
You don't believe me? Well, you're absolutely right to not believe anyone, me included, but then just go ask a few racists out there how easy it is to judge (and to hate on) someone based on their race or skin color, or even on their culture and social norms being different from ours... Do we really want to act like racists? I certainly don't, even when it's for other reasons than race, even for 'moral' reasons. Which, btw, is in itself a very changing notion.
I also think no one, me included, is perfect. So, how come should I be allowed to judge and to condemn anyone based on their own imperfections and faults?
Judging should be the job of the judges: people that been educated to fairly be judging (aka by accepting as a fact that anyone accused of anything should be considered innocent until proven otherwise) people's actions based on a set of arbitrary rules (that is the law) and when deemed necessary by punishing anyone that has not respected said rules. Judging should not be my job as an individual, filled with my own emotions and personal biases, nor as a citizen with my own set of values, and it is even less so as an amateur of art (no matter how deeply I may (dis)like some artists).
The problem is most people here treat it as a moral panic.
If artist is bad, the work is bad, and anyone who likes it is bad. And we plus purge ourselves of this 'badness' at all costs and anyone who associates with it, because it 'infects' you with 'impurity'.
It's not a rational thoughtful thing, it's taking your fear and projecting it into hostility and weaponizing it. Best way to not be judged is to judged others as harshly as possible to deflect any possibility of your own purity being questioned.
It can't just be... a basic feature of life. People are wrong, people make mistakes, art is imperfect, contexts change over time.
I think my favorite part is these are the same people who look back at history 400 years ago and try to morally judge it with contemporary standards... as if the same thing won't be done to them in 400 years...
Yes, because I can't possibly keep investigating the moral compass of every artist out there.
I view art as an open communication of sorts. It can be viewed without knowledge of the person behind it, but in general the more you expose yourself to a person, the better you get to know them. Their styles, values, thought patterns, all of which get baked into the art in a fundamental level.
For that reason, I don't really think you can. You can look at their works from how you engage with them, absolutely, but you can't fully disengage yourself with the idea that someone alive made this. It dehumanises creators, turning them into content machines. You may as well get an AI to start churning out garbage.
I don't have time to vet everyone whose work I enjoy. Another issue I have is that if I've enjoyed someone's work for years, and it's become dear to me, am I supposed to just turn that enjoyment off if it turns out they're problematic?
yes, you're suppose to do that.
that's why it's virtue signalling. you are supposed to signal to your newfound virtue by going through a public denunciation of what you once enjoyed, and you can take it further by declaring how BETRAYED you are by this and how you are retroactively full of guilty and shame for ever having enjoyed their work.
The problem is your a well-adjusted person who doesn't tons of free time to agonize over ranking your moral purity compared to strangers on the internet and post about it on social media, as well as going around harassing others who don't agree with you. Everyone knows 'good' people must go around virtually burning the heretics. And the 'bad' people are the ones who just enjoy their lives without a compulsion to agonizing about everyone's moral standing compared to their own.