Ask Lemmy

The best answer I can think of is it depends, and it's always on a case-by-case person-by-person basis.

It's like finding out that a famous painter whose art you really like did a murder suicide.

In some cases, that could actually add to the allure, even though it's horrible.

But in the case of a musician that used their musical career to coax underage girls into performing sex acts for them, like the singers of the Lost Prophets, it's a lot harder to separate the art from the artist.

Yeah, no problem. I just acquire the media in ways that don't benefit them. Second-hand books, movies, CDs. Perhaps from the seven seas. Turns out Nicki Minaj is a nut. Well, I already owned some of her CDs. She isn't going to know or care if I snap it in half, or pop it in and listen to Bees in the Trap. So, I might as well if I want to. Same thing with Kevin Spacey, L Ron Hubbard, etc.

Only you, yourself can that decide for yourself. People on every platform will throw their own opinions but at the end of the day, it is you who either enjoys whatever it is or not.

If they're still alive and still benefitting from said art and still harming people, no. Any time, money, or attention you give to them enables them to hurt other people.

A couple years ago I saw a band I really liked live. They were really important to me because their music helped me get through the collapse of one of my past relationships. Then it came out that the singer had hurt multiple people in multiple cities on their tour. So now if I stream their music, or buy their merch, or even just listen to their music alone, it'll be materially supporting a person's ability to hurt other people.

It's much easier to separate art from people who are no longer around to hurt other people. I don't feel bad for appreciating Guernica or reading Infinite Jest because doing so doesn't support the artists behind them causing harm.

Only when:

• The art isn't significantly tied to the artist's views/publicly spouted opinions/decisions/etc (e.g. if the artist is a Nazi, you can't really separate an artwork they made with a swastika from the artist. If they painted a nice flower field 10 years ago, it's hard to say that it is likely to carry any Nazi-adjacent themes, and is probably pretty distinct from whatever they'd make if they made art now)
• Consuming the art doesn't financially support the artist (so in the case of J.K Rowling, you could pirate the books, or read a copy you already have, but you can't buy new ones (or get them on loan from somewhere that could compensate her, like a library), pay to stream the movies, go to a theme park based on the work, or buy any licensed merchandise, assuming you want to not give her money and thus separate her from the work)
• Your consumption of the art won't indirectly cause someone else to benefit the artist (e.g. you wear a shirt you already own with Harry Potter on it, and it reminds someone else of the series and they buy the books)

Of course you can, but why would you do that? I believe that it is essential to understand the artist, the art, and their contemporary environment. All together. This is the deepest respect and appreciation that we can show to the arts. If you were to commit any error of omission in studying the art, that is your volition. Ask yourself: what is motivating me to make this decision? It starts and ends with you.

I wanted to add one more thing, I am sorry: I never cared for jk or Kanye to begin with so there is no conflict for me if I decide that I don't appreciate them as an artist anymore. I do believe that if you raise your artist standards to a high level you will inevitably do less backtracking and have less angst over this subject. Have more respect for yourself and for the arts.

No.

And you shouldn't.

Art, "true" art, is not merely some product. It's a personal expression of the artist. An artist cannot separate themselves from the art they create; it's always based on their experiences, their outlook, their opinions, their own ways of expressing emotions, or reacting to events however fictional.

Yes, a writer can create characters with opinions or behaviours that aren't their own, but things that are personal to the artist will always be the benchmark. You do that automatically. There's no other way to make a character unless they're a plank of wood with a face on it.

I myself am an artist and I have many original characters.

No. At best you can try to shunt it to the side in your mind, but it's still going to be there. Worming away what's left of your conscience.

Yeah, but you shouldn’t be blind to it.

the obvious, surface level answer is that you can't seperate supporting the art from the harm that the artist does. if you're either forking over cash or simply doing free advertising by talking about ir, you're supporting the artist and their ability to do harm. the end consequence of that idea is that you can ethically enjoy a bad person's art if and only if you can source it for free and keep it entirely to yourself

i think there's a deeper level to it, though. there's a quote saying that "art holds a mirror up to nature," and I think that's half true. art isn't a mirror image so much as it is an image seen through a prism, which naturally colors and distorts the image. if i remember correctly, Harry Potter doesn't deal with gender transition or gender non-comfority at all, but it is an image of the world reflected through the lens of a cruel and bigoted person, and that manifests itself in other ways in the story (two obvious ones off the top of my head being the goblin bankers and the house elves). you can't seperate art from artist because the artist shapes the art. the shape imposed by the artist is what makes art art and not merely information or a representation. none of this is to say that the mere act of reading harry potter is immoral, but what it is is dangerous. there's no avoiding doing dangerous things in life sometimes, but trying to look at art in a vacuum is like driving a car with a blindfold. driving with your eyes on the road is a managble danger, an acceptable risk- driving blindfolded much less so!

Ok then: why does one have to be a loud asshole to be an artist?

If it’s about Separating the artist from the art:

There are plenty of non asshole artists. Celebrate them.

Now take that concept and apply this to the rest of your life.

Stop overlooking the good that decent people are doing around you. They deserve your energy. Not just the loudest, most toxic attention grabbing assholes.

Only assholes blindly support assholes. So you can also stop being an asshole who only supports assholes at any time. Now even. Now is a good time.

I don't think I have any moral obligation whatever to try to separate the art from the artist, I'm not in a PhD seminar.

I posted a question like this last week. I'd say yes.

I can't, that's why I don't look too closely. But if their shit is being aired publicly and they are decently popular then I will hear about it.

I wish I could listen to r Kelly again, but my feelings don't let me.

No.

Either you can or you cannot. It's highly situational.

Michael Jackson's music didn't stop sounding good once I learned more about the person behind the songs, but I stopped eating Caesar salad dressing after I found out it contains anchovy. Maybe comparing a musician to salad dressing isn't the best analogy, but the point is: in one case, more information changed my subjective experience of something, and in the other it didn't. I didn't choose that - it just happened, for no reason I can point to.

Up to a certain point. If an actor or artist is just like an asshole, that’s fine. People are allowed to be curmudgeonly. When it crosses the line into hatred, like JKR and Kanye, then I’m out.

I think Rowling and West are both examples of where the person's behavior later changed the way people interpret their art. That doesn't happen for every piece of art. Like, Hitler made some really nice paintings of flowers. I loved almost everything I saw with Kevin Spacey in it.

🙄

I'm tired of seeing this nonsensical argument too often on Lemmy so here it goes:

Ofc. I love some things about Kanye, the things that make his music just straight bops and his lyrics so fun and ridiculous at times, and I hate other things that are not related to his art. I know his weird anti-"Semitic" (Polish/Ukrainian people are not Semites but Anglo/Western cultures find any reason to hate other people, lol) rants are off-putting at the very least but I don't know what that part of him has to do with "Flashing Lights" or "Guilt Trip", they're completely unrelated.

Now, when the art is a reflection/in praise of the artists' ideology and takes, and those are morally and/or intellectually fucked, and you liked them, then that certainly says something negative about you. You can love or hate that one painting by Hitler and it would say nothing about you, but if you enjoy Mein Kampf you're an immoral dummy, certainly.

If you are into reading maybe Art Worlds by Howard S. Becker provides some interessting perspective for you. He sees art as a system, not as the accomplishment of a single person, the artist. It is a scientific studie but really close to every they language and filled with a lot of examples

Yes, you can. Well, I should say it’s possible. Maybe not for everyone, but some people can do it. For example, I still appreciate and read Ender’s Game, even though Orson Scott Card is a homophobic prick—I just won’t buy a new copy of it, so I know I’m not giving him money.

It depends. Take Morrissey, for example. Do I have to hate the smiths because he's developed some political views I disagree with? I'd argue no.

But then I'd also be suspicious of anyone enthusing about Hitler's water colours..

Sure, JK art is still bad.

Sure, unless the artist is a tattoo artist and uses their own body as their canvas.

But as long as money is flowing to an artist who pulicizes what they will use that money for, your choice to give the artist that money is supporting the causes that artist supports.

I think I can but I don't really know. I can't think of any examples of things I no longer like after knowing what fucked up thing the artist did nor I can otherwise, stuff I still like regardless.

I guess it will depend mostly on how much is the artist involved, for example, I think I could read a Neil Gaiman book but I don't feel like listening an audiobook narrated by himself.