Officially, yes, I separate them. In truth, there are some artists whose I’m less likely to enjoy once they did that thing they did.
Like, I don’t really want to see Kevin Spacey movies anymore. But I’ll still watch everything Mel Gibson does. I could make arguments for why that is (Gibson was drunk, moment of weakness, whatever), but it’s really just about how I feel. I could make similar arguments for the ones I don’t feel like watching anymore.
I do think we’re all kind of dirt-meat struggling through a confusing nightmare, and art is one way we rise above it. The best art is often made by broken people. Broken people don’t act right.
Oh man Kevin Spacey outing himself as a disgusting predatory piece of sh1t ruined his movies for me forever! American Beauty was one of my favorites as was The usual suspects. Now I can’t watch them anymore.
My life too much of a mess to give a shit about things like this.
It depends… I wouldn’t say I cherry-pick, but if the art has a message that parallels the issues I have with the artist, it’s hard not to “separate” them. Like Kanye’s latest album… I can listen to College Dropout and Life of Pablo no problem, they don’t have any Nazi messaging. But his latest album is filled with very weird lyrics that just make me uncomfortable.
Another example would be someone like Dali, who was an avowed fascist. But his paintings don’t really have anything to do with that. And I quite enjoy them still.
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.
Yes.
I quite enjoy the Tom Clancy books, and some of the film adaptations, but know he is right wing and it comes through in the books.
Similar to J K Rowling. Terrible person in general but the books were enjoyable when growing up.
I’m very saddened she shows these strong hateful opinions now. The books and films were so much a part of my childhood and I still really enjoy the whole world they’ve created. And watching her earlier interviews, she seemed like a nice, interesting, smart, softly spoken person, with a love for my city. Also through indirect personal relations, she was quite kind to us.
Far superior writers in the genre.
Alan Furst. Spy books set in the early days of WW2. For some reason they’ve been marketed as a series, but each book is a standalone with completely different characters. “Night Soldiers” and “Dark Star.”
Dan Fesperman. “The Warlord’s Son” is set in the days leading up to the US invasion of Afghanistan. Burnt out reporter and a self exiled Afghan search for bin Ladn.
Other things being technically superior doesn’t mean a thing isn’t worth your time, though. I listen to a lot of extremely talented musicians but a good chunk of my library could be learned in a Guitar 101 class, too
Back in the day, I started ‘The Hunt For Red October’ and noped out when the Soviet submarine commander wrote the KGB a litter telling them that he was stealing the most powerful weapon on Earth. It was so colossally stupid that I refused to read another line.
Unless you’re telling me that you actually listen to Guitar 101 students making all sorts of errors.
Here’s Ray Charles singing The Alphabet Song. Superior talent can take simple things and vastly improve them. Untalented people can take good ingredients and make an inedible mess.
They Might Be Giants wrote, “The sun is a mass of incandescent gas…” Still a good song despite being wrong (yes I know they’ve “updated” it)
People love Marvel movies even though they’re full of plot holes and formulaic stories but I’m not gonna say they should stop in favor of films which aren’t, ya know? Instead of saying “stop watching that crap,” say “you might also like [similar but ‘better’ film]”
For the record, I’ve never read a Clancy novel so I have no horse in this race
It’s apples and oranges. No one expects to get accurate scientific data in a pop song, and no one expects a comic book movie to be realistic.
People accept a lot of inaccuracies in a James Bond movie, but they’d feel cheated if Bond suddenly had the power to time travel or turn into a lion.
Since you never read the book I have nothing to add.
It’s not all that different. And I don’t think whether or not I’ve read Clancy is relevant here when my point is “people like different things about art and you shouldn’t pretend your preference is objectively better”
It’s totally cool to like things BECAUSE they’re hyper realistic but it’s also totally cool to not care about that. I am much more in-line with you in that regard…inaccuracies take me out of stories…But others aren’t bothered. Why tell them their preference is bad?
I quite enjoy the Tom Clancy books, and some of the film adaptations, but know he is right wing and it comes through in the books.
That’s the original comment I was responding to.
The books I cited are superior because they are not full of hard Right ideology.
They are also, in my opinion, much better written and far more enjoyable.
If you’d bothered to try and understand what I was saying, you wouldn’t have wasted all our time.
The books are better for the person who posted. Objectively better because they aren’t right wing screeds.
he is right wing and it comes through in the books
I don’t think it really came off as much in his original books, or maybe I was just younger and more naive when I read them and didn’t notice. But all the new stuff written under his name is just un-fucking-bearable.
Yea the books with Jack Ryan Jr as the main character aren’t as good.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Harvey Weinstein made a lot of really great films happen that we would’ve probably never seen without him, while he also made a lot of nightmares come true for some women. I really hope he isn’t making any money these days off of those movies.
Producers don’t “make” anything, so I don’t think it’d be hard to separate the art from the guy in this case…
They make a profit.
deleted by creator
Yes, especially as the same logic can apply to inventions, and then it just gets messy.
I have a hot take on this one. I actively try not to. I disagree with the concept itself.
When it comes to buying their art, why would I do that if I don’t like the artist, why would I support them that way?
When it comes to seeing their art as their ideas/ideology/etc, if I don’t like them I probably don’t exactly because I disagree with their ideas, so again it doesn’t make sense to me.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.
