2000 AD Online Forum

General Chat => Help! => : RocketMother 04 October, 2020, 09:22:24 PM

: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: RocketMother 04 October, 2020, 09:22:24 PM
Simply put, can you separate the art from the artist?

In this particular instance I'm referring to a popular female English author known for her series of children's fantasy novels. But feel free to substitute her for any other famous figure in the entertainment business mired in controversy.

Should people boycott her movies for example? Given that so many other people worked on and put their talents into making them? Because at the end of the day they are still her properties and she still benefits financially. Same with the video games, toys and so on...

And if the answer is no then where is the line drawn? I'm guessing there isn't a soul out there today who, being aware of his crimes, would wear a Gary Glitter t-shirt.

Finally how much input does the person have to have in a project before it becomes unacceptable to support it. Specifically I have the Lostprophets in mind here. Should their work be ignored because of one person?

It would be interesting to hear how other people deal with/view these moral dilemmas :)

: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Colin YNWA 04 October, 2020, 09:42:20 PM
We discussed the possible subject of this post and thoughts on her views over in this thread recently

https://forums.2000ad.com/index.php?topic=46939.0 (https://forums.2000ad.com/index.php?topic=46939.0).

On the specific I can struggle with this. Do I throw out my old Cerebus books, no. Do I buy anymore Dave Sim comics or books. No - I realised when I check in on him a couple of years ago that I wasn't comfortable with where he was still at and so moved on.

If he came to some realisation and revisited his views I might do the same in my view of buying more stuff from him. I see little point in not re-reading the work I have that he created though. In fact I've done just that and found it fascinating to do so. Especially when you read his revisionist views on his own work.


That said I don't not buy something just because I disagree with them. No, but if their views are appalling I personally don't feel comfortable. Where (and if) you draw those lines is of course a personal choice.

Sometime how it can be beneficial to read the views / works of someone you disagree with to better understand an opposing view. Again where that extends to is a personal view.

As for work thats a collabrative effort I guess you can expect some 'collatoral damage' and by boycotting the work others based on the offenses of one does not apportion blame, but is a necessary consequence...

.... man I'm not sure I've said anything to add to the open post except to say you have to draw your own lines, after all what we find offensive will be deeply personal in  the first place.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Greg M. 04 October, 2020, 10:03:48 PM
Personally, I couldn't care less what an artist's opinions are, even if they're extreme, deemed unpleasant, or wildly divergent from my own - if I like the art, I like the art. For the most part, the same goes for their personality and conduct.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: The Enigmatic Dr X 04 October, 2020, 10:19:57 PM
I don't think any line should be drawn at all. I think that to ask the question is to create the thin wedge of thought policing.

I consider it wrong for you to judge my conduct by imposing your opinion of a third person on me. That is intolerance.

I consider it wrong to equate a legal, lawful opinon with a crime because you do not like that opinion. That is censorship.

And I consider it wrong that any individual or individuals should decree that further sanctions should be imposed on a criminal beyond those put in place by the state. That is mob justice.

: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Funt Solo 04 October, 2020, 11:29:41 PM
It's sometimes difficult to dislodge a public figure's behavior from their work.

I'm a bit fickle, honestly, but I can't stand to watch anything with Robert Downey Jr. in it because he's just far too precious when he appears in public. That interview with Krishnan on C4 News (https://youtu.be/gYrporR9hHE) really cemented it for me, especially given that he was playing a character whose history riffed on his own, and promoting the movie. How dare an interviewer make the obvious and clear link between life and art?!

I've gone off Brad Pitt ever since he did a Pepsi commercial in the middle of a zombie movie (https://youtu.be/ZNdYlLUjoe8). "What's my motivation?" Oh, it's the $$$.

I've never had much time for the Potter stories (or movies), so my feelings there are irrelevant.

---

It would probably be in poor taste to mention Hitler's paintings...
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: JayzusB.Christ 05 October, 2020, 12:23:26 AM
It's a tricky one, alright, and I was thinking it over only last week.  I was listening to The Smiths, see, and thinking about what a racist, far-right little gobshite Morrissey has turned out to be.  I think the Stone Roses' first album is one of the most beautiful albums ever made, and Ian Brown is currently spouting life-threatening bullshit about not wearing masks and the 'lamestream media'.  I've loved the Pistols since I was about 14 and now Johnny Rotten is poncing about in an XXXL MAGA T-shirt.

But I won't stop listening to their music.  I will just suspend my disbelief as I listen, and mentally transport myself back to when these people either weren't complete gobshites, or were and I didn't know it.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Link Prime 05 October, 2020, 12:33:28 AM
Personally, I couldn't care less what an artist's opinions are, even if they're extreme, deemed unpleasant, or wildly divergent from my own - if I like the art, I like the art. For the most part, the same goes for their personality and conduct.

Agree with this stance 100% - I couldn't give a monkey's toss.
If I did, I probably wouldn't be reading or watching much - including 2000AD.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: CalHab 05 October, 2020, 12:18:46 PM
This is something I've struggled with and that I don't think I'm consistent with. The one positive thing is that I learned early to separate the art from the artist when I met a musician who I absolutely idolised and he was a bit of a dick. Maybe I caught him on a bad day, but it made me realise that I could like his music without liking him.

An interesting non-contemporary case is HP Lovecraft. He had absolutely vile views, even by the standards of his era, and they make it into his books. Yet he is one of the most influential horror authors of all time.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Richard 05 October, 2020, 12:52:10 PM
To me, the character of the creator is completely irrelevant to the quality of and my enjoyment of their work, unless their views and values find their way into their work, in which case I'm then still judging the work on its own merits. I'm not going to enjoy a book or a song any less just because of who it's by.

I don't listen to Gary Glitter because his music is shit. I still listen to Michael Jackson, although I wouldn't have hired him as a babysitter.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: SmallBlueThing(Reborn) 05 October, 2020, 03:50:00 PM
I am completely inconsistent on this. I think I've come to realise that, like most people, I am more likely to forgive creators extreme views or behaviours if I like them. And by 'like them' in this instance, i mean of course their work: which is all I can judge them on. Since I dont hold any musicians in high esteem (I'm not interested in music at all) my reactions to them when they do a Morrisey/ Ian Brown/ John Lydon/ Gary Glitter/ Michael Jackson is easy for me to process- I just dont like them. Van Morrison was harder for me, as his Moondance is my "favourite song" if I have such a thing.
I have more attachment to writers, so I feel more of a sense of disappointment when Dan Simmons/ Brian Wood/ Warren Ellis/ JK Rowling/ Orson Scott Card turn out to be a bit of a nightmare. But do I stop reading their work? Not really. I dont like Stephen King's beliefs about Intelligent Design or Alan Moore's supernaturalism either, but the phrase "feet of clay" was made for heroes.

I have yet to be faced with a monumentally serious transgression by someone I really admire though. Were that to happen, I might find it more difficult to process.

SBT

: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: wedgeski 05 October, 2020, 04:08:53 PM
I have yet to be faced with a monumentally serious transgression by someone I really admire though. Were that to happen, I might find it more difficult to process.
This sums up my position as well.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Professor Bear 05 October, 2020, 04:32:57 PM
Isn't that just a lack of empathy, though?  Boycotting a person or entity involves being asked to do literally nothing, I don't really see how that could be seen as asking too much.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Tjm86 05 October, 2020, 04:39:08 PM
I think for the most part I'm the same as others in these parts.  I don't dwell too much on some of the witterings of various 'celebrities' or artistes.  I do draw the line when their worldview starts to permeate their work a bit too much.  A good example was Tom Clancy.  Admittedly there was always a jingoistic dimension to his work but his later novels took it to a whole new level.

In the case of Rowling I've always found her work to be trite and hackneyed.  There was little that I felt even underwhelmed by, much less 'whelmed'.  Such views have been called sacrilegious in the past but when even Enid Blyton produces better literature you have to ask questions.  I always point interested readers to Le Guin's Earthsea works, the Weirdstone of Brisinghamen or Feist's earlier work (especially the Daughter series) before he crawled up his own backside and started repeating himself over and over ...
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: milstar 15 February, 2021, 05:58:13 PM
To me, it just depends on whether artist's body of work is influenced by artist's personal views or actions. Because you can be an a-hole in real life, and Mr. Magic in whatever is what you do (drawing, writing, acting, directing). In fact, when I look at directing for instance, James Cameron or Michael Bay are a-hole directors to me, but hey, one made Aliens, Abyss, Avatar, the other made Transformers series, earning piles of money in the process. And old Hollywood directors were much cruel toward actors and crew. But should we hate John Ford's She Wore Yellow Ribbon? I don't think so. Someone mentioned HPL. I admit I haven't got his views initially, only when I read his biography. In Shadow Over Innsmouth, fishmen were scary because I thought of them as any  malicious monsters you could find. Needless to say, HPL views were typical for 1920s. Okay, now I am straying off the subject here. Back on point, I believe reader's (or viewers) should have a little responsibility to what they chose as an object of consummation. What I do, for instance, before I read something new that interests me, is to read about the work, the artist so I could determine if I actually will enjoy it. I never read Cerebus, neither now I will. On the other hand, I loved Ender's Game, even though Orson Scott Card doesn't like two uncles in intimate situations. But to find something that just a little reeks on homophobia in Ender's Game is like a searching for needle in haystack.
Finally, like someone said, we all draw our (personal) lines. So, what matters to me, might not matter to other and vice-versa.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Jim_Campbell 15 February, 2021, 06:54:03 PM
Needless to say, HPL views were typical for 1920s.

Even by the standards of the day, Lovecraft's racism and antisemitism were pretty extreme.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Leigh S 15 February, 2021, 07:26:46 PM
Yeah, while there were a lot of people who thought like HPL at the time, he was still quite deeply at the wrong end of a spectrum.  When you look at his upbringing, how he was isolated from "modern society" and self educated on decades old books, how he considered himself a product of an earlier time, a "colonial gentleman", how he bought ito the "scientific" but even then outdated ideas of race, you can put him into context, but it isnt as clean as "everyone thought like him". 

To get on the topic, there's a evidence from HPL that he did seem to realise later in his life that he had been somewhat wrong in his beliefs and was at the very least in thee provess of reexamining and rejectng some of if not all of his Conservatism,  and that can go some way to redeeming figures like Lovecraft - if he hasnt died at such an early age, he might have grown far enough to realise the inherent contradictions and fallacies in his youthful World View - theres certainly evidence he was at least on that path

But a lot of that might be me wanting to enjoy his writing!  I've not had a modern "reckoning" with any idols thankfully - I thought Morissey and Lydon were arseholes from the first time I encountered them. 
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: The Legendary Shark 15 February, 2021, 07:52:37 PM
I can offer two perspectives on this.

Firstly, as a reader/viewer, I can absolutely separate the art from the artist. Art I use for inspiration and entertainment - even the ghastliest of pieces can contain shards of both, and it's those shards I'm after. If the artist turns out to be a bigot, for example, then that's their problem because not even Leonardo da Vinci could convince me to believe something vile. My soul, for want of a better term, is my own responsibility and there are some things I will never let into it, no matter who tries to influence me to do so.

Secondly, as an amateur writer, even more amateur artist, and semi-pro pain-in-the-arse, I think it's important for me to keep my paininthearsery out of my art as much as possible. It's always going to creep in, sure, and I want it to - but only as part of the whole, and only when relevant. It's part of my perspective, after all, which I recognise as a potential problem. When I write a script or story, or make a picture, my primary goal is to entertain. As people who frequent the waters in which I swim are well aware, my posts here are often annoying, rarely entertaining, and sometimes even censored. I try to walk a fine line (although in my case 'stomp a fine line' might be more accurate) between offering my perspective on the world and presenting it as self-evident. The Political Thread (for example) is me being me - and it seems I can be a thoroughly annoying chap, although I can't imagine why. My dog absolutely adores me. But if I pour all that into my art then I don't think it would be all that entertaining - so I use it there as a condiment, or try to.

If some choose to ignore my amateurish work because of my views (hypothetically, of course), then that would make me sad but it's not going to change me. I believe that most people are smart enough to differentiate between flaws in personality and flaws in craft. If I'm told my art is poor because it's unimaginative, pedestrian, badly written, or badly drawn then that's fine, great even, because I can improve my craft (criticism being the whetstone of art) to provide better entertainment. But if I'm told my art is poor because of who I am, I simply ignore it, because I don't think it's a valid argument: a form of ad hominem fallacy, "story A is poor because its author is B."

TL;  DR - read my snecking stories, you shower of drokkers - and stop voting.

: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: milstar 15 February, 2021, 08:28:34 PM


Even by the standards of the day, Lovecraft's racism and antisemitism were pretty extreme.

Yeah, while there were a lot of people who thought like HPL at the time, he was still quite deeply at the wrong end of a spectrum.  When you look at his upbringing, how he was isolated from "modern society" and self educated on decades old books, how he considered himself a product of an earlier time, a "colonial gentleman", how he bought ito the "scientific" but even then outdated ideas of race, you can put him into context, but it isnt as clean as "everyone thought like him". 

To get on the topic, there's a evidence from HPL that he did seem to realise later in his life that he had been somewhat wrong in his beliefs and was at the very least in thee provess of reexamining and rejectng some of if not all of his Conservatism,  and that can go some way to redeeming figures like Lovecraft - if he hasnt died at such an early age, he might have grown far enough to realise the inherent contradictions and fallacies in his youthful World View - theres certainly evidence he was at least on that path

But a lot of that might be me wanting to enjoy his writing!  I've not had a modern "reckoning" with any idols thankfully - I thought Morissey and Lydon were arseholes from the first time I encountered them. 

I dunno. HPL seems deep in homphobia, racism and antisemitism. Including weird (not necessary sexist) views on women. However, racism, homophobia and antisemitism were common in 1920s. Which spread actually to plus some decades afterwards. I read an article in newspaper immigrants thoughts on other immigrants.  Mostly from anglosphere. For example, people from Italy or Eastern Europe were seen in truly disparaging way. Eugenics theory was blooming. Also, chauvinism was mired in its own. For, example, the word "kike", offensive for Jews, is made by western Jews, to put down Eastern Jews (coming from Eastern Europe). I heard it was one of the reasons why Bobby Fischer was such a strong antisemite.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Professor Bear 15 February, 2021, 10:22:45 PM
I can never forgive Dr Zaius - not for his crimes against humanity because they technically haven't happened yet, but for the mean things he said about Clint Eastwood. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Su8UP94Qac&feature=youtu.be)
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: sintec 16 February, 2021, 10:07:14 AM
I've flip-flopped on this one over the years. A younger more idealistic me got shot of a pile of Norwegian black metal albums when it became apparent the creators were Nazis. Something I later regretted as whilst I find the individuals abhorrent that music was a huge influence - I've since replaced several of these as I missed them.

The post me-too years have been pretty brutal to a bunch of other musicians whose work I love.  Entirely their own fault and completely deserved but it does feel like every few months another one is outed as being an arsehole to partners/groupees/co-workers. If I dumped all of them then I'd be dumping a huge chunk of my teenage years along with them. Were I still regularly DJing then I might have to consider if I still wanted to play those artists records out. In my mind that's a different question to would I listen to them at home.

All of which is a long winded waffly way of saying... yeah I can and do separate art from artist.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Barrington Boots 16 February, 2021, 10:43:43 AM
Music has been problematic for me in the past too. I believe you can and should seperate art from artist - I think it's important the artist isn't shackled by public perception and produces what they want to produce, but also that once your art is in the public domain it then sits with the individual to interpret - and whilst some art can be abhorrent in it's context, I don't think the artist themselves being abhorrent is enough reason to abandon it... unless of course it's meaning / enjoyment for you, as an individual, has been curdled by that knowledge, in which case by all means.

What I don't do is support horrible artists. Applies more to the musical side of things again where support is very important, but HPL is long dead so I'd buy one of his books, but I wouldn't do anything that might help JK Rowlings bank account, for example.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: IndigoPrime 16 February, 2021, 11:13:00 AM
That’s the approach my wife has taken with JKR. She won’t let the woman’s views destroy her love for the books and her memories of seeing the play (which she adored), but has also stated that she doesn’t want any gifts in future linked to the series.

I’m in a broadly similar space and also have a tendency to revisit some of the old properties in a new light. Whedon is a good example of that. Some aspects of his work felt very off at the time anyway—there are notable contradictions to his supposed feminist views in Buffy, Angel, Firefly and his MCU output. But now the stories are coming out about him, all of those things make sense. Given the sheer time investment, it puts me off rewatching those shows, even though I enjoyed them at the time.

Music is the area in which this, for whatever reason, affects me somewhat differently. Although even then, it’s these days harder to listen to anything Ian Brown did without thinking he’s a massive pillock. (But then, I’ll never forgive him for that dreadful performance at Reading ’96 either.)
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: sintec 16 February, 2021, 12:35:03 PM
What I don't do is support horrible artists.

Yeah this is something I try to do.  I'm not going to ditch my collection of an artists work when these revelations come out but I may well choose not to give them more £s.

Sometimes that's an easy decision, I've not rated anything Marilyn Manson has done since the late 90s for example which makes it easy to not buy his new records now he's been outed as an abusive sleaze. On the flip side I'm still buying new Swans records despite the allegations made against Michael Gira because I love their music - so I'm not 100% consistent on that. At the end of the day it's a personal decision based on what happended, how the artists reacts and how much their art means to me.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Funt Solo 16 February, 2021, 02:55:08 PM
A couple of key points for me:

1. Is it black and white or is it a grey area? Take Winston Churchill - you can definitely find abhorrent views in that person, and you can also find the person Britain needed in WWII. And we've had demonstrated how you can't quite nail down H.P. Lovecraft's views either because he's human - and it's probable he was on a trajectory. He may have died the most progressive dude in the neighborhood.

Right now, people are rightly upset with J.K. Rowling over her transphobic stance, and yet, even there, she's a complicated human being who thinks she's supporting feminism, and has in the past taken a strong anti-racism stance. I don't think she thinks she's on the wrong side. I mean, I don't think it's occurred to her (perhaps, yet) that "wait, are we the baddies?"

I've had to have the transgenderism vs. feminism debate explained to me really carefully before I got it - and even now I feel like a fledgling who would have difficulty arguing the case well to an opponent. Up-thread, a year or so ago, I basically side-stepped it as too problematic an issue to figure out.

Cancel culture wants to provide us with an easy answer - the person is either ON or OFF. But people aren't binary, just like gender.


2. You might decide not to support a person, then their work - but (for example) a movie director isn't the only person who made the movie, and won't be the only person who benefits from the profits of said movie. If we follow the money, it's possible that a boycott might actually do more harm than good. Possible. (I expect most people who feel the need to cancel someone or something don't have the will to do any deeper research on the consequences, because it's an emotional drive.)
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: IndigoPrime 16 February, 2021, 03:06:06 PM
People are complicated. Churchill was an arsehole, but, yes, was the right person for a specific moment in time. The problem today is more that people ignore all the horrible and nasty shit he did and was responsible for and want to rewrite history to that effect. As for JKR, just because she believes she’s on the right side, that’s no excuse, and it’s the kind of thing all extremists hide behind to some degree. (She’s also doubled down, despite countless people begging her to at least consider alternate viewpoints.)

As for the ‘lots of people were involved’, that’s a fair point and easier in some places than others. That said, I don’t feel the need to support any Whedon venture in future, regardless of others involved. I only have finite money anyway, and so it’s not like the world loses out in a general sense — my money will just go to support another production, and hopefully not one led by an arsehole.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Funt Solo 16 February, 2021, 06:26:37 PM
As for JKR, just because she believes she’s on the right side, that’s no excuse, and it’s the kind of thing all extremists hide behind to some degree. (She’s also doubled down, despite countless people begging her to at least consider alternate viewpoints.)

I had two thoughts about that - the first of which is that I wonder if she was anti-trans when she wrote The Philosopher's Stone? She perhaps hadn't even thought about the issue then. So, there's this question of *when* someone becomes the person whose views you hate. Should I hate I Wanna Be Adored because  Ian Brown has fallen for some conspiracy theory bullshit in the last year?

My other thought tied into a conversation with my step-mum, who's a life-long feminist and a strong supporter and worker for women's rights: so she is in touch with people who are (to some extent) persuaded by the arguments of Rowling, while she herself is not persuaded. Anyway: there's this idea that Rowling is being presented with clear, cogent arguments contrary to her position and just won't listen to reason - but in reality the Internet is not often a calm place where people are gently nudged in their thinking. Or: shouting TERF at people is going to make them defensive. Or: persuading people they're wrong about stuff is difficult, because ego.

It's just difficult.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: sintec 16 February, 2021, 06:39:49 PM
Yeah the internets response of "hurl insults and abuse at people I disagree with" isn't really a great tactic to persuade someone they're wrong. Particularly not on issues which are complicated and/or require people to adjust long held beliefs or worldviews. Those who are trying to discuss in good faith are often drowned out by the noisy and arrogant. That's even further exacerbated by the trolls (on both sides) who are going out of their way to stir up dischord because they're bored and find it amusing to piss other people off. The end result often seems to be people becoming more deeply entrenched in their positions rather than moving towards any kind of compromise.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: wedgeski 17 February, 2021, 09:21:24 AM
I can't reconcile the popular image of Rowling the Hater with her books, or her charity work, or even the interviews I've seen. I don't agree with her views on trans women, and using her platform to spread those views was stupid.

I hate to end with "one of my friends is trans"...but one of my best buds from school transitioned during a period when we were completely out of touch. It took me a looong time to come to terms with who she is now, the same person I hung out with, but presenting entirely differently. It didn't just click into place. My brain needed time to reorganise, and I kept my distance while that happened. What did that make me?
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: The Legendary Shark 17 February, 2021, 09:42:50 AM

I think it makes you wise.

: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: IndigoPrime 17 February, 2021, 09:51:22 AM
I had two thoughts about that - the first of which is that I wonder if she was anti-trans when she wrote The Philosopher's Stone?
I don’t know. But you can revisit media and go: oh. With Whedon, once you brush away his purported feminism and recognise he’s a toxic entitled bloke pretending to be a feminist (or deluded into thinking he’s one), so many off decisions about his series and other work make a whole lot of sense.

With JKR, her books also have some strange elements that were kind of brushed away at the time, but make more sense when you approach them from a very mainstream white perspective. Her casually racist naming conventions obviously aren’t good. (2000 AD had a history of doing the same, of course; but that was gone by the time the Potter books rocked up.) The flawed approach to the very history of international magic is disappointing also (even more so when the property heads to the US).

However, none of that then suggests a more extreme viewpoint. So who knows what happened. Perhaps she’s fallen into the same trap as many others, ending up in a self-sustaining bubble.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: milstar 17 February, 2021, 11:26:54 AM
I think we as common human often make the error of putting someone on pedestal, even when that person has some flaws (whatever they are). And the fact is that great men and women alike, often had or have some negative factor about them. Nikola Tesla in his youth thought that women are superior to men and was quite fond of them, only to revisit that view in his later years, by 180 degrees, thinking that women's biggest fault is trying to imitate men (I don't find this sexist btw, and his take can be seen as plight for femininity). And many people simply do not care about it. Churchill, leader he was, if I mention in a crowded street "Churchill sucks!", people would throw bricks at me. Probably same would be with Margaret Thatcher. In art, it's similar. Someone might say "who cares about JKR views, I love her books". Which is to say, we all draw our lines. And vice versa. For e.x, I love Howard Chaykin, even though we would probably disagree on a lot of things.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Funt Solo 17 February, 2021, 06:12:19 PM
Kurt Russel got mentioned in the movie thread - another case where I love his acting, but his politics are dire.

He's pro-South, stating that he believes in the right to fight a war to keep slavery - as he explained to an inordinately calm Whoopie Goldberg. Of course, he didn't mention slavery out loud - but that's what the south was fighting for. People dress it up as "States' rights" - but that's just code for "States' rights to keep slaves".

And he's pro-gun and anti-restrictions, so he also (inference) believes that people who are murdered with guns are just part of the natural collateral damage you can expect when upholding everyone's freedom to carry a death toy around with them.

So that they can fight back against tyranny. Apparently. (Whisper it: "they are the tyranny".)

---

But that's what he gets hired for - being a tough, grizzly bastard - right? Nobody hires on Kurt expecting him to be reasonable and to talk his way out of problems.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Funt Solo 18 February, 2021, 04:51:31 PM
One of my students informed me today that the creator of Dilbert is an ass-hat (after I used a Dilbert cartoon to illustrate a point).

---

Wait - are all creators ass-hats?
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: sintec 18 February, 2021, 06:58:35 PM
Wait - are all creators ass-hats?

are all people ass-hats?

FTFY
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: TordelBack 18 February, 2021, 07:44:58 PM
Under every hat, an ass.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Funt Solo 18 February, 2021, 08:09:44 PM
Under every hat, an ass.

 :lol:

That's cheered me up rather a lot.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Jim_Campbell 18 February, 2021, 09:29:49 PM
Under every hat, an ass.

And in every dream home, a heartache.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Funt Solo 18 February, 2021, 10:05:31 PM
Lost Beautiful South lyrics.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: sintec 18 February, 2021, 10:10:18 PM
I thought it Jim was referencing Roxy Music - can't say I've got more than a passing familiarity with the Beautiful South though.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Funt Solo 18 February, 2021, 10:16:44 PM
Ah - you've got the right of it, Sintec - I just thought it sounded like a Beautiful South lyric. They often tend towards the morose.

Roxy Music - In Every Dream Home a Heartache (http://Roxy Music - In Every Dream Home a Heartache)
Beautiful South - Who's Gonna Tell? (http://Beautiful South - Who's Gonna Tell?)
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: IndigoPrime 19 February, 2021, 09:30:39 AM
One of my students informed me today that the creator of Dilbert is an ass-hat (after I used a Dilbert cartoon to illustrate a point).
Yeah, his masked slipped long ago. Again, one of those people when you go back and revisit his business books, you’re like OF COURSE. Same, to some degree, with the cartoon strips. To answer another question, no, not all creators are arseholes. I’d imagine most aren’t. But we are increasingly finding out about those who are. (And also, some at a certain level of arsehole are fortunate enough to have a shield placed around them. Chris Pratt is a good example of this.)
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: JayzusB.Christ 19 February, 2021, 01:07:58 PM
I can't reconcile the popular image of Rowling the Hater with her books, or her charity work, or even the interviews I've seen. I don't agree with her views on trans women, and using her platform to spread those views was stupid.

I hate to end with "one of my friends is trans"...but one of my best buds from school transitioned during a period when we were completely out of touch. It took me a looong time to come to terms with who she is now, the same person I hung out with, but presenting entirely differently. It didn't just click into place. My brain needed time to reorganise, and I kept my distance while that happened. What did that make me?

The first, and I think only, time I've ever chatted to someone about their own transition was with one of our own; here on this very forum.  Haven't seen her around here for quite a few years.  I think in my younger years I would have found a personal friend transitioning hard to deal with; though I like to think I would have accepted it anyway.  Sadly, in my school, nobody, absolutely nobody, was even gay, let alone trans.  Even the ones who are married to same-sex partners nowadays.  We've come a long way, thankfully.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: sintec 04 March, 2021, 09:08:45 AM
An interesting comment on this topic from Steve Albini (outspoken record producer and musician):

“The idea that we can remove the artist from the art means that art isn’t communicating anything after all, it’s just decoration, an amusement. I refuse to look or listen that way.”

https://consequenceofsound.net/2021/03/steve-albini-joe-rogan-barstool-sports-trash-garbage/

I'm not sure I agree - I can enjoy the technicality of a piece of art without needing to agree with the message that's being communicated for example.
Is that turning the art into mere decoration?
Is there anything actually wrong with art purely as amusement/decoration (that feels like it's veering into the high art vs low art argument that I detest)?

Sometimes the message of a piece of art I disagree with can be as important in helping to shape my world view as the stuff which I already agree with.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Barrington Boots 04 March, 2021, 09:57:03 AM
That is interesting. I don't agree either - I'd take the view that art impacts different individuals in different ways and when something really speaks to you it's in a way unique to you, and if that has nothing to do with the intent or artist then that's how it reached you and so be it.

That of course means Albini's statement is correct for himself - he needs to know the artist's original message to properly get what the artist is. That's not unusual I think, as a musician himself, because when he's making music he'll be wanting to convey something to the listener and I expect it can be a little frustrating if people miss that.

I would disagree that art without intent becomes mere decoration, because if it triggers a strong reaction in an individual then it's art. What he's suggesting is that without intent art regresses to the sort of thing you'd see on a cereal box. But I guess that's just how he sees it.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Jim_Campbell 04 March, 2021, 09:59:27 AM
An interesting comment on this topic from Steve Albini (outspoken record producer and musician):

“The idea that we can remove the artist from the art means that art isn’t communicating anything after all, it’s just decoration, an amusement. I refuse to look or listen that way.”

I really like Nick Cave's thoughtful take on this issue (https://www.theredhandfiles.com/views-on-morrissey/). I'd be doing it a disservice to try and paraphrase it here, but it's well worth a read.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: IndigoPrime 04 March, 2021, 10:42:07 AM
Didn’t Cave just do something with Warren Ellis as well?
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: IndigoPrime 04 March, 2021, 10:48:14 AM
This bit warrants quoting:

The charge that defending a person’s right to their opinions somehow aligns one with their views makes no sense at all and strikes at the heart of the problem itself – that of conflating the concept of free speech with bigotry. This is very dangerous territory indeed.

This is a very real threat now, because we see the far right warping the concept of free speech and aligning it with their own ideologies. Of course, they don’t mean free speech—they mean freedom to say whatever racist/hateful shit they want, without repercussions, and even without retort, while simultaneously (and without irony) denying other people the freedom to say what they want and/or skewing public discourse to their own beliefs.

But that’s not as catchy as ‘free speech’.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Jim_Campbell 04 March, 2021, 10:52:53 AM
Didn’t Cave just do something with Warren Ellis as well?

Dunno, but almost certainly the other Warren Ellis, who he's worked with since forever.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: IndigoPrime 04 March, 2021, 10:54:26 AM
Aha. That makes a lot more sense! (And, yes, Carnage by Cave/Ellis, the two Aussies.)
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: The Legendary Shark 04 March, 2021, 11:22:19 AM
 
“The idea that we can remove the artist from the art means that art isn’t communicating anything after all, it’s just decoration, an amusement. I refuse to look or listen that way.”
I'm not convinced by this argument. The ultimate removal would be death, reducing the work of every dead artist to "just decoration." Similarly, artists change - a kind of minor death, if you will - and this constant change means that the artist who produces Piece A is not entirely the same artist who produced Piece Z. How much must the artist change so that Piece A remains art but Piece Z becomes decoration? Or vice-versa? Or neither? Or both?
I really like Nick Cave's thoughtful take on this issue (https://www.theredhandfiles.com/views-on-morrissey/). I'd be doing it a disservice to try and paraphrase it here, but it's well worth a read.
Yep, that's more or less how I see it as well (but go further, into very unpopular opinions concerning copyrights and patents). As soon as my pen leaves the paper for the last time, so to speak, that art or story is a thing in itself, a thing which belongs to me and me only. However, as soon as I sell (I wish!) or give away (you're welcome) my art or stories, they aren't mine any more - they belong to whoever wants them. The last two stories I posted here are also on a friend's website, she posts stories and reviews, and I don't think her readers care who I am or what I think. I'm just some random name under a title - almost completely separated from the "art" - so I think people routinely judge art and artist differently.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: CalHab 04 March, 2021, 02:01:40 PM
Aptly enough it was an encounter with Cave (who I idolised) which made me realise that I don't have to like artists whose work I love.

In short, he was a bit behaving like a bit of a dick.

But then, everyone has days like that.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: JayzusB.Christ 06 March, 2021, 12:35:38 PM
However, as soon as I sell (I wish!) or give away (you're welcome) my art or stories, they aren't mine any more - they belong to whoever wants them.

I think I've just spotted Pat Mills with an angry look and a harpoon.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: milstar 06 March, 2021, 05:53:44 PM
Yep, that's more or less how I see it as well (but go further, into very unpopular opinions concerning copyrights and patents). As soon as my pen leaves the paper for the last time, so to speak, that art or story is a thing in itself, a thing which belongs to me and me only. However, as soon as I sell (I wish!) or give away (you're welcome) my art or stories, they aren't mine any more - they belong to whoever wants them. The last two stories I posted here are also on a friend's website, she posts stories and reviews, and I don't think her readers care who I am or what I think. I'm just some random name under a title - almost completely separated from the "art" - so I think people routinely judge art and artist differently.

Ditto. I like to think that piece of art starts its own way of living, like a kid who separate from his parents in search for creating a life for him/herself.
: Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
: Rara Avis 06 March, 2021, 06:40:06 PM
I've had to have the transgenderism vs. feminism debate explained to me really carefully before I got it - and even now I feel like a fledgling who would have difficulty arguing the case well to an opponent. Up-thread, a year or so ago, I basically side-stepped it as too problematic an issue to figure out.


What is all this about? It seems that even asking questions around this is transphobic. I'm also not sure exactly what JKL is supposed to have done / said. There is apparently a very lazy and inaccurate depiction of a trans serial killer in one of her books that offended people (both for stereotyping and for terrible writing) and then some twitter comments were she doubled down but other than that I have no idea what's going on.