Current Events > Do you believe in "Separate art from the Artist"?

(+) Yeah! (+)

This has mostly popped up because of the latest controversy with Hogwart's Legacy existing and people assuming you support J.K. Rowlings controversial rhetorics if you buy or even enjoy it now. And people are bringing up H.P. Lovecraft and debating him too.

Do you believe in it? Yes or no?

To a point. How much the artist profits from me consuming the art is a factor too.

In regards to that game specifically, who knows, I might grab it in a year or two when it's like ten bucks.

You cant just like the art even though everyone just likes the art.

I can >_>

Generally

Of course, otherwise you wouldn't be able to enjoy anything.

I cannot think of any circumstance in which I would no longer enjoy a fictional work even if the author was a piece of shit. I might go out of my way to not properly pay them for their work, but I wouldn't care about consuming it.

Yes, but like all things, it varies. And it's not a valid defense when the artist is specifically using their art to propagate their horrible actions / beliefs. Some CEman once tried to use this to defend Stonetoss and it was pretty laughable.

In some cases yes, but in others the art is inextricable from the artist

take, for example, an R Kelly song about sex or a Louis CK bit about him being a self-aware dirtbag

everything we consume has people who are imperfect behind it somewhere, so where does this stop?

don't buy any goods because there are shitty people/people who have done or said bad things who run/work in high levels in literally every corporation? don't use a mechanic shop for your car because there owners made sexist comments on the internet?

you almost cannot exist at all in this world if you don't integrate with any shitty people at all.

Most of Lovecraft's stories are devoid of his trademark racism, so it's easy to separate them from his views. It certainly helps that he's long dead and his works are public domain.

J.K. Rowling's stories are mostly separate from her shitty views on trans people as well. But, since buying them supports her, it's a lot more murky.

On the otherhand, Ayn Rand's fiction is just a vessel for objectivism. You can't separate the art from the artist because they're one and the same.

Woody Allen's works fall somewhere between Rand and Rowling. But, unlike Rand, he might still get royalties.

It's a complicated subject where the answer is dependent on complex factors and personal ethics. This also hasn't dealt with the concept of an author commenting on their own work, which was an original goal of "death of the author."

Obligatory relevant Lindsey Ellis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGn9x4-Y_7A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NViZYL-U8s0

Yes I do.

Stop caring what other people think and just do what you want to do.

Fam_Fam posted...

don't use a mechanic shop for your car because there owners made sexist comments on the internet?

WTF, yes! I have a local pizza place run by a vocal idiot who has made racist, sexist, anti-Semitic comments and I know a ton of people who have stopped going there. It's why major companies have PR firms. An owner of a business represents that business and has to act accordingly.

realnifty1 posted...
Stop caring what other people think and just do what you want to do.

What I want to do is not support shitty business owners, so what do you care what I think?

I don't care how big a right wing gun nut Sweaty Teddy is, Stranglehold rocks.

Most of the time, yes. If it's an especially evil/disgusting artist, though, I might make an exception and ignore their creations on principle. For the most part, I enjoy what I enjoy regardless of the opinions of who created it.

With another caveat being that artists who copy-paste their overt political opinions into their art usually just make the art worse by doing so.

Generally, yes.

Depends.

Is the artist still alive and benefitting financially from the art?

If the artist did something harmful, are the victims of the artists behavior still being impacted by that harm, in a way that would be perpetuated or worsened by the artists work being celebrated?

There are important questions to consider when talking about these things.

Depends. It goes so far. Gary Glitter can rot in hell and Morrissey's level of complete dickheadery is definitely part of the reason I think he sucks. But if someone had some major fuckup once or something depending on what it is I'll still listen to their stuff

Impossible when the artist is the art, in the case of idols

To an extent.

yes

the moment a piece of art is created, it is no longer the artist's, it belongs to the viewer/listener/reader/whateverer

Yes, I find it very easy to do and find it odd that people can't, but evidentially there's people who will feel the opposite way.

Fam_Fam posted...

everything we consume has people who are imperfect behind it somewhere, so where does this stop?

This, if you put the actual Separate art from the Artist in practice you'd hardly be allowed to enjoy anything

I do think some art can be separated from the artists crimes.

But, for me, singers I just can't. A big reason why I got rid off anything from "The Lost Prophets"
Yes, the band denounced the singer, but I just can't fucking listen to a man who did the terrible things he did to children and babies and enjoy it.

Yes. Even if the worst shit Michael Jackson was accused of is true, Thriller is still an amazing song.

ChocoboMog123 posted...

What I want to do is not support shitty business owners, so what do you care what I think?

I don't care what you think, and if that is what you want to do, then do it. You really seemed to miss the point of what I said.

CaptainStrong posted...

Yes. Even if the worst shit Michael Jackson was accused of is true, Thriller is still an amazing song.

Using this as an example, a large majority of popular media is made by way more than one person. Michael Jackson is the lead performer and the biggest name attached to the song, sure, but there are songwriters, sound engineers, instrumentalists, backup vocalists, etc. involved too.

To shun the entire work because one person involved in its creation did a bad thing is to condemn a dozen or more people who only wanted to create great music.

when i was young, they assigned us an essay about what an atrocious human being Richard Wagner was. The twist ending was, Wagner had every right to be an asshole, because he was a genius. My takeaway was "haven't heard this wagner's music (i didn't even know the bugs bunny connection then!) so i better keep it that way in case i end up liking it". i still do not listen to wagner unless it is inflicted on me

refmon posted...

This, if you put the actual Separate art from the Artist in practice you'd hardly be allowed to enjoy anything

There's a spectrum. If zombie Hitler says, "I'll kill one baby for every single chicken sandwich I sell," anyone who buys chicken sandwiches from him is a bad person. Pretending your consumption habits don't have consequences is a mix of ignorance and immorality. But, again, it's on a spectrum.

Depends on how much the "artist" in question is part of the "art" to put it simply.

Sometimes.

With J.K. Rowling, I can still enjoy the movies based on her books.
With H.P. Lovecraft, I don't really want anything to do with him.

Rouroni Kenshin was fun back in the day, but I've no desire to revisit it knowing that it came from the mind of a pedophile. I also can't listen to the music of LostProphets anymore and Start Something was my most-listened-to CD of all time.

I agree. I never got into the Harry Potter universe, but I have a friend who is heartbroken about Rowling's takes.... and she's been into Harry Potter forever.

Then for me, I hear crazy things about Bryan Adams, and I love his music.

It's...... yeah, I think it's better to separate the art from the artist, so you can still enjoy some things.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

A good example. I can think of him as the worst kind of nonce who deserves to rot in prison, and still enjoy the first couple of albums and not in the slightest let it affect me.

To an extent, yes, but there are often instances where the artist being an asshole has an identifiable influence on the art. At that point, it becomes much more difficult, if not impossible.

I generally don't have a problem with the concept that awful people can create great art.

winstonthewhite posted...

A good example. I can think of him as the worst kind of nonce who deserves to rot in prison, and still enjoy the first couple of albums and not in the slightest let it affect me.

Lostprophets music does not even come close to being good enough to overcome the frontman being a baby rapist

that is definitely the level of monster where you just throw everything theyve ever done in the trash

TheGoldenEel posted...

Lostprophets music does not even come close to being good enough to overcome the frontman being a baby rapist

that is definitely the level of monster where you just throw everything theyve ever done in the trash

winstonthewhite posted...

Yes, I find it very easy to do and find it odd that people can't, but evidentially there's people who will feel the opposite way.

Guess you're this guy

Somewhat.

i usually dont care about the artist's stupid shit, but if i like the art, i like the art

Like Chris Benoit?

I have to, too many things I like that were made by terrible people

Just because Bryan Singer turned out to be a horrible serial predator of teenage boys doesn't mean I'm going to throw away my Usual Suspects DVD.

But I am glad he didn't end up making the rumored Red Sonja movie-- a sexual predator directing a movie about a rape victim is a little too messed up.

Not if I really like an artist. I don't get why it's so popular to not care about an artists authenticity. As far as music goes at least. It's better with a deeper personal feeling connection to the artist. And especially stuff like R. Kelly transgressions ruin his music. He makes sexual music and his crimes are sexual in nature. How the hell would you seperate those?

I get it if it's actors or something. Cause their whole job revolves around them not being themselves.

FortuneCookie posted...

With J.K. Rowling, I can still enjoy the movies based on her books.
With H.P. Lovecraft, I don't really want anything to do with him.

Huh. Seems backwards. Lovecraft's racism is largely acknowledged and condemned, plus he's long dead and doesn't receive any support from people consuming his work, plus other artists have taken his work and expanded the mythos in more interesting directions than he ever took it himself, often with the express intent to address the problematic elements. Lovecraft Country is one big recent example. Meanwhile, consuming Potter media boosts Rowling's contemporary influence, essentially dialing up the volume of her pop-culture megaphone, and sometimes puts money directly into her bank account.

Independent of their bigoted viewpoints, I don't really care for either Rowling or Lovecraft as authors, so I'm not saying you should start reading Lovecraft. By all means, consign him to the dumpster. But the approach does seem backwards.

Lovecraft named his cat ******man. FUCK him.

Sometimes. Im reading David Hume at the moment and hell occasionally make a remark about women thats reflective of his time but ill-suited to our own. Its not central to his argument at all, so its not so hard to ignore.

FortuneCookie posted...

Lovecraft named his cat ******man. FUCK him.

That's unrelated to what I was talking about, but yeah, sure, fuck Lovecraft.