this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
106 points (92.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26707 readers
1825 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics.


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, 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 spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

I can appreciate art from any artist, but I will not patronize an artist that is trash.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Almost always. But I cannot with Michael Jackson and the singer from Lost Profits. They are just horrible imo.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

If some person or company turns out to do shitty things or hold shitty values, I will stop giving them money wherever possible (easy for artists, less so if a shitty company is the only option for something). I won't generally throw away things I've already paid for or stop listening to a band or something, but they won't get future money from me.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

I've learned it's a necessity. If the art itself is good, well done, promotes positive thinking, etc, it's easy to look past the personal failings of the creator. Like joss whedon. Or the Harry Potter author. Nobody's perfect, and if I get super puritan about stuff, I miss out on a lot of good content.

If the art itself is shitty, offensive, hateful, harmful... nope, I'm not gonna look past that.

Roman Polanski is tricky. Dude was a horrible human. I don't want to like his movies, but The Tenant is just so darned good.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Fuck Joss Whedon and his misogynistic, narcissistic ego.

But I still will watch Firefly, and Avengers.

I will not, however, pay any attention any of his future work.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

People that claim to cut things out of their life completely once the creator does something they don’t agree with, or worse yet when they are only accused of doing something they don’t agree with, are simpletons. They simply do not understand how the world in general works if they think that mindset is scalable.

Almost nothing is black and white when it comes to people’s choices and actions. The world is full of grey area and if someone fails to acknowledge that then they are in for a very frustrating existence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

It depends. For a movie, it probably doesn't matter to me unless there was a really egregious transgression.

If i'm buying a painting to hang on my wall, am I going to think about the artist more than the piece when I see it? If so, that would ruin it for me and I wouldn't enjoy the piece, so I wouldn't buy it.

Of course, sometimes the controversy behind a work is the reason it's appreciated -- not the quality of the work.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Yep, was scolded on reddit for "making a post about an antisemite" when I mentioned Mel Gibson in a list of some 10 odd other actors I liked (I even mentioned in the post that I was only refering to his acting, not his personal character). Guess by the internets rules, Mad Max is no longer a good movie?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If the artist is alive, absolutely not. And if they are dead, it really depends on context and how awful they were. An artist's beliefs leave their fingerprints all over their art. Also, if they are, say, a TERF, purchasing their art funds their bad behavior, making the consumer complicit in enabling them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Don't know why you're getting downvoted this is a pretty reasonable take. Where you spend money is largely related to who gets that money.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

I actually like Hitler's paintings.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

Yes. Bad people can still be good at things, right? You can admire what they are good at, without endorsing their bad behavior. This is a sweeping generalization, I know, but broken people often can do remarkable things because they are trying to fill a hole most of us just don't have. So if you will only listen to/look at the works of people you consider virtuous, you will be so limited.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

Yes, especially as the same logic can apply to inventions, and then it just gets messy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Depends. Usually I can separate them, nut for exampme on michael jackson I cant but think about his kiddie ticklings when I hear his music. Still good music though

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

I usually don't care. Any political views, racism, sexism and whatnot opinions like JK Rowling on trans I couldn't care less. But...

  1. Gender based violence I'll will need to be really good for me to like.
  2. Child molesters will give me an uncanny feeling.

Murder somehow ok though. I'll listen to Snoop Dogg and enjoy it to the fullest.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

I'll still listen to the song or whatever media but won't promote them.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

Anti flag has ruined their music for me and anything harry potter is repulsive after learning about who JK rowling is. So, yes I think I can't seperate the art from the artist

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

It depends. I think in this world it's impossible to purchase something without most of your money going into the bank account of a terrible human being. Buying a chocolate bar perpetuates child slavery. One could argue buying meat perpetuates climate change. I think it's a great example of cognitive dissonance if someone refuses to buy Harry Potter merchandise because JK Rowling is a terrible person, but then continues to buy Nestle products.

For me, I do my best to not buy anything at all. I live a minimalist lifestyle. If all of my purchases are going to cause some harm, I will purchase the minimum amount of items necessary.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I'm not consistent about anything I do, including this.

I do acknowledge that some of the creators I appreciate are awful people. I don't know if I would have picked up the art in the first place if I'd known then.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 8 months ago

The art is a separate thing from the artist so I can typically treat them separately in my mind. A bad person can still be correct. A person who has done wrong can still make something beautiful.

It's cases of when the making of the art itself is what's problematic that I have a much more difficult time with because now it isn't separate. Kubrick's treatment of Shelley Duvall for e.g., Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz. The creation of the art itself caused harm, not some separate unrelated thing the artist said or did.

I'm not going to avoid A Bug's Life, or even The Usual Suspects just because Kevin Spacey is in them. The Cosby Show was super important in breaking down stereotypes and improving race relations and is a great show. I'll watch Woody Allen movies, probably, if I get around to it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

Strict if the artist is alive. Much less so if they're dead. Much, much less so if they're dead, and so is everyone attached to them.

I try not to separate the art from its context, I feel I get a more shallow experience by doing so. But, how much context, how I seek it out, etc are all up in the air. So when talking about a piece I'll mention something of the context, the writer being living garbage is easy context to contrast/support against their work.

Ender's game being written by a bigot is interesting because of the contrast. H.P Lovecraft being a bigot is interesting because it is so obvious in the work.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

My phone is made possible because children lose limbs mining the cobalt, just because I outsource the misery I cause doesn't mean I'm a good person.

That being said, I'm less likely to buy their merch or go to their shows. But damn, if you told me Michael Jackson was alive, in his prime and doing a show, I'd be there so goddamned fast.

load more comments
view more: next ›