Love the art, hate the artist?

[Rose White]

so many people are abusers

it's everywhere.

most humans suck

See, I’m going to challenge this. It might seem like abuse is everywhere and most humans suck, but that *might* be confirmation bias mixed with media bias?

For example, there is that idea of the “27 club” and most of us can think of a number of rock stars who died tragically from overdoses. But if you were to take a list of all the rock stars that ever existed, the percentage who died from overdoses would likely be much smaller than you imagine.

I saw the statistics debate going on in the other thread, and I don’t think we need to go there in this one.

It’s interesting to me that multiple peoples’ reasons for not looking into someone’s character is that “most people suck”. And then saying Gandhi and Mother T (hey you forgot MLK jr,) are somehow proof.

Maybe that gets into the psychological aspect of celebrity itself. It’s possible that for people to become celebrities they carry some personality quirk that lets them step all over other people—otherwise how would they get there (not counting viral celebrities, that’s a different kind). But I’m not sure.

I maintain that we are drawn to remember the assholes but that our perspective of their prevalence is skewed. Not sure.

 

[No More]

I think you end up with very limited and narrow horizons if you only consume content made by people you approve wholly of.

And where you draw the line, is it say, this person was abusive, or this person has views I personally find abrasive, and so I will vilify them far and wide.

Would I go out of my way to buy books written by a rapist, absolutely not.

Do I listen and sing quite loudly to Kanye West. Yes. I can see the man is highly problematic but I do enjoy his music.

 

[user27357]

yeah, celebrity has it's failures. I said Woody Allen earlier and to be honest I might enjoy a movie now and then but I don't want to be associated with him so I don't talk about it and I know I can't even try to get my partner to enjoy one, ever. Michael Jackson is a non starter, same reason, and even if I liked the old Cosby show ( I didn't really) I know better than to get caught watching one in this house. I respect the opinion, the art isn't worth the cost of admittance 'round here.

 

[Rose White]

only consume content made by people you approve wholly of.

Not what I said but it’s interesting that it gets turned into that—it *does* seem easier to think about in black and white—or to imagine that others do that—but like you said, we all have that line—for you no books by rapists.

I’m getting the consensus that many of us have a hard line and a fuzzy line. I appreciate people bringing in environmental and human rights concerns as being on equal grounds for them. Art and consumerism do go fairly hand in hand—all famous artists, celebrities, even Gandhi and Nietzsche, are pretty much commodities or brands these days.

 

[Dark.Green.Feathers]

I make a concerted effort NOT to learn about any artist that I like their work.

I don’t go looking for info. Like, I don’t check up who directed a film before I see it, just like I wouldn’t look up the background of players on a sports team before going to watch them play (although, I find it incredibly difficult to come most forms of football, because…not a great track record there!).

And, it’s not really a principle thing for me. It probably would be, if I could get that far!

^ I do this

don’t really look / don’t have social media so the information doesn’t really come my way very often. (especially with the many small artists I like) The idea of getting attached to a celebrity/someone I don’t know makes me uncomfortable, so I don’t go out my way to find out things about the people behind things I like anymore.

Doesn’t mean it doesn't bother me if I find stuff out though.

There’s a song I used to listen to that I felt comforted by once, but then I found out the artist had sexually assaulted somebody, and looking back their music was very.. fetishistic and disingenuous, and I couldn't tolerate it anymore after that.
But there’s another song that I still listen to sometimes, which perfectly describes an experience I’ve never felt seen in before and it's close to my heart, resonates a lot. The artist turned out to be a pedophile. But I still listen to it because the song still feels tastefully done and it’s special to me, it’s “my” song, and I don’t want the artist taking that away from me.

 

[user56652]

I think that there is a great deal of "revisionism" when it comes to this kind of situation. As all the British forum users are aware there have been a slew of celebrities who committed some truly despicable acts and they have rightly been"wiped" from most of the public consciousness.

My perception is that you can't really separate the art from the artist. I wouldn't want to listen to a song that was made famous by a s*x offender.

When any song by Michael Jackson plays I have to switch to another station. While I know he was found innocent of all the allegations made against him there is far too much "suspicion" about him.

 

[Friday]

See, I’m going to challenge this. It might seem like abuse is everywhere and most humans suck, but that *might* be confirmation bias mixed with media bias?

I happen to ADORE humanity & its continued delights. Even when I’m telling it to f*ck off & leave me alone.

The “most humans suck” piece, anthropologically speaking? Is a few whole CULTURES have recognised that most people don’t like most other people. (Objectively True.) Either for their politics, or world views, or personalities, or whatever. MOST people? Tend to be VERY exclusive in who they “like”, much less love, and strongly limit their groups of friends to people they can tolerate &/or share history with. Finding out the creator of a piece has different political, social, relational, sexual, dietary, whatever beliefs than you do? “Ruins” the art, for most people. As it’s no longer about what the piece means to you, but about the human-who-made-it AND if you believe them to be “worthy”… or disgusting, gross, vile, wrong, kill the f*cker.

As artists are neeeeeeeearly always “outside” of society approved in-groups? Shrug. Removing the artists name is one way of ensuring their work remains, as powerful, and potent, as it is on their own. Not unlike bridges. Does anyone refuse to drive over a bridge because their engineer was a f*cking asshole who deserved to be stood against a wall and shot? Do most people even know WHO has made it possible for them to shave 3 days of travel time to 3-30 minutes??? Generally speaking, the more we VALUE something, in life, the less we ascribe credit to its creators. Because we fawking NEED IT, and know it, so go out of our ways to appreciate the thing itself. Not the person behind it. Who we probably wouldn’t like, if we ever met them, and might run through, as a matter of common decency.

 

[Teasel]

I'm constantly surprised that I can still enjoy stuff by some bloody awful human beings, but others I just can't. I'm not sure there's any rhyme or reason to why it's ok sometimes and sometimes not. I'm not sure I approve of the fact I can sonetimes separate the art from the artist either.

 

[gorgonzola]

It's complicated, especially so with works of art that a lot of different people contribute to. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, for instance, credits Weinstein as an executive producer (apparently that was contractual since Miramax originally had the film rights; Weinstein had tried to get the adaptation made as a single movie). Thousands of people had far more to do with bringing that art forth than Weinstein did. Statistically quite a few of them abuse or abused their kids and families but weren't as in the public eye as Weinstein. For me, I just wince a bit when Weinstein's name comes up in the Extended Edition credits.

When it comes to novels the only creativity beyond the author is perhaps the person doing the cover art/design. The publisher is performing a pretty standard service. The bookseller is providing a standard service. Buy another author's book instead, the publisher and bookseller shouldn't mind. So boycotting an author's work has a far more specific impact on them than in the case of a Hollywood executive producer.

 

[Paladin_141]

I'm lucky enough to not give a single, solitary flying f*ck about the people behind art, so I never find out any of this stuff and never have to worry about it.

Edit after thinking a bit:

I write, though I'm still looking for an agent, so it's not quite the same. I think I'll use a pen name so my personal life doesn't become an issue. Though, ironically, my writing borrows heavily from my personal life, so anyone who reads it already knows me, even if they don't know they do.

But yeah, I'm not interested in artists, only art.

 

[Ice_Fire]

So, there's been a lot of this erasure of high profile people and their work in the UK recently (thanks to Andy...) and so, it's not really a personal decision as far as media consumption goes for me. Names hit the papers for all the wrong reasons, everyone does the British I'm so shocked routine and then they disappear from public consciousness on the whole.

The exception being Michael Jackson who's still on the radio every now and then. He's the hardest one for me because it was never proven but I still get the ick factor listening to his work. But damn it was it good. I've tried to separate art from artist and listen to his music critically but it's a double weird one because my Dad liked him a lot and was one of the very few things I had access to listen to. So it's muddy.

My hard no is anything by the band LostProphets. Who I adored back in my teens but Ian Watkins was something else. I'm just glad I'm no longer wasting my tax money on housing him.

 

[RVA21]

My brain goes: Does this thing right now make the pain smaller? Then it’s medicine. Keep the medicine.