You can, when you pirate their stuff so they don't get money.

in my opinion, no. an artist's worldview informs their art, so things like racism/misogyny/ableism etc etc seep into the works they create. consuming media like that uncritically can be harmful by reinforcing biases, conscious or unconscious.

there's also the more direct harm that can be done by financially supporting certain artists. jk rowling, for example, is funnelling any wealth she gets from the harry potter franchise into funding anti-trans organisations.

in my experience, people who want to separate art from the artist just want to continue uncritically consuming everything, without feeling guilt over the harm they could be doing by "voting with their dollar".

Yes, you can separate the art from the artist. No, you cannot separate the act of paying for art from the artist while they still live.

Hermione is a total transition goal, so sure!

I also wrote a HP fanfic where a trans squib connives her way into Hogwarts :p

The art itself has its own problems, eg slavery, protectors of the status quo, but the excellent sense of place/wonder will always be part of my childhood nostalgia :3

As long as you're not supporting the artist financially, eg by pirating any media associated with it, I say enjoy what you like and condemn the artist as a separate person 🤷‍♀️

I struggle with it and am hypocritical about that.

Roman Polanski was convicted of a terrible crime, but I appreciate his work.

Weinstein’s production company made many of my favorite movies.

Kevin Spacey played some of my favorite characters.

EDIT:

And then there is Bill Cosby and OJ Simpson. I love the Naked Gun Movies and both are pure gold on screen.

Bill Cosby’s Chicken Heart routine is so fucking funny it was making me laugh my ass off until the mid 2010s.. Now I when I ever I see the album it just makes me sad….

Yes, but only in this specific case;

• the artist is dead
• the people profiting from their works don't have the same beliefs
• the content itself is innocent without the knowledge of the history of the artist
• any continued profits do not go towards funding advocacy groups for their shite beliefs

Depends on how dead they are for me, honestly

If the artist in question is actively campaigning and spending their wealth to support the things I oppose that's not great, but if they're dead then it's a lot easier to justify, since they're not capable of hurting people, unless whoever owns the rights holds the same opinions

There's also willful ignorance where if you like an artist's work in a genre known for having problematic artists you simply choose to not look into them, so you don't have to deal with the moral implications, which I admittedly am somewhat guilty of for music

Yes and it's easy

Step 1: Steal the Art. Ensure that the artist does not materially/financially gain in any way from your enjoyment of their work.

Step 2: Talk Shit. Every time someone asks about the art/artist in question is an opportunity to explain in detail exactly why that artist sucks and how to steal their art. Ensure that they do not gain in any other way from your enjoyment of their work. Destroy their reputation so that others do not support them financially.

Yes.

Liking this painting does not make you a Nazi.

It depends. JKR or Kayne West? Absolutely fucking not. They are such incredibly shitty people, that you can not separate them. I would not even consume there stuff if its pirated. However, I have plenty of pirated music where the artists are complete shitheads, but I still like their stuff. I Would not give them any money for it or would show it to other people, but if its only for myself and pirated its fine.

However if someone still wants to listen to as example Kayne, please just pirate it. He actively uses his money to do malicious things.

I don't really think so... Especially in an era of AI-generated slop that's devoid of the human touch, it's more important than ever to recognize the people who make things.

With that said, I do think that we should be able to accept flaws and imperfections in human creators. I think people should understand the fact that you can like someone's creations without endorsing every aspect of them as a person.

For example, the number of zoomers who I've met that claim that "the Beatles suck" because they have a problem with John Lennon's personal flaws is pretty wild to me. It's cool if people dislike the Beatles, whatever! Did John always practice what he preached? Probably not... But, like, even knowing that he was a bad father to his first son and a bad husband to his first wife, that doesn't really change the fact that his band was objectively one of the most influential musical acts of the 20th century. You don't have to like the guy, the band, or even the songs, but to ignore their once-in-a-generation skill and cultural importance feels like willful ignorance to me.

Like many people, I love Jamaican music: reggae, dub, ska, dancehall, etc. At the same time, I'm not a rasta, nor do I totally agree to some of the religious and political ideologies that rastas have typically believed in (judeo-christianity, African zionism, ethnostatism, the ideas of Preston Garvey, the cult of personality around Haile Selassie, etc.). I choose to look at Jamaica, Rastafari, and the endless library of amazing music that they in the context in which it was created. I try to understand their point of view and relate to their experiences to the best of my ability, even if I don't exactly believe in all of the things that they believe in. The Rasta's music is a window into their world, their culture, and their perspective on life, and I love that music allows for that.

In other words, I think we should be able to judge the work and the person separately, with our understanding of one informing the other, but not dictating it. We shouldn't expect artists and musicians to be any more perfect than any other human being. At the same time, it's fine to judge creators by the things that they say and do outside of their work, and it's understandable if someone has stances or a history of behavior that totally turn you off of their creative output.

If JK Rowling's stance on trans people takes away from your ability to enjoy her work, or at worst becomes a personal attack against your identity (her attacks against trans people are active and relentless), then I think it's perfectly understandable that you can't enjoy Harry Potter anymore. I near read, and was never emotionally invested in, Harry Potter so it's always been very easy for me to say "nah, fuck that shit", especially when she made it her life's work to attack trans people for simply daring to exist. I'm not trans, but empathy alone tells me that trans people should have a right to exist and define themselves as they see fit.

Graham Linehan (creator of some great Irish/British comedy shows that I love, like Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd) went down the same path of trashing trans people on Twitter, and I still watch and enjoy his shows for what they are, despite the fact that I think he's an idiot and an asshole for making his anti-trans hate the molehill he wants to die on.... I don't like him for being that kind of person, but why don't I hold it against him to the same degree that I judge Rowling? I guess probably just because I liked his work in the first place.

So, basically, I can enjoy works from flawed or controversial creators without totally divorcing their work from who they are as a person.

The best answer I can think of is it depends, and it's always on a case-by-case person-by-person basis.

It's like finding out that a famous painter whose art you really like did a murder suicide.

In some cases, that could actually add to the allure, even though it's horrible.

But in the case of a musician that used their musical career to coax underage girls into performing sex acts for them, like the singers of the Lost Prophets, it's a lot harder to separate the art from the artist.

Yeah, no problem. I just acquire the media in ways that don't benefit them. Second-hand books, movies, CDs. Perhaps from the seven seas. Turns out Nicki Minaj is a nut. Well, I already owned some of her CDs. She isn't going to know or care if I snap it in half, or pop it in and listen to Bees in the Trap. So, I might as well if I want to. Same thing with Kevin Spacey, L Ron Hubbard, etc.

I think it's okay to like Harry Potter but one should approach it with the awareness that Rowling's prejudices had an impact on the work and try not to let it influence your views. For example, recognize that the pro-slavery stuff with the house elves is kind of fucked up.

I really want to watch the upcoming TV series. I was going to until a few days ago. I think it looks like a really good adaptation of the books. I hope I get to see it eventually. But I've recently decided I don't want to watch it in a way that supports Rowling given the recent laws in the Untied States targeting transgender people. I don't want to contribute to the hate and misinformation against transgender people. There's also the fact that the studio will soon be controlled by Paramount and I don't want to support them either.

Still, I don't expect the show itself to be transphobic and I think it is therefore fine to watch the show if it doesn't support Rowling. I might watch if it gets uploaded to YouTube or Rowling dies (not wishing her dead, just saying then I would be able to watch the series guiltlessly)

Only when:

• The art isn't significantly tied to the artist's views/publicly spouted opinions/decisions/etc (e.g. if the artist is a Nazi, you can't really separate an artwork they made with a swastika from the artist. If they painted a nice flower field 10 years ago, it's hard to say that it is likely to carry any Nazi-adjacent themes, and is probably pretty distinct from whatever they'd make if they made art now)
• Consuming the art doesn't financially support the artist (so in the case of J.K Rowling, you could pirate the books, or read a copy you already have, but you can't buy new ones (or get them on loan from somewhere that could compensate her, like a library), pay to stream the movies, go to a theme park based on the work, or buy any licensed merchandise, assuming you want to not give her money and thus separate her from the work)
• Your consumption of the art won't indirectly cause someone else to benefit the artist (e.g. you wear a shirt you already own with Harry Potter on it, and it reminds someone else of the series and they buy the books)

I wonder how many people in these comments love an artist that someone else finds objectionable / harmful because they just don't personally empathize with the people their fav has marginalized.

If they're still alive and still benefitting from said art and still harming people, no. Any time, money, or attention you give to them enables them to hurt other people.

A couple years ago I saw a band I really liked live. They were really important to me because their music helped me get through the collapse of one of my past relationships. Then it came out that the singer had hurt multiple people in multiple cities on their tour. So now if I stream their music, or buy their merch, or even just listen to their music alone, it'll be materially supporting a person's ability to hurt other people.

It's much easier to separate art from people who are no longer around to hurt other people. I don't feel bad for appreciating Guernica or reading Infinite Jest because doing so doesn't support the artists behind them causing harm.

I dunno, I take the approach, to quote Bruce Lee, "Take what works, leave the rest."

I'm a hopeless idealist in a lot of ways, but I think we cripple ourselves by applying stringent purity tests everywhere in a vain attempt to Never Do Any Wrong Ever.

If you look hard enough, you will find something you dislike or an objectional opinion from any creator of anything, just about. And if you haven't, it just hasn't come to light yet. (Hats off to the wholesome BS-avoiding creators out there not being bad to anybody! 💜)

People are, and will always be, imperfect, and while I think we should be aware of authors' biases or failings when consuming their work, attempting to boycott everything containing an objectional element all the time only serves to make our culture heavily insular and rob oursleves of our own enjoyment in spite of the creator's personal failings that may have nothing to do with the work in question.

I'm not for supporting someone's mission in actively being a malicious person, and people should be called out for bad public behavior, but there very much is this twitteriffic phenomenon in recent years where the line gets closer and closer and closer to demanding absolute perfection from people who make stuff, and I think we could all agree there's a point where it becomes a futile exercise in the ridiculous that only serves to make us more bitter, angry, and cynical.

No. Not as long as the artist gets benefits.

There are billions of meaningful ways to entertain yourself. Don't be a sheep - it's your world.

No.

Speaking as an artist and a writer myself, I put my entire heart and soul into my work, especially the characters I make and the setting I put out. My work is inseparable from my mind.

You can say that the quality of the work is good, that they're skillful in their craft. That's a very different thing from saying that its content, its heart and soul, is something that stirs you. That the story resonates with you, makes you want to embrace the artist's ideals and understand their view.

Do not separate art from artists. Describing their skill and making excuses for their broken moral compass are two VERY different things.

If I found out that I had fans who were Nazis, and they were making the excuse that they're "separating the art from the artist", I'd start including even more blatantly anti-Nazi plotlines to make sure they know that they CAN'T.

I think as long as you aren't monetarily supporting them (pirate that shit) or spreading their name and fame (don't tell your friends and family who the artist is if they ask) then ya sure go ahead and listen to their music and enjoy it.

It’s okay to like problematic things - especially if done with awareness and examination. Whether or not to contribute financially to people whose views you disagree with is much more of a case-by-case thing

🙄

I'm tired of seeing this nonsensical argument too often on Lemmy so here it goes:

Ofc. I love some things about Kanye, the things that make his music just straight bops and his lyrics so fun and ridiculous at times, and I hate other things that are not related to his art. I know his weird anti-"Semitic" (Polish/Ukrainian people are not Semites but Anglo/Western cultures find any reason to hate other people, lol) rants are off-putting at the very least but I don't know what that part of him has to do with "Flashing Lights" or "Guilt Trip", they're completely unrelated.

Now, when the art is a reflection/in praise of the artists' ideology and takes, and those are morally and/or intellectually fucked, and you liked them, then that certainly says something negative about you. You can love or hate that one painting by Hitler and it would say nothing about you, but if you enjoy Mein Kampf you're an immoral dummy, certainly.

I don't think I have any moral obligation whatever to try to separate the art from the artist, I'm not in a PhD seminar.

the obvious, surface level answer is that you can't seperate supporting the art from the harm that the artist does. if you're either forking over cash or simply doing free advertising by talking about ir, you're supporting the artist and their ability to do harm. the end consequence of that idea is that you can ethically enjoy a bad person's art if and only if you can source it for free and keep it entirely to yourself

i think there's a deeper level to it, though. there's a quote saying that "art holds a mirror up to nature," and I think that's half true. art isn't a mirror image so much as it is an image seen through a prism, which naturally colors and distorts the image. if i remember correctly, Harry Potter doesn't deal with gender transition or gender non-comfority at all, but it is an image of the world reflected through the lens of a cruel and bigoted person, and that manifests itself in other ways in the story (two obvious ones off the top of my head being the goblin bankers and the house elves). you can't seperate art from artist because the artist shapes the art. the shape imposed by the artist is what makes art art and not merely information or a representation. none of this is to say that the mere act of reading harry potter is immoral, but what it is is dangerous. there's no avoiding doing dangerous things in life sometimes, but trying to look at art in a vacuum is like driving a car with a blindfold. driving with your eyes on the road is a managble danger, an acceptable risk- driving blindfolded much less so!

I posted a question like this last week. I'd say yes.

I think Rowling and West are both examples of where the person's behavior later changed the way people interpret their art. That doesn't happen for every piece of art. Like, Hitler made some really nice paintings of flowers. I loved almost everything I saw with Kevin Spacey in it.

It really depends. Is the art reflective of what the creator believes? There are so many things from Neil Gaimen I love, but I think he is an utter shit pile. I love Good Omens and Sandman. But the money will still go to him. That is pretty bad. As for Rowling, I do appreciate Harry Potter and how each book grew up with the kids reading it, but I never could stand the insane commercialization of it all before her stupid and insane comments. And the new series, she has specifically stated that she wants to create it to separate her work from the three that have spoken out against her.

Yes. But also no. It's complicated. There are also no absolutes in correctness on your approach with the art. It's personal.

"Can you" as in "are you able to" or "should you"?

Anyway, yes on both counts personally. It's like reviewing resumes with identifiers removed.

Otherwise, one would be judging the content with preconceived bias. IMO it's a slippery slope to, and belong in the same subset as, so many other identity-related issues in society e.g. tribalism, identity-based politics, discriminition based on identities like race, etc

No.

I have known amazing humans that are bad artists. Out of respect for the person, I have complimented their efforts at art. There are many great artists that are horrible humans. I have begrudgingly complimented their art.

There is room for both.

Separating the art from the artist has never been about avoiding the moral complexities of supporting bigots and fascists (financially or just keeping them in the Zeitgeist). It is that authorial intent is not relevant to personal interpretation (aka death of the author). So yes, you can separate the art from the artist but that’s an entirely different thing from what is being argued here.

If you want to argue as to whether their works should be consumed at all - paid for or not - we should absolutely not be separating the artist from the work. There is little value in them that can’t be found elsewhere and capitalists see the enduring popularity of „that fucking book“ and keeping forking over money for the IP, whether people pirated it or not.

It depends. Take Morrissey, for example. Do I have to hate the smiths because he's developed some political views I disagree with? I'd argue no.

But then I'd also be suspicious of anyone enthusing about Hitler's water colours..