Ask Lemmy

If I dont want to support the artist financially, there is no separating the art from the artist.

If they're dead and didn't kill people I think I'm fine separating art fron artist when needed

More specifically, if they were a not great person, nobody directly associated should be making money from the art I consume

I don't pay that much attention to the latest gossip or trending scandals. And when I hear that there is a scandal, I refuse to jump on the bandwagon unless I take the time to get a clear understanding of the situation and the context, which takes time I may not have. Sometimes torches and pitchforks are clearly justified, sometimes they aren't or it's impossible to know.

If something is a big enough issue that I hear about it, and it turns out that the artist is a confirmed shit head, I'll avoid giving them money. But generally speaking, it only taints their work if it reveals things you didn’t see there before. Sometimes that thing which can't be unseen is significant enough to ruin the experience.

Then again, I also have no problem with consuming media that has objectionable elements to it, as long as I know about it going in. I've read Lovecraft knowing he was a racist and more, and yeah, it definitely shows (sources of terror: madness, the cold indifference of a harsh universe, immigrants, the working class, and race mixing). But while I'm not a huge fan and don't actively promote his work, I'm glad I read what I did, and would advise anyone interested in Lovecraft to go ahead and read it, as long as they know what they are getting into.

So, while I can separate art and artist, I don't know how often I really need to. I can think for myself, I don't need to have my content sanitized, and I certainly don't need to purge my library based on nothing more than an association with someone who did something bad at some point.

Gene Roddenberry was often a shitty person, but that doesn't change the positive impact that Star Trek has had on myself and others. We could throw the whole franchise out, but it would be a terrible loss if we did.

I don't separate them. To still partake in the art helps boost their popularity and their message.

I also can't claim to support a group while boosting their biggest antagonist. I also see this spreading into the AI area.

If I see authors using AI cover art, I blacklist them. AI voices for characters in games? I'll swerve. I can't claim to support a community of artists and then shoot them in the foot at first opportunity.

I am strict about it. Entertainment is a luxury that I can choose to avoid for any reason. I love HP, but i have chosen to black list it. Just as i have Kanye West. I do not separate art from the artist. This notion doesn't even make sense to me. The art comes from the life and experience from the artist no matter how talented. It's not an on/off switch where the artist switches themselves off when creating their art.

I'm a graphic designer myself and I can tell you that when I create designs, my personality, my uniqueness, my influence, my outlook, me, myself, and I all go into that design, even if they are subconsciously. Therefore, that design is not a separate entity, it is me in a sense.

Yep. There is just too much good art made by shitty people.

Like anything in life, there's only so much that you can do, so I pick and choose my battles. The folks I don't support, I don't support. I don't really worry about the others.

People are assholes. If you don't want to monetarily support an asshole, you need to basically go off grid, stop interacting with any form of entertainment, or pretty much anything from any industry. It's just not feasible in today's society.

Depends on the artist and depends on if they're still living and/or making money off of their work. HP Lovecraft? Dead, so I don't have any issues reading his work and still recognizing that he was a raging racist. Orson Scott Card? Still alive, so F him and his work. JK Rowling? F her and her work. Pirating their work would be a good way around it, but I don't know that I even care that much to make the effort.

My life too much of a mess to give a shit about things like this.

Promoting an artist's work is promoting the artist and their views.

The Harry Potter IP, for instance, is now the official flag of shitty transphobia, and hell will freeze over before I go waving it around or even stand under it.

It's not just a question of financial gain, it's a question of social impact and what we tacitly agree to tolerate.

Imagine, if you will, telling a rape survivor to just lie back and enjoy the masterful comic stylings of Bill Cosby, or at least to shut up while you watch it because they're ruining the funny, and YoU hAvE tO sEpArAtE tHe ArT fRoM tHe ArTisT.

What kind of message would that send? It would be telling them who you side with, it would be telling them that a rapist can purchase your undying loyalty and support just by being entertaining, and that as far as you're concerned, rape victims can just suck it.

It's not a good look.

Obviously, the worse and more immediately problematic the artist, the more pressing an issue this is.

The further back you go, the more unpleasantness you're likely to find, simply because social progress is a thing. But again in the case of JK Rowling, she's riding her popularity and influence in an attempt to drive trans kids to suicide right here, right now, which is just a leetle bit more pressing than the fact that some Victorian author was caught up in the casual racism of their day. Which is also not good, granted - but you triage these things.

Depends on the quality of music, the crimes, and the credibility of everyone involved. I love Michael Jackson, but I don't really listen to him much anymore because a) heard it all to death, and b) he's definitely a creep. Hard pass on all R Kelly music of course. Pass on Motley Crue. Kind of bored of Red Hot Chili Peppers. Kind of bored with Aerosmith. Kind of bored with Iggy Pop. Kind of bored with Led Zeppelin.

Damn. Seems like everyone was banging underage kids in the 60s-90s.

I am a big fan of black metal so avoiding closeted white supremacists behind some of those bands has become tedious. If I find out that they are neo-nazis without even looking for that info, then I usually stop listening to them, but I am not systematically researching on them. But yes there is one cherry picking I do and it is regarding Burzum because the guy had such a huge impact on the scene that it's like ignoring Led Zep work (which would not be far fetched of a comparison since it is known that Jimmy Page was kind of a pedo).

But there are some artists that I can't get over what they did and avoid their art all together. I was a big fan of Kevin Spacey ; Se7en is one of my favourite movies ever. Now I feel sick when I see his face. I was also a big fan of Daughters but I can't listen to their stuff anymore after learning what their singer did.

Yes. I'm very strict about it.

But as I said in another post recently, I'm also firmly against giving money to people or organizations which I know will use it to do further harm.

So I can enjoy Roman Polanski's Pirates! on my secondhand Goodwill copy, but I won't go see a movie of his in the cinema, for example.

Depends if they are alive still. If they are dead, I can separate them. But if you're alive and still making bank and being a shit heal, why support them?

If someone has been shitty in the past and has changed their ways, I’ll support. If someone has made wonderful art and has done a heel-turn, using their fame and fortune to platform some regressive, shitty ideas, I’ll pass.

Woody Allen and his awful shameless disgusting behavior can go suck a bag of d1cks. He is so blatantly obvious and so nonchalant about the whole thing that it gives me the creeps. Plus I think he is overrated but I am no film connoisseur.

I have some fingerpaints on display that objectively aren't very good art. If they were yours, they'd already be composted, but I like the little girl who made them.

But also I often enjoy and recommend books and music by people I probably wouldn't get along well with if we met. In some cases I might prefer not to support their cause financially, but usually I don't even know much about the artists or their views. Sometimes they'll keep their private lives private, or I just never bothered to look them up, or they've been dead for many years.

For me it's materially based. Are they alive and profiting from my listening to them? Then I avoid it. Are they dead or is the money going somewhere not horrible? Fine I guess. Like imagine buying or supporting Nicki Minaj knowing she used that money to harass rape victims. You can seperate all the art you want, if you paid her you paid for that.

Depends on the crime. If it's bad enough their music is just ruined for me. Listened to a couple artist before only to find out the groomed or touched kids, just can't listen anymore without thinking about that.

The personal is political.

It depends... I wouldn't want to watch Bill Cosby do standup but if he was in a movie I wanted to watch, I'd still watch it. So I think it depends on how close the art is to the artist.

Yes.

It's like, the obvious, common sense way to live, isn't it?

What, are you gonna demand full psych and financial background checks on every person who creates and posts something? Wouldn't that kind of overseeing, authoritative behaviour ring you a bell?

Besides, separating the art from the artist really is the only thing that makes sense when artists and their works live in kinda separate temporal timeframes. If John Foo was a nice person and created piece of art in 2022, but had a rough financial turn at life in 2023 and turned into a christofascist as a result... honestly, that's far less the fault of the art which is a kinda inanimate thing and more the fault of consumers who didn't support their work more.