Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Let's be real here, if the artist created great work and then was also a killer, not only is the painting still just as aesthetically pleasing as it always was, but if we are going to care about what they did outside of the art, it only makes the art more interesting as an example of the varied nature of humanity. The same individual produced heinous murder and exquisite beauty.
That is certainly a personal preference someone might have. But the point is, if you know the painting you have displayed, is made by a child molester. You might not feel particularly comfortable with having his painting. Despite it being an otherwise beautiful piece of art.
I don't care if Hitlers paintings are worth lots of money today. I wouldn't want it anywhere near my place.
And that kind of knee-jerk avoidance of anything uncomfortable is at the core of reactionary thinking. If it makes you uncomfortable to be near something a child molester has touched, will you abandon their victims? The home they lived in? The clothes which they owned once but that others could use? The sidewalk they walked along to get to the scene of their crimes? Shall we all expel the things that make us uncomfortable? Some people are made uncomfortable by foreigners, and people who look different. Don't tell me 'but that's different.' It's not. It's the same reactionary childishness, and it might make you uncomfortable to acknowledge it, but that's why we can't use discomfort as a measure.
First off, Nice strawman by the way.
Second, It is FAR from the same thing. I'm not uncomfortable being near something some awful person have been near. People have walked on the street I walk on, for several hundreds of years. I have no doubt some truly terrible people have traversed that road.
But I don't want their artwork at display in my house. What I put on display in my house, is a reflection of me and my taste. Which is why I don't want to have such artwork from such a person.
If you're fine with it, good for you. I have not once said it would be wrong. I've not once said no one can or should have such things. Only that I personally, wouldn't want to.
You not being able to differentiate what people are comfortable with in their own home, and what they tolerate in public, is the centerpiece of your argument. Not a particularly strong foundation since it's based on nothing but your own misconception
Being uncomfortable with it in your own home is only different in that you actually have some control over what is displayed in your own home, but the irrational judgement of the art based on the non-artistic conduct of the artist exists regardless of whether you have the power to force your judgement onto others. It all still applies. There is an implied moral superiority in the statement of 'You do you, but I would never,' in the same vein as someone who makes a point to say to gay people, 'You do you, but I would never.' Saying 'I didn't say you couldn't do it' is the same 'I'm not saying anything like that. I'm just asking questions,' excuse people use to get away with making all sorts of implications that they know they can't really justify.
Sure, but you displaying it also communicates to your guests that you're not disgusted enough by his actions to remove it, and also that you're not embarrassed that you financially supported someone evil.
That makes an assumption that it is one's moral responsibility to dispose of work made by someone who did something wrong. That's pure circular argument. As for supporting someone evil, that might apply if you bought it after you found out what they were doing, but it is absurd to complain about something someone did with no way of knowing what it might go toward. It is also absurd to require people to investigate every facet of every possible person they could interact with. If you are walking down the street and meet someone running a hotdog cart, will you hold off on the purchase until you can run a background check? What if they're actually 'evil?' *furious eyebrow wiggles* This kind of purity policing is silly, like placing the burden of climate change on the person who didn't separate their recycling.
Hey you said the negative history of the artist made the art more interesting, so i was just saying it's more nuanced than that. We all (me definitely) own stuff from evil people/ corporations, but art is different because it's not meant to be functional, it's meant to make you feel something. It's more susceptible to changing meaning based on creator than a T- shirt, a phone, or a pair of shoes