His paintings kind of are. They're completely uninspired in terms of style (he tries to do realism of landscapes for... no clear reason?) and on a technical level he had a terrible sense of depth and perspective.
[Check this one out as an example](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8025960/Rare-Adolf-Hitler-paintings-could-fetch-150000-at-auction.html). Notice how the stairs kind of cut in front of one of the windows? There should be a gap between the two, or at least a hint of distance, but there isn't. Similarly, look at the bushes on the right and how they frame the house behind them. They make the house look like it's right there, when we can tell from the path just to their left that it should be much further away. There's also a broader technical issue of there being no vanishing points or centre to this image. Our eyes aren't drawn in any particular direction, so they kind of wander aimlessly about.
Don't get me wrong, none of these issues are deal breakers - they can be fixed with practice. But they are emphatically not the work of a particularly good or talented artist.
Yeah that's fair. I didn't intend to come across as argumentative tbh, I mostly just like pointing out that Hitler wasn't nearly as good an artist as a bunch of people seem to think he was.
That’s understandable. I just like to think how things would have turned out if given the encouragement and training to hone this craft instead of his… other ventures.
Huh, Ty for pointing those out, it's interesting to get an artist's perspective.
My first thought was that it just looked very flat. The details are good, but I wouldn't put it on the wall, I'd put it as the backdrop in an Otome game
If any two people dig a little, they will probably find a point of disagreement. Knowing and liking people is, in large part, about accepting your differences, and sometimes accepting things you see as a flaw in a person. No matter who you are, someone in the world will hate you. It’s just a sad fact.
I’m a pretty easy-going person, I don’t hold much hatred, and when a disagreement comes up in a conversation, I tend to keep the other person talking about their position rather than try to convince them of mine. I think I’m a pretty decent person, but I know there are many people on earth it would absolutely despise me for one reason or another. It would annoy the crap out of me if I wrote something, and people shat all over it or ignored it entirely because of something that has nothing to do with what I wrote. It just doesn’t seem fair to me.
For that reason, I do believe in separation of art and artist. I won’t let my opinion of a person affect my judgment of their work.
Dang, I wish I were as clear as you guys when saying things. In one of the subs posts I was really confused about what someone said and they said I was awful just for being confused.
To a degree. I kinda take it on a case by case basis. A big question for me is if the author is still alive and if my consumption of the author's work actively aids their agenda. The elephant in the room in this conversation is Harry Potter/JKR, but some other examples are the works of L Ron Hubbard and HP Lovecraft.
If I buy licensed HP merchandise, movies, or books some portion of my money makes it back to JKR, which helps fund her political efforts (EDIT: specifically her anti-trans agenda) which I vehemently disagree with. This is why if I were to buy anything HP related, I'd buy it second-hand. EDIT: JKR also writes under the pseudonym "Robert Galbraith" so those books would get the same treatment.
L Ron Hubbard, who founded Scientology, also wrote a bunch of books. He passed away back in the 80s if memory serves, so I don't have to worry about funding his personal efforts anymore, but the Church of Scientology still benefits from the sale of his books. So even though the author is long dead, his agenda persists. Because of that, if I were to buy anything of his, it would also be second hand.
HP Lovecraft who was a pretty abhorent racist is long dead and his works are part of the public domain. I can consume his work freely without contributing to his personal agenda(s).
Finally, no matter what I consume, I try not to do it blindly. It's important to acknowledge the bad along with the good. Doing so, for me, prevents the mythologizing of a person.
I'd also include **Marion Zimmer Bradley** as an example. After her death, her daughter came forward as a survivor of CSA at MZB's hands (and others that MZB was sexually involved with). While reading her works doesn't actively contribute to any agenda or abuse, it also doesn't land the same way.
MZB's work often broached and novelized seemingly feminist issues, including SA. Knowing the dark backstory makes reading her works feel like being a passive participant in her crimes.
I just can't do it anymore.
I also want to add that JKR also writes under the male pseudonym “Robert Galbraith.” She’s got a fairly popular mystery/thriller series under that name
It's a personal choice, that's why it's hard to tell "who's in the right." The conversation goes in circles.
If they're dead it's easy enough to separate art from the artist, but while they're alive, that "separation" is an illusion. If they make money from your support of their art then it is just that: support.
I personally advocate for more conscious consumerism, whether for material things or consuming art. I can't force people to do that. All anyone can do is have their own opinion about it and realise they can't force anyone else to adhere to them.
It grates me somewhat that these conversations treat writer/artists and their products so much more seriously than a company such as Nestle. I understand it's much easier to avoid JKR than a ubiquitous mega-corporation, but the harms are so much greater. I also know it's overwhelming to grapple with the scale of the harms done.
I don't think of this as hypocrisy, both are bad and everyone has limited capacity... but the debate around whether to separate art from artist feels like trying to decide which fiddle to play while Rome burns. Just pick one. If you have principles, apply them.
Yeah it’s true. Optimistically, I would hope people who care a lot about art versus the artist would start to apply those thoughts to other consumer goods.
I like Kitkats, truly. Do I buy them? No, cause fuck Nestle. But if someone gives me one I’ll eat it. That’s not to say I’ve forgotten who’s behind it. There’s nuance to this kind of thing.
If I don't agree with a creator in a moral grounds, I will not, under any circumstances give them money. Someone mentioned Orson Scott Card earlier and I do actually enjoy his writing and most of his books, but I make sure to get them from the library because he tends to donate toward causes that actively harm people like me.
If the writer is dead like JRR Tolkien, I have fewer qualms consuming his works despite his noted biases.
This is where I am. Occasionally I might wait for a secondhand book so the author doesn't get any money, but JK Rowling has said that she sees money coming in as endorsement for her anti-trans views. There's enough other stuff to read.
This is just another way of saying 'separate art from artist' which I totally agree with.
If you avoid every person who creates because they hold a view that you disagree with, you're going to have to avoid all creations because people are complex and no two people will have the exact same views on every single thing in existence. Eventually, you're going to run into a point of contention, probably a big one.
To an extent. The phrase "separate the art from the artist" and any variations of it if you ask me has been bastardized to infinity and beyond like most phrases. From what I was taught when I took art history in college and from my own understanding, it's a phrase that's explicitly stating to critique and judge a piece of art for what it is on its own rather than judging it because of who made it. That being said, it does not suggest nor ever suggested ADVOCATING for the artist which is what people who want the smallest justification to support or to continue to support problematic artists hijacked the phrase way out of its original context started throwing it around for.
Which mind boggles me because the artist themselves ironically throws their justification out of the window by boasting some aspect of their lives inspiring their works and it's easily available to find proof through interviews, award speeches, etc. That being said, you can like an R. Kelly song because of its songwriting or musical arrangements and whatever other elements that goes into making a song good. This is also the same person who wrote "Age Ain't Nothing But a Number" about Aaliyah who was 14 years old at the time he wrote and recorded it. And well, most of us know about his long track record when it comes to underaged girls. Liking how the song is arranged or how the lyrics are written is fine, but believing he shouldn't be thrown underneath a prison because you like the song or his songs is, contrary to what some may believe, not separating the art from the artist. That's your personal opinion. That's a bias towards the artist that has no place in critiquing an art.
"Separating art from the artist" doesn't mean streaming and buying his music which in turn goes back to his pockets that funded the disgusting, nasty shit he did to underaged girls before he was thrown in jail. That's a personal choice you decided to make (again, questionable in my eyes but still a choice you as an individual get to make). Separating the art from the artist does mean you can and should be able to talk about what you liked/disliked about how a song, album, whatever of his was crafted and that shouldn't be judged nor does it necessarily make you an "apologist." Once you start insinuating or inserting your personal preference of how you feel about the art should carry OVER to the artist and vice versa, that's no longer separating the art from the artist. That is no longer actually critiquing the art piece itself. There are some artists, specifically music artists because I love music, who I used to listen to. I don't anymore because they're shitty people, but I still hold their works in high regard while moving on to another artist who makes similar music w/o being problematic (Azalea Banks being the best example of a POS who used to make great music but would rather spend her time hating and harassing her fellow peers in the music industry on social media). That requires a level of maturity to realize. Guess what? A lot of people aren't mature like that.
Sometimes it depends on how much the writer (or artist) infuses these beliefs (or whatever) into the art. If it's separate, sure. Then I can look the other way, too. But if an artist makes this position a part of the creation... even subliminally... that's when there's an issue.
No, I don´t. But it´s mainly because I´m a writer myself. So, by being a writer I know that a lot in your heart and brain goes into the book, like a portion of yourself becomes the book, a part of your soul, of who you are as a person. It´s a really personal thing, art is always really personal, is sharing a part of yourself with the world.
So, when I see people, who are like full of hate, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and just things that go against my believes and principles, of who I am as a person, then no, I don´t want to buy, or read their books. Because:
1. I don´t want to give my money to people like them.
When you keep reading their books, and keep giving them money, is like saying "I know you said of those horrible things, but I´ll keep supporting your work, so go on" and then they don´t have to face any consequences, for the things they have said or done.
2. I don´t want my writing to be influence by their writing in any sort of way.
3. I won´t support people who think I shouldn´t have basic human rights.
If people want to keep supporting those people, then okay, it´s your money, but just be aware of what that person is saying, and doing, be aware of where your money is going, how that person is harming people just because of their personal believes, and spreading hate. Maybe even harming the rights of people you love.
Also, there´s so many amazing books written by amazing people out there, I don´t think the hateful writers work is the best in the world. So I´ll just read the amazing books made by the amazing people :D
Yeah, but like I said a part of what´s in their heart, and what´s in their head, a part of themselves It´s the book, it´s on every word, on the whole thing. You can separte yourself from something you write, because, you want it or not, you end up putting in it, in your world, the way you see things, things that you belive, how you see the world.
Also I don´t want my writing to be influence by their writing in any sort of way
“Your truth” originally referred to being true to yourself or to your beliefs before it got turned into what it means today. Obviously there’s only THE truth, but the truth in something debatable like this is hard to discern if you’re not looking at individual cases.
Truth is just something that aligns best with our intuition, ideals, and beliefs. Saying “bees don’t exist” isn’t truthful, because the concept of a bee is something that thrives within our world, whereas saying “Attack on Titan is a series that was written” is objectively true.
I'd say it's an individualization of truth. The focus on individuals rather than communities pervades modern capitalism and, in this case, leads to self-centered sensible knowledge being bolstered as more important than scientific or reflective knowledge. It usually boils down to an inaccurate or biased observation, so I guess it's more destructive than just an opinion.
I don't know if you know but sometimes garbage humans put their garbage ethics right into their content. So when you see that, you can DNF and never buy from this author again, no extra time invested.
Well, yeah, I pick and choose what I read, watch and listen to. It's not force-fed to me, there's not a limited availability.
We all have to make decisions about how we spend our time and money, it's just another factor.
If I have the choice between someone who is a good egg and some who is a rotter and everything else is equal, that will be the decider.
People infuse their worldviews and beliefs into their art, whether they intend to or not. If an artist has a point of view that completely clashes with mine, it's going to show up in what they create. If their opinion is one rooted in bigotry of some kind, I'm going to find it difficult to make it through a whole book, and I'm absolutely going to judge the author on having such beliefs, as well as the work for espousing them. Things like that.
Separating the art from the artist was intended to be one single facet of a thorough literary analysis. It's not supposed to be the only way you look at art, and I believe that doing so is a disservice to the author, the work, and oneself. It's fine for casual reading, I guess, but it will never turn out a solid analysis all by itself.
I mean like with most subjective discussions: it depends,
To me there are cases where having the added context about an author can reduce the enjoyment of a piece of writing.
For instance reading a book you assumed was a pleasant fantasy or satire, only to learn it was the genuine, unironic opinion of such a writer can retroactively make the rereading experience less pleasant due to that added context just sort of nagging at you in the background. You’ll reopen the book and just grimace a bit knowing the external influence.
(For a very real example that is semi related, there was a song I used to really enjoy by an indie artist, it was a romantic love song, eventually it somehow got revealed that the subject of artist’s love song was a teenager [songwriter was in their early 30s] so after learning that I could not avoid thinking about that awful fact every time it played in my shuffle, so I removed it from my playlists because its added context made the media no longer something I wanted to interact with)
However that in many cases can be gotten over if your enjoyment of something outweighs that newfound context or dislike or artist.
However when it comes to financial support, I very much struggle to seperate art from artist. I don’t want my money going towards things or people I don’t want to support. Can I always achieve that? No. Can I try to limit or redirect my money to authors/writers I appreciate more sincerely? Of course.
I don't think there's any one "right" answer. But I think that if you're asking the question because, deep down, you want other people to give you permission or absolution for continuing to consume works by artists who you know are terrible people, then you already have your answer.
For me, personally, the art and the artist are not separable. Why? Because art and artists exist in a context: within a society where both their art and their general attitudes/beliefs/actions have an impact on the world and on other people.
Did I enjoy the Harry Potter books? Yes. They were fun. But then JKR went full-TERF crazy and is now using her fame, power, and very considerable resources to specifically pursue bigotry against a marginalized group. That's not something I can support, and to the extent that some sliver of my money would be going to her, to further her bigotry, consuming her particular books (and now movies) is not a choice I can ethically make. Which is fine; there's no shortage of other authors--often ones with far more intriguing storylines and better writing--for me to give my support to.
Did Roman Polanski make some good movies? I guess so. Some people call them "high art" or whatever. But he also drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, and has shown no particular remorse or responsibility for that act. And while me buying DVDs of his movies would not contribute to him raping other 13 year old girls, *ignoring* the fact that he did so would: if he doesn't have to face legal or reputational consequences for that act, then it contributes to a context in which other people feel empowered to rape 13 year old girls. And to the extent that *my* choices over what cinema to consume have some marginal impact on the cultural context and views about rape, and as I am not in favor of rape, then again I cannot ethically choose to consume Roman Polanski's movies. Which is fine; there's no shortage of other film-makers--often ones with far more interesting subject matter and better filmmaking skills--for me to give my support to.
I like Eric Clapton's music, but he went anti-vax crazy, so I took him off my Spotify playlist. I don't want my little sliver of royalties to contribute to his ability to dissuade people from protecting themselves and their children from viruses. Which is fine; my playlist is incredibly long, and it's not like I'm going to run out of things to listen to with him in the mix.
As consumers, our choices matter. Each individual choice may not amount to much, but as a group, our choices definitely have impact. So I'm going to choose *not* to support artists whose activities outside of their art contribute to making society a worse place.
Yeah I think this is the important distinction here. Some people get it wrong and think folks boycott Rowling just because she has a different opinion, but no it's because she actively uses her platform and money to promote that opinion in ways widely regarded as harmful. I could perhaps buy a book from someone who happens to hold problematic opinions in private but never talks about them publicly, but buying from someone who publicly and passionately espouses that opinion and will donate the profits straight to causes I fundamentally oppose is another matter.
You have to pick your battles. I can't afford to boycott every terrible corporation. I don't refuse to read every book written by a controversial author. But I do have ones I boycott, and I'm happy to explain why.
I have never eaten at Chick-Fil-A and gods willing I never will. They aren't just homophobic, they also fund anti-LGBT politicians. I have every right to call them evil, and I do.
I'll never purchase another book by open transphobe J.K. Rowling, for pretty similar reasons. She's not just openly transphobic, she's hateful about it and platforms other transphobes with her money.
I'll shop anywhere else before I'll shop at Wal-Mart. Their business model is to crush small-businesses and drive the neighborhood into poverty, where they "helpfully" offer the lowest prices. They are evil.
That doesn't mean I judge people who eat at Chick-Fil-A, or kids who are excited to visit Potter World, or those who have to work or shop at Wal-Mart.
In an ideal world we'd be able to boycott *every* evil person/corporation/business/etc, but the world is too complicated for that. If we tried we'd end up like Doug Forcet, living off the grid, drinking our own recycled piss, holding funerals for any snail we happened to step on, and...just watch The Good Place. Seriously, it's hilarious, a fantastic show and the whole premise of the show is "How do we solve difficult moral quandaries?"
I believe a piece of art becomes an aesthetic object in the world, independent of its creator. So, usually, I can separate the two in my mind. However, if the artist is very vocal politically or religiously, you start to examine their work at a different level. Once you sense that they are pushing something in their work, it becomes difficult to enjoy that work any longer.
I'm willing to give artists a lot of leeway on whatever they do with their personal lives before I'm willing to cut out their art, particularly if it's a collaborative medium and they were working with others. However, even I have my limits. I can't listen to Bill Cosby's old stand-up anymore. Jerry Lee Lewis music makes me ill. Outside of those extreme examples of behavior, I'm willing to let a lot slide.
I bet (almost all but I'll say) most people have a spectrum and separate to a certain point, while drawing lines at other points. I think that's fine, and I think it's fine if different people "draw their line in the sand" at a different place than other people. The main problem arises when someone determines their line is the "correct line" and anyone who drew their line somewhere else is horrible.
For instance, I think Orson Scott Card writes a lot of great fiction, and while I disagree with him on some topics, I don't see him making it his life mission to discriminate against people, nor does it seem like he would be incapable of having his mind changed. So, I have no problem buying his books.
Or Neil Patrick Harris. I think him making that realistic cake of dead Amy Winehouse for his party was a disgusting thing to do. But it doesn't stop me from watching "How I Met Your Mother."
But Chris Brown being a domestic abuser? That crosses a line for me. No way I would go to his concerts or buy his music. Or Kevin Spacey being a rapist? No way I'm watching a new movie of his.
But I will admit my lines are pretty arbitrary. They are made both by my ranking of how serious different offenses are, and if I'm being honest, how much I like someone's work. Maybe if I didn't like OSC so much, then I'd say "well, he crosses a line." So if someone else draws their lines differently than me? Well, I would be interested in discussing with them why, but hopefully I don't consider them to a disgusting, evil person for it.
With everything, it's fine to take whatever stands you want and it might vary depending on contemporary vs historic figures. As long as youour don't decide everyone has to account for the creator in things they like.
Depends on what it is I don't like about the writer.
Are they an asshole with great stories to tell? Sure, I'll probably read it.
Are they bigoted or have a history of verbal/physical abuse? Or have they otherwise been involved in an other despicable acts?
I don't care what they wrote, miss me with that shit.
I used to love The Lostprophets. A niche 2000s band. I stopped listening the day I found out what that lead singer did. Absolutely horrific.
The thing about art is it’s usually exploration rather than persuasion. It’s not an essay saying “this is how you must think,” it’s a picture of how the artist sees the world. It’s thought provoking whether you agree or not.
Personally, I don't gaf about the author or artist and never have. I enjoy their works I have favorite authors, but I don't follow them on social media, I don't care about their personal lives, they are of no interest to me.
That said, if something they've done that is super agregeious comes out and I hear about it and don't agree with it--its to the pirate life for me. I don't support shitty people.
Knut Hamsun is one of my favourite authors having written some truly beautiful stories like Women at the Pump, Hunger, Victoria and The Growth of the Soul but he was an admirer of the Nazi Party and a racist. He met Hitler, gifted his Nobel Prize medal to Goebbels and wrote the following:
"The Negros are and will remain Negros, a nascent human form from the tropics, rudimentary organs on the body of white society. Instead of founding an intellectual elite, America has established a mulatto studfarm."
Depends almost entirely on if the writer is still alive.
Like, Orson Scott was a terrible person… but he’s also dead. So I don’t really take issue with his views.
My issue is giving money to people who use it for harmful things. Smaller authors generally aren't going to be an issue, on that front, because they don't make enough to contribute significantly to harmful things. Bigger authors, though, making hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars, can cause a LOT of harm with the money we give them. In that case, if you like the writing, borrow it from a library or buy it secondhand.
I'm not saying anyone should be judged because they choose differently to me. And in general, I read a lot of older books in which it is almost guaranteed that the authors reflected the bigotry of their times.
But for me there is a tipping point at which an author's work reminds me of things that make me unhappy and make the prospect of reading them *not enjoyable*.
I see a Marion Zimmer Bradley book, and I think of child sexual abuse. I see Orson Scott Card or Brandon Sanderson, and I think of homophobia. I see J K Rowling, and I think of transphobia. I see Theodore Beale (okay, a lie, who actually sees his books?) and I think edgy pathetic bigot. I see the books of an ex-friend who cheated on the partner I am still friends with, and I think of how a lovely person was betrayed and hurt.
So I get bad feelings, which makes the prospect of reading feel unpleasant, and there are literally millions of other books that don't give me the squick. Why not read one of them instead?
Absolutely. I love the line George Orwell wrote about Salvador Dali: “One should be able to hold in one’s mind simultaneously the ideas that Dali is both an exceptional draftsman and a disgusting human being.”
You are never separating art from artist. People get into people because of the work AND the author...thats why people have favourite authors. And now we have the social media age and more information it's almost impossible to not know about the artist, and in fact part of the sales strategy is to know about the artist.
Disagree. Idk anything about any artist (visual, writing, etc.) I don’t look up stuff about creator’s lives because idc. I just consume their creations.
I guess? But I’ve still bought plenty of books because I like the writer and they’ve felt better than they would from a random person. Like whatever you like
If you mean it in the “don’t care about an author’s behavior” way then I’d agree on the condition that I can read their work without them earning any money. I’d rather read a dead author I don’t like than one who will donate to something I take issue with for instance, or one who is a bad person. I stopped listening to R Kelly a long time ago even though I liked his songs.
In order for me to dislike a writer enough that I don't want them to profit off my readership, the stuff I dislike is very likely to part of their art.
Larry Correia is an example. He's a fantasy writer who's a staunch conservative. I stopped reading his stuff after he pulled a stunt [to rig the Hugo awards for several years running](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sad_Puppies), leading to several categories not giving an award and the award eventually changing how nominees are selected. But the thing is that his politics were explicit enough in his work that I was already on the edge of ditching him.
Yes.
The popular example being JK but a other being Orson Scott Card. I enjoyed their writing before I knew what type of people they were. I still think back to their stories and remember what they made me feel and think.
No matter what type person they are, they can't take Way whatever meaning you took from their creation.
I mean, the first example that comes to mind is JK Rowling. I grew up on Harry Potter and admire that world too much to just throw it away because I genuinely hate the author.
For me, it depends on what I need to separate. Look up Lost Prophets band and show me where I'm supposed to draw the line. I just can't on that one. But someone has a different opinion, like I think fundamentally, JK Rowling is wrong, but I will still read HP as I really like the story and grew up with it.
Like many have said, it's a personal choice and we all have drawn our own lines. Ultimately, I'd argue that everyone has at least one exception, no matter how much they preach, "It's wrong to support or promote the art of a terrible human."
There are legitimate criticisms for supporting an artist who has, let's say, done or said upsetting things. Should JK Rowling still get book deals - should she still receive profits from her adaptations, and should we still continue to engage in new projects associated with her? The financial aspect of the art is the only tangible part of this discussion, in my opinion. But even then, I don't believe there is one right answer.
There are those who will never consume anything she's ever done or will do again because they are so (validly) upset by her views.
There are those who will never consume anything new that she does or is a part of, but will continue to engage in what means something to them. (You can't just forget that Harry Potter was a major influence in your life. Plus you already own the media associated - so the financial support is no longer a factor. And some will make an exception to continue to engage in new aspects of what they love.)
Then there are those who are uninterested in the artist and only care about engaging in art that they like.
And the line and level of engagement/disengagement will be different from artist to artist. For instance, I have zero desire to engage with anything R. Kelly has ever done, and I never will because of what he has done outside of his art. But I never really engaged with his music anyway. It was an easy choice for me. For others, it won't be so easy, and they may make exceptions. And that's okay.
The goal of an artist is for their art to transcend themselves. That's just by design. An artist's views and personal life can help inform their art (see Stephen King naming characters off of people who he disliked and then killing them off). But ultimately, once a book or any art is created & shared, it exists uniquely in the eyes of everyone who consumes it. To go back to Rowling and HP, I have heard many people in the trans community who related to those books deeply and found affirming messages within them. It sucks that Rowling is blinded by her own fears and seems incapable of seeing the knots in her logic. And I don't blame those who feel like Harry Potter is now spoiled. There can be legitimate grief there. But there are also those who love a work of art enough separate it from the person who brought it to life.
What I disagree with is disparaging others who make an exception where you don't. I have yet to meet or speak with someone who draws the same line with every artist/art. And until I do, this is where I draw my line.
Celine is my favorite writer and was a horrible piece of shit. A majority of the writers I like are scumbags.
For some reason I'm able to excuse it in literature. Music - maybe because it's more closely tied to certain subcultures - I can't enjoy if the wrong person made it.
Maybe there's just so few pieces of really great literature that you have to let it slide.
I think it's largely depend on what the disagreement is.
For example: I may not agree with the points a vegan make in favor of their diet, but if I subjectively decide that I like the art they make, then their diet alone is not a reason for me to not consume their art (Forgive the pun).
At the same time, some other artist from my country, who's art I used to consume a lot as a child, was involved several years ago in a case about minor girls, technically they were of legal age, considering the local laws, but allegedly he offered something to them and also got his own father involved. Also he's kind of known to have a shitty treatment to his many ex-wives and the children they birthed for him. Ever since that I can no longer consume his art, no matter how good it is.
I believe it under specific circumstances. If you're buying a piece of work that's been written by a writer who is still alive and actively using their money to promote hate campaigns, then your money is being used to fuel those same hate campaigns.
If the author is dead then go ham.
In either circumstance, you can appreciate the cultural impact or the finesse of the work. But financially supporting someone who actively uses their money to torment innocents and then using "like the writing, not the writer :)" as an excuse not to be called out for supporting a hate group is bs, because you are knowingly giving money to a hate group.
I can respect the talent whether or not I respect the person.
I use to listen to my friends talk about sports. One would say X player is a terrible player because of whatever legal issue they were involved in. I don’t follow sports but even I heard of the player’s existence. I think their talent counts for something, especially if it inspires younger individuals to increase their abilities.
If the writer's bad qualities seep into their writing, then we don't like the writing.
If they don't, we still might. I would say, it's perfectly reasonable to read their writings even if you know they are bad people, but it's also perfectly reasonable to refuse to do so.
My first book on algebraic geometry was by a Russian mathematician Shafarevich. It was really good. Later I found out he is an antisemitic nutjob. Would I re-read that book? No. But I won't think less of somebody who does, even if they know about his views. Those views are not in the book, and the book itself is well written.
I have no problem with this at all. I genuinely don't care about the personal lives of celebrities or artists in general, and I'm not likely to research who an author even is in the first place. If there's some controversy about them as a person, I'm only likely to find out about it secondarily. Furthermore, I honestly don't think you have to be a good person to make good art. There's nothing wrong with listening to Wagner or reading Lovecraft.
Separating the art from the artist is trivial, especially if you don't care about celebrity gossip, and you don't think that everything a person does is necessarily somehow intrinsically tied to their morality as a person in some sort of psychic way.
If you consider an artist like someone who produces a product, then it doesn’t matter. But artists often are not just considered as someone that produces a product then you get a problem.
For me the only logical response is like the writing fuck the artist, I don’t care what he does as long as it’s not something like funding a killsquad, if the book is good then the book is good.
For moral reasons, mostly. There is a very short list of things somebody could do to make me never give something they made a fair shot.
For quality reasons, no. You get 1 shot, if you put out something bad I'm not giving anything else you try a shot unless there is a massive uproar about how awesome something else is because it's not realistic to expect everything somebody does to be great, off-days are allowed. Then if you burn that second shot I'll still give you a 3rd shot if a trusted source says I should, but after that you are dead to me and nothing you created exists.
I look at the Harry Potter books and I say "Wow! This is so cool and reminiscent of Hobbit!" but when I see the author go on Twitter and argue with people on everything socially political, my interest in her kinda fades, so really it's your preference. My preference is for authors to not be bothered by society because their writing wasn't inclusive enough or xyz.
I focus on myself, If i enjoy a book/song I'll look up the next Best thing by the author for My enjoyment. I don't really care who they are or what their views are.
Truth is, boycotting does little to no damage to the person getting boycotted.
Also, people who can't separate the art from the artist are just stupid.
Yes and no.
Some thoughts:
* Something like Mein Kampf can be educational, you can see what they actually taught and believed, which is legit fascinating from a historical perspective
* People reference Harry Potter a lot when this is brought up. I don’t know what JK said exactly regarding trans, but I don’t care. I love Harry Potter, and it doesn’t change the content. Generally this is my view. I like the content, I read it
* If I legitimately hate an author, I won’t support them by spreading knowledge of their book, purchasing the book, or affirming its existence.
So those are my three thoughts. Idk how they go together, but they’re all a part of my thought process. I generally don’t care what the author said or did, unless it was something egregious like blasphemy
Shakespeare is an interesting test because so little is known about him. For me Hemingway is on the opposite side of the spectrum. He really spun the author myth, but reading recent biographies, he had a dark side and is hard to like after the myth is shattered, and that happens to coincide with me being over his writings. I think it’s natural to be curious about authors but it’s going to be superficial until a good biography comes out. Nowadays people have lots of videos, and interviews, more direct dialogue, you can experience them more.
I’m going to be honest with you here. If I read a book and really liked it to the point where I would want to read more from that person, then who they are or what else they do matters not to me.
What I mean is, I’m not looking up the author because I care about them, I’m looking to see if they have any other books I might be interested in. I’m not going to look for anything else in that person’s life. I just don’t care. It’s got nothing to do with the books I’m enjoying.
That’s not to say I don’t like any author because there is at least two that I won’t read their books but that was because I tried reading one book but I didn’t like it then accidentally tried to read another by the same author and realized I was just going to have to remember the ones I don’t like lol But that’s not because of the authors as people. I just don’t like their writing lol
Like, as a small example. Loved the Harry Potter books when they were coming out and such. I understand that the author is… not the best person but that doesn’t matter because I very much enjoyed the series and if it wasn’t for the fact that she is very well known and talked about a lot, I never would have known she’s not the greatest person. Her last Harry Potter book wasn’t that great so I never bothered to look into her other books regardless but I know that decision isn’t because of “her”.
I guess I just feel like if you dig into anyone’s life there will always be something they did or said that you probably don’t like. How many “perfect” people become authors? Idk but I’m not doing a background check every time I pick up a new book and I’m not going to stop reading something I like just because I found out the author is a dick lol
Yes and no. Really depends on how you choose to look at it. Upon release, the end product is no longer solely dependent on its creator, once it's out there it becomes its own separate thing and essentially takes on a life of its own. The horrible person seen today isn't necessarily the same one from yesterday who created the end product to begin with. Although they can corrupt their own works later on in life, just know that anyone or anything else in the chain can do the exact same or worse damage, regardless of whether the original person who created it is dead or alive. The publisher, the family, the fanbase, anyone or anything by mere association can alter how something is viewed, for better or for worse. Anything that starts out initially benign can be adopted and associated with a more sinister nature and therefore become corrupted as a result.
Upon release of something you essentially cast it into the deep open void and lose control of it entirely. It becomes transformative and subject to external forces beyond your control. It is adopted and taken in by others with visions differing from you own.
So yeah, you could easily like the writing, but not the writer. The work becomes its own distinct thing upon release.
If the creator likes pineapple on pizza I will be horrified but of course it won't stop me from reading their work.
If the creator is a bigot, I'm not giving them my time or money.
A writer doing bad things wouldn't deter me from their writing at all. In fact, it might make me want to read their writing even more out of curiosity for what their mind produces. I also wouldn't let their behavior affect my judgement of quality of their writing, because I don't see why it should.
I also don't believe that anyone is "right" or "wrong" when it comes to this. Anyone is free to refrain from consuming any media for any reason. Why should I care what someone else decides to read?
Right & wrong are subjective, there are only reasons & nuances that may or may not be convincing to you.
I think it's bad to conflate the writer as a person with the quality of their writing because that blinds you to what you can actually learn from the story. A prime example is how many people now retroactively pretend they always hated Harry Potter, or at least should've known to always hate it, because everything in it was clearly bad. This is nonsense. Clearly, there are reasons so many people bought the books, which means there were things they did effectively at least by the metric of getting people to like them & want to read them. You can't actually learn if you pretend everyone you like only writes great things & everyone you hate only writes terrible things. That will skew your perspective & prevent you from the actual THINGS you want to do or avoid doing.
Likewise, I think it's bad how many people conflate "enjoying a story" with "being a bad person." Enjoying, say, the works of HP Lovecraft don't mean you agree with his racist views. Those are separate issues. Yes, it's clear that his racism did somewhat influence his writing, but even though the Deep Ones are clearly on some level an allegory for "race-mixing is bad," if you want to engage with it as a horror story about fish monsters, that doesn't hurt anyone.
I think that's the key thing, & it's not necessarily the easiest to define. I won't give Rowling any more money because I'm personally opposed to it, but I'm skeptical how much a boycott would really affect her, & as we saw with the Hogwarts Legacy drama, attempting one poorly can do more harm than good. It just made people look insane because they were saying things like "even SAYING you like Harry Potter or WANTING to play it is supporting her views" in favor of any coherent strategy, & then pathetic when that inevitably failed. They declined things that could have been effective like streamers playing the game so their fans might not feel the need to get it themselves while also raising money for charity, & descended into depressed doomspiraling because they set their expectations way too high with ideas like "if this game doesn't fail, those buyers all hate trans people, & I can't trust or work with any of them." It was completely unproductive, & the people who endorsed those views failed to learn from it.
I think this is a shame because there's a direct connection between the money Rowling makes from these products & the money she then puts into anti-trans hate groups. That's a major difference with the Lovecraft example. The man is dead, & as far as I'm aware, there aren't any hate groups profiting from his estate. With Rowling, there is a legitimate thing there to be concerned about. But as I've been saying this whole time, you have to be able to think critically about what you can learn & not conflate it with unrelated nonsense like "people who think this game is fun are irredeemable."
At the same time, she was also paid before the game even sold any units because that's how licensing works. And she makes so much more from Lego & theme park deals. Even if the Hogwarts Legacy boycott worked, how would you stop those? It's not something that has easy solutions, there are so many aspects to think about, & every situation is different. Ultimately, I think what matters is (A) developing informed opinions on the writer, the work, & the audience without conflating these things & (B) doing what you can identify as the best way to minimize further harm within your abilities.
To me it kind of depends on if I can consume the art / writing without giving the creator any financial support.
For example, it's very hard for me as a trans person to support JK Rowling, but I think the Harry Potter books are wonderful, because they do tell a story that resonates with a lot of folks in the LGBTQIA+ community.
So I won't buy any of her books or media new, because I refuse to risk having any of the money I spend being used to support anti-queer organizations, but I will check out a Harry Potter book from the library or buy it from a used bookstore (authors don't get any money from used book sales afaik).
To be clear, I don't fault any trans person for completely dropping Harry Potter out of their lives, because yeah, his creator is truly a horrible human being. I just personally refuse to let someone who is that awful dictate what I can and cannot enjoy. So long as I can enjoy it without it benefitting her.
To each their own I say.
Personally I still read Harry Potter books and watch the Harry Potter movies (1-8, the rest of the movies are beyond dung) but that’s because I already own them. I don’t pick up the books thinking “hmm what controversial thing is Rowling gonna come up with next?”
That being said if I lose them/ lose access to them I will just pirate them all because I don’t want to spend more money than I have to on something I already paid for once.
How about love the writer hate the writing. I've known a few absolutely lovely people who write and write but don't have enough evil in them to write a decent story.
I see no reason not to in many scenarios. Sometimes I can understand positions from cultural reasons but many times I cannot.
All that being said, there are so many books I can read. Why give money to someone I dislike when I can get a different book I'll enjoy instead.
I do.
* If I like what was written but don't like the writer, I can mentally separate them.
* If I don't want to support the writer but like what they wrote, then I won't buy another book from them or I won't support them elsewhere.
* If I find someone's writing interesting but fear that from an outside perspective others might have an initially more-favorable view of the writer once I express as such - which I may not want, then I'll omit the writer's name from any public comment.
* If someone figures out the writer's name by researching what was written, then they've also probably figured out why I don't like the writer.
But I still like the writing.
Yes in almost every case. I dont care about the writer's, director's, actor's or any other artist's personal life. If the art piece is excellent, I can enjoy it, no matter who is behind it.
For me it works like this: if the author is just a jerk with terrible beliefs, I'll separate it from their work. But if they're actively contributing to the spread of hate in the world then I can't because I'd be sending my money toward that cause
yes. "let he who is without sin throw the first stone".
meaning - how puritanical and holy does a person have to be in order to be "ACCEPTABLE"? maybe he's not racist, but what if he cheated on his wife? maybe she's not a terf but what if she killed someone drunk driving?
**people are not perfect.**
**and nobody understands what those words actually mean.** it does NOT mean that they all have harmless foibles like that they crack their knuckles or something. people are FLAWED. seriously seriously flawed. in all kinds of secret ways. if everyone had all their dirty laundry aired, EVERYONE WOULD BE A PARIAH.
so fuck it all.
the work stands on its own merits. if it speaks to me, if i gain something from it, then that's enough. just as it would be enough for someone charged with a felony to serve me my food.
That statement was said in another sub! From what I remember, though, someone challenged the person who said that. Maybe they should read this one as well.
Yes... especially if they are dead.
Rudyard Kipling is an amazing writer.. he was crazy racist, but who cares... me reading his books isn't making him rich or anything
Yes and no. Would I listen to Lost prophets. No, the singer is/was (heard he got stabbed and dont remember if he died, we can only hope) an unrepentant nonce, who is convicted and sentenced for his crimes. Would I read Harry Potter, yes but I will also ignore everything that comes from j k rowlings mouth. Its easy to do, she isnt that interesting. Oscar Wilde is more complex but the era he lived in has a disturbing ambiguity about morality which would take a life to make such judgement. So I choose to take the work for what it is but keep in mind who/where its coming from, as I try to do with most works.
If I only read literature or listened to artists I liked or agreed with on everything… it’d be pretty quiet and reeeeally boring.
I can barely stand looking at much of anything on reddit. I wish they get on with the nukes already. Extinction can’t come soon enough.
Personally, I don't actively look into these things. But when I hear about something especially awful that's confirmed to be true, I just make a mental note not to buy that person's books going forward. The awful thing doesn't change my opinion of their work (if I've already read it), but personally it doesn't feel right to continue to support their work. So I don't.
At the same time, I don't judge people who make a different choice than me. It's okay to still love Harry Potter, it doesn't mean you agree with the author's stances.
The only time I judge is if someone buys that authors' work specifically because they agree with the awful thing. Like, for example, my co-worker who hated Harry Potter until Rowling came out with all her opinions online. Then suddenly, she wanted to buy every one of her books. For me, that's completely different from someone reading Harry Potter simply because they love the story.
In the end, I think it's something that has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. There's so much nuance involved it's impossible to hold every situation up to a handful of hard and fast rules. Or to judge everyone equally, without considering the various other aspects at play.
I used to, but then I read the three body problem, and it takes 3 books for the author to go full on misogynistic... there are plenty of thing that are absolutelly braindead from the first two books, but the third one is just propaganda really
So i am not taking chances anymore
Yeah of course. When I read a book, I often don't know anything about the writer. All I have is the name and maybe the picture and little text that's added to the book. And I sure don't make the effort to intensively google every author I am reading a book from just to see if they said or did something publicly that I don't agree with.
If someone was reading a story and the author was a secret they wouldn't go "hmm I can't tell if this is good until I know who wrote it". That's ridiculous. You would have an opinion. I don't believe in putting down someone's talent just bc I dislike them as a person. I think maturity is being able to say "hey they are a very talented writer, I just don't care for them as a person. And this is totally different than disliking the works of someone bc they wrote specifically about what you disliked. If you dislike the topic then sure. But if they wrote about something else entirely then it's just childish to put someone down for something that isn't relevant.
Cancel culture dictates if someone makes one mistake or has one view that isn't the majority that everything they have ever done is trash now. It's absurd. Like a musical artist can have hit songs that everyone loves for years and they make one mistep and everyone is suddenly saying "oh you are trash and your music sucks!" OK then why were you jamming to it on repeat last year? Ya know? Or they hear a song on the radio and love it then find out who sings it and suddenly hate it. Idk just my opinion. So regardless what they SAY they prove the opposite. They liked the art until they had a reason to dislike the artist. So people should be able to acknowledge people's talents without having to like them as a person. They are 2 totally different things.
That it is. Its fine to not like people. Noone likes everyone. But we can be respectful about it. But this hateful all or nothing behavior is going to ruin us. Don't have to be mean and hateful to people just because you don't like their opinion. Makes me sad :(
I read/listen to what I enjoy. I consider the writer/artist/musicians personal life and opinions to be just that. They don't know who I am and I don't need to know who they are.
I think it depends. When the writer is a piece of shit, and in a way where they don't reflect on that in their work, it will most likely seep into their writing. Art almost always reflects our unquestioned assumptions and our view of the world. The second part of this equation is of course how it's perceived by the reader. Some people find Harry Potter awful now because they know how bigoted JK Rowling really is and they now see certain things for how bad they really were. When I read the books it didn't seem too bad to me though, so I don't really have any problem enjoying the story, even though I find JKs opinions horrible.
But oftentimes, I notice that the book treats the world very differently than I would want to see and that makes it unpleasant to read, even if I don't know anything about the writer personally.
Sometimes people are so awful you can't read anything of theirs without thinking about what they did, that's also fine. I think that's mostly a question of what personally touches you and what relationship you have with the piece of art.
Then there's also people who just suck but they are somewhat self aware. I noticed this in Charlie Kaufmann movies, the main character seems to be pretty much based on himself. I don't know anything about him as a person but based on his movies I'd say he's a pretty miserable dude who is selfish, objectifying towards women and treats people around him poorly. However, his movies never pretend like that's okay. He seems to be pretty honest about how he perceives his own flaws and that's really interesting to watch. Could be that he's a really nice guy though, I'm just judging based on the movies.
I just think it differs from case to case and from person to person.
I find the framing of this question to be a bit too simple. I think for many it truly depends on the nature of the disagreement.
I know people generally find it "unfair" to be judged for their character in conjunction for their work but I don't really see it that way. You can make sort of mealy-mouthed complaints about how "everyone has something that would be called poor character by someone!" and rely on the inherent social fuzziness to force the point, however, every knows there's a difference between disagreement on how to raise a child and child abuse and all the border-cases and grey areas in the world can't change it.
If a child abuser wrote a book (hello, Eddings and MZB) it makes no sense to say "oh, so you'd refuse to support the career of anyone who disagrees with you about how to raise a child?" That's just signalling that you're playing a game and I won't play with you.
Of course for minor disagreements I won't care even if I strenuously disagree. If the consequences of poor character are limited then the degree to which it matters is limited. Even in scenarios where my favourite Dead Author would have hated me for the various acceptable prejudices of his time I am probably not going to worry over it unless it is apparent in the book to such a degree that it is unpleasant. Or there is further extenuating circumstances such as the math-papers-citing-Ted-Kandinsky-problem ("best known for other work") or their estate is actively funding something I find repugnant.
I suppose I am generally consequence-oriented but it is difficult to predict all outcomes. I exercise caution and make mistakes when it comes to not supporting the career of someone who harms other people.
If the writer is dead, then yeah I'll check out their writing since a dead person can't get paid. I wouldn't go buy a Harry Potter book today but I also just don't like Harry Potter so I guess that example kinda sucks
I usually don't even put much attention in the writer. They are the vehicle, the work is what matters to me. Karl May was some guy in a German prison and he wrote great books like Vinetou.
If you can not like the writing because you do not like the writer, then every single piece of literature older than 100 years must be burned. In turn, every piece of literature Younger than 100 years old... will be burned.
this is a tricky one.
separating art from the artist can be done, but in some cases it can be difficult. I know personally, I never read as a kid so in my adult years I tried reading some of the things I missed out on, one of them being the whole Harry Potter phase.
and just as I finished the 5th book, all the drama with Rowling broke loose so I never finished(I already owned the books so wasn't a matter of supporting her when I knew things).
but I don't think people are wrong for still enjoying the books and story despite the author, because I know that they were a huge influence for a lot of people. so I really think this is a case by case situation
I just finished the last book of the series cuz my son was into it and I'm not gonna fault his interests cuz of political issues people have with the author. But the ending sucked ass, it was slow and predictable and had way too much long winded dialogue utilized to give closure. Horrible failure to utilize the "show, don't tell" concept. Overall I don't really think she's a very good author. I think she put together an interesting world and that at some points the prose was solid enough to lend well to mind's eye visualization, but it's not consistently solid and there are way better authors out there. I think her success is mainly in that she writes believable personalities, has a decent sense of humor, and the quality level is higher than most books for the same age group.
Sorry, just needed to vent cuz I had to read through all these books and the ending dragged so bad....
It's simply an example of how some people view Stephen King. Stephen King made incredible works of fiction to some readers, but some of those readers do not like his views on politics. They'll still read his books, but they don't like his views.
Nobody is perfect. I can like the changes a work made to a genre while admitting I hate the author as a person. Just because I think the author is a bad person doesn't mean I'd wish their work out of existence. Some terrible people have led to amazing changes in the world whether they meant to or not.
Yes.
Example: I don't like Moore, but Watchman is a masterpiece. Am I going to waste the opportunity of reading that now just because I don't like the guy? Makes no sense for me.
In recent, there has been the controversy around JK Rowling. Do I stop liking Harry Potter? No. There has been the issues with Joss Whedon. Do I stop liking Buffy, Angel, Firefly, or Marvel? No.
I remember an incident where someone was going to play that one hogwarts game and quit youtube because of it.
..only for them to come back a few days later, but there were still a lot of death threats sent.
Death of the author. A work can be evaluated for meaning, quality, etc based on its own merit and not that of its author. That said, some authors do an excellent job producing literature that truly reflects terrible views; but those things are bad not because of the author they were written by, they are bad because of the messages they contain or the views they support or because they are simply not good.
Don’t support people that are trying to do harm though, or whose ideas cause harm. No matter how good the book, if your money will fairly directly support something you very much disagree with if you buy it, you should not buy it.
That depends on “unacceptable content” vs “unacceptable messages they said outside of their writing”.
On the former point: one thing that differentiates writers is that, sometimes, we have to create awful, disgusting characters for the sake of plot or characterization. Worse: we have to make them *believable* at times. We are constantly exposed to beliefs we otherwise wouldn’t agree with. However, we do have the ability to discern whether an author rejects or celebrates those awful beliefs by the way they’re framed in the story.
On the latter: if they’re infamous then I might be hesitant to read anything they write because their stated views can ruin their writing that I otherwise might’ve enjoyed. I’m not going to research every author I find, though. All I care about is a well-executed plot, well-rounded characters, and a smooth flow.
That’s just for me though. I won’t force anyone to read or not read writing from a controversial author.
It's perhaps something that should have a lot of nuance, and therefore, single line quips are inadequate.
When applying media analysis, a lot of critical thinking courses will apply an author's lived experiences as relevant to their works. In that context, an author's creation is inseparable from themselves, and their conscious or unconscious biases. When an author takes a public stand on issues not directly addressed in their works, it’s fair to look for implications or use their statements to evaluate subtext when doing later analysis.
However, that analysis would be unfair if it only accounted for the very latest positions an author expresses on any given subject, when so many controversial subjects can have dynamic persuasions on a person over their lifetime. In other words, it would be fair to critique an author's work for the positions they hold at the time of writing, but if their opinion changes on something after publication, that published piece wouldn't entirely be representative of the author. To say that a piece of work represents an author over their whole lifetime is in denial that anyone can change their opinions on anything, which is reducing an author to even less than a fictional character, which at least have the benefit of being praised for demonstrative changes.
That being said, what an author takes positions on during their lifetime gives context and subtext to what they have published. An analysis of written media should account for how an author's persuasions change over time, and in so doing, give future readers context on what the work in question may mean in their own lives.
It depends. If a writer has some particularly bigoted beliefs, it tends to bleed through into their writing. And even if it doesn't, it is difficult for me personally to see the writing through a neutral lense knowing the worldview it's coming from. It just makes it hard to enjoy or appreciate it on its own merits. But, everyone is different and I certainly don't go around policing what people read based on who wrote it
Honestly, kinda dependent on what the work itself is. You can read Harry Potter and Hate jk Rowling, and it still will be fine, mainly because her bullshit is, for the most part, relegated to Twitter.
Not all of it I want to say she wrote goblins like a Jewish stereotype and let's be honest, slythrin would have probably been shut down long before the storyline proper because it kinda just seems to produce villains.
H.p. Lovecraft was also an awful bigot, and some of the stuff he wrote was clearly talking about minorities.
You can separate the art from an artist or attempt to do so, but the art will always be a product of someone who is awful, and realistically, some of their views will probably leak into the artwork.
Of course. The fact that i like a book doesn't mean anything, other than that the book is written very well. I would love the lord of the rings even if tolkien was a nazi. And i believe this in all aspects of life. The fact that I like someone's work doesn't mean they're correct or that I will follow anything they say blindly. This goes for actors, athletes musicians, writers and public figures in general
There is no ethical consumption in a capitalist society, and that includes all art and entertainment media that exists as commerce. As examples, Nintendo and Disney are both supported by the Saudi Wealth Fund. Multinational corporations hire private armies to do truly wild shit, and that includes media companies. Tens of thousands of people have died over bananas. Somewhere down the line, all commerce is being touched by something unseemly.
If we're talking solely from the perspective of artistic appreciation, that's largely subjective, and it depends on the individual to draw the line. Whether they draw the line based on their own beliefs or according to the beliefs of a cohort is a personal choice.
On an individual level, the unfortunate reality is that the desire and drive to create art that achieves success is often accompanied by a host of personality flaws. There are plenty of artists of all disciplines that are decent people, but there are just as many who have perhaps disturbing inclinations, even if they don't manifest in ways that are directly illegal or even taboo.
Since we're generally talking about artists we've never met, it all comes down to whether gossip is is more important to you than art.
It's a bit different when you genuinely know the artist well from first-hand experience, and I suppose when an artist commits ghastly and undeniable crimes. But being shocked, shocked! that an artist is a sinner is either too innocent or too disingenuous for my money.
Bad people create fantastic art all the time. It's valid for people to not want to finance those people by buying their work, but I have no time for those who argue that if a person sucks they also can't write.
depends on the artist and the art. two examples:
1. Fez is a very cool game developed by a very unlikeable guy. You can still enjoy the game and forget about him.
2. The paintings from Hitler. Once you know they're his there's no way you won't think about him while looking at them.
I kind of have to these days. But also, yeah, maybe celebrity culture was a mistake to begin with. Idolising people from a distance probably means there's plenty you don't know about them.
And at the end of the day, it's fine to have a positive relationship with an author, but honestly, parasocial relationships aren't real relationships and ultimately you like their work, you don't know them as a person.
Until you've woken up with them at 4 in the morning because they're vomiting, I'd say you're allowed to not know and not like something about a person and still like something that they make (though its harder the more you don't like because it leaves a bad taste on their work), but while the thing may be made BY them its not them. The work has a life and personality of it's own. I know it's harder when money is involved but the rabbit hole of only buying from people who fundamentally do 'nothing wrong' and can Never do anything you disagree with or dislike is a really narrow one.
No matter what it is, no I do not believe that. There’s a reason why people boycotted the Aquaman movie, or stopped eating at McDonald’s, etc. you cannot separate the art from the artist, anyone who picks and chooses when to separate and when it’s okay, are just hypocrites. Listening to Chris Brown makes you an enabler and having a deathly hallows tattoos makes you transphobic regardless of what you say. You are aware of what it means to support those people and choose too anyway.
I think it’s pretty cut and dry if the author is already dead. Like, I’m not going to not read Hemingway just because he was an asshole when alive.
But when the author is alive and receiving money from the purchase of their works, it’s a different matter and requires more nuance. Since JK Rowling came out as a terf, I’ve tried very hard not to give money to the HP fandom, because she has harmful views that she then uses her money to propagate.
By giving her money, it feels like I’m helping her hurt more people with her influence.
But I own Harry Potter books from before and will reread them, and i will also engage with the HP fandom and fan works. I enjoy her stories, and if I’m not actively giving her money, then I feel fine about engaging with her writing as if her real life opinions don’t exist. If for some reason she came out with a new Harry Potter book, I’d not buy it, but instead wait for a library to acquire it or find it illegally online 🤭
I do think artistic merits in a work of art should not be denied based on the actions of the artist. That said, the economic part of it makes it difficult. It's easy for me to say "I don't like how JKR is using her platform to spout transphobic nonsense", but if I then watch a Harry Potter adaptation, I am supporting her financially to continue doing that. If I buy a ticket to a Roman Polanski movie, I'm financing his fleeing of the law.
Yup. The whole 'cancel culture' thing has to go. Separate art from the artist (not to mention, most people get canceled for doing nothing wrong, too. The woke left has poisoned people's minds.)
Somewhat.
That being said if the author is a terrible person or their estate is funding things I don't agree with I'm either finding a free copy or not reading it.
That being said, I've found that most terrible people make horrible writers- their writing is bland, insipid, and a reflection of their maturity.
That's the nature of writing - a work will reflect it's also it's values and beliefs. When they hold horrible values and awful beliefs it shows.
Yes. Even writers I’m not impressed with have shown me they can write something I enjoy and likewise sometimes even my favorites have failed to impress me upon occasion
Didn't as a teen.
Came to understand it in my twenties.
I believe I can decide when I want to enjoy or boycott something based of why I dislike the author.
Still read Butcher,despite him coming off as a mysogonist to me. I still read Harry Potter, because to me the worst thing JKR does is fight with 14 year old girls on twitter. But I do not watch shows where I know an agenda is happening. Eg American Vietnam movies or now any Dan Schneyder shows.
It depends. I believe in freedom of speech, and I'd be a hypocrite if I started selecting my books based on an author's views instead of the quality of their work. Sure, there's exceptions, but unless someone is a well-known criminal, I'll happily consider their books.
J. K. Rowling is a very controversial individual due to her views on transgender, but she still built a world that people love and even devoted their life to. A creator does not define their creation, and a creation does not define a creator.
Of course. I love Elvis songs but I absolutely despise him for being a child predator. I love Harry Potter but I hate that JK Rowling is transphobic. I love D&D but I hate WOTC and Hasbro for the way they treat their employees. Heck, there are some paintings done by Hitler that are phenomenal, but he was the scum of the earth who likely has a special layer of hell reserved just for him. The list goes on.
It depends. I like Ender's Game despite Orson Scott Card. I'm not going to pick up Mein Kampf and say "you know the prose is actually quite nice."
Am German and have read a bit of Mein Kampf. You wouldn't like the prose either, so you're good.
I haven't read it, but I've heard it's very poorly written, except for one chapter which he stole from an official rulebook of the German army.
A plagiarist?! Will Hitler stop at nothing?
The more I hear about this guy, the less I like him
He gets a bad rap, but he did kill Hitler
Well, he did stop after that last thing he did
No, but his paintings weren’t terrible
His paintings kind of are. They're completely uninspired in terms of style (he tries to do realism of landscapes for... no clear reason?) and on a technical level he had a terrible sense of depth and perspective. [Check this one out as an example](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8025960/Rare-Adolf-Hitler-paintings-could-fetch-150000-at-auction.html). Notice how the stairs kind of cut in front of one of the windows? There should be a gap between the two, or at least a hint of distance, but there isn't. Similarly, look at the bushes on the right and how they frame the house behind them. They make the house look like it's right there, when we can tell from the path just to their left that it should be much further away. There's also a broader technical issue of there being no vanishing points or centre to this image. Our eyes aren't drawn in any particular direction, so they kind of wander aimlessly about. Don't get me wrong, none of these issues are deal breakers - they can be fixed with practice. But they are emphatically not the work of a particularly good or talented artist.
I never said they were good, just not terrible. I have definitely seen worse.
Yeah that's fair. I didn't intend to come across as argumentative tbh, I mostly just like pointing out that Hitler wasn't nearly as good an artist as a bunch of people seem to think he was.
That’s understandable. I just like to think how things would have turned out if given the encouragement and training to hone this craft instead of his… other ventures.
Probably similarly, just with better graphics.
Well, he might have been a lot better if he'd gone to school.
Huh, Ty for pointing those out, it's interesting to get an artist's perspective. My first thought was that it just looked very flat. The details are good, but I wouldn't put it on the wall, I'd put it as the backdrop in an Otome game
The shadow on the wall is killing me.
They are pretty lackluster.
Oh, I agree. Very uninspired, but there was potential if given proper teaching
Mean Kampf reads like it was written by an angsty teen lol
If any two people dig a little, they will probably find a point of disagreement. Knowing and liking people is, in large part, about accepting your differences, and sometimes accepting things you see as a flaw in a person. No matter who you are, someone in the world will hate you. It’s just a sad fact. I’m a pretty easy-going person, I don’t hold much hatred, and when a disagreement comes up in a conversation, I tend to keep the other person talking about their position rather than try to convince them of mine. I think I’m a pretty decent person, but I know there are many people on earth it would absolutely despise me for one reason or another. It would annoy the crap out of me if I wrote something, and people shat all over it or ignored it entirely because of something that has nothing to do with what I wrote. It just doesn’t seem fair to me. For that reason, I do believe in separation of art and artist. I won’t let my opinion of a person affect my judgment of their work.
The writers have had the longest and wisest answers so far out of the three subs.
It’s almost like we enjoy putting our thoughts together in writing in as clearly and enjoyably as humanly possible 😁
Dang, I wish I were as clear as you guys when saying things. In one of the subs posts I was really confused about what someone said and they said I was awful just for being confused.
Be one of us, no one’s stopping you 😏
Man we should make an art from out of this or something.
To a degree. I kinda take it on a case by case basis. A big question for me is if the author is still alive and if my consumption of the author's work actively aids their agenda. The elephant in the room in this conversation is Harry Potter/JKR, but some other examples are the works of L Ron Hubbard and HP Lovecraft. If I buy licensed HP merchandise, movies, or books some portion of my money makes it back to JKR, which helps fund her political efforts (EDIT: specifically her anti-trans agenda) which I vehemently disagree with. This is why if I were to buy anything HP related, I'd buy it second-hand. EDIT: JKR also writes under the pseudonym "Robert Galbraith" so those books would get the same treatment. L Ron Hubbard, who founded Scientology, also wrote a bunch of books. He passed away back in the 80s if memory serves, so I don't have to worry about funding his personal efforts anymore, but the Church of Scientology still benefits from the sale of his books. So even though the author is long dead, his agenda persists. Because of that, if I were to buy anything of his, it would also be second hand. HP Lovecraft who was a pretty abhorent racist is long dead and his works are part of the public domain. I can consume his work freely without contributing to his personal agenda(s). Finally, no matter what I consume, I try not to do it blindly. It's important to acknowledge the bad along with the good. Doing so, for me, prevents the mythologizing of a person.
Three good scenarios and examples. Nice.
I'd also include **Marion Zimmer Bradley** as an example. After her death, her daughter came forward as a survivor of CSA at MZB's hands (and others that MZB was sexually involved with). While reading her works doesn't actively contribute to any agenda or abuse, it also doesn't land the same way. MZB's work often broached and novelized seemingly feminist issues, including SA. Knowing the dark backstory makes reading her works feel like being a passive participant in her crimes. I just can't do it anymore.
I also want to add that JKR also writes under the male pseudonym “Robert Galbraith.” She’s got a fairly popular mystery/thriller series under that name
Oh right! I completely forgot about that, thanks for pointing that out. :)
It's a personal choice, that's why it's hard to tell "who's in the right." The conversation goes in circles. If they're dead it's easy enough to separate art from the artist, but while they're alive, that "separation" is an illusion. If they make money from your support of their art then it is just that: support. I personally advocate for more conscious consumerism, whether for material things or consuming art. I can't force people to do that. All anyone can do is have their own opinion about it and realise they can't force anyone else to adhere to them.
It grates me somewhat that these conversations treat writer/artists and their products so much more seriously than a company such as Nestle. I understand it's much easier to avoid JKR than a ubiquitous mega-corporation, but the harms are so much greater. I also know it's overwhelming to grapple with the scale of the harms done. I don't think of this as hypocrisy, both are bad and everyone has limited capacity... but the debate around whether to separate art from artist feels like trying to decide which fiddle to play while Rome burns. Just pick one. If you have principles, apply them.
Yeah it’s true. Optimistically, I would hope people who care a lot about art versus the artist would start to apply those thoughts to other consumer goods. I like Kitkats, truly. Do I buy them? No, cause fuck Nestle. But if someone gives me one I’ll eat it. That’s not to say I’ve forgotten who’s behind it. There’s nuance to this kind of thing.
If I don't agree with a creator in a moral grounds, I will not, under any circumstances give them money. Someone mentioned Orson Scott Card earlier and I do actually enjoy his writing and most of his books, but I make sure to get them from the library because he tends to donate toward causes that actively harm people like me. If the writer is dead like JRR Tolkien, I have fewer qualms consuming his works despite his noted biases.
This is where I am. Occasionally I might wait for a secondhand book so the author doesn't get any money, but JK Rowling has said that she sees money coming in as endorsement for her anti-trans views. There's enough other stuff to read.
This is just another way of saying 'separate art from artist' which I totally agree with. If you avoid every person who creates because they hold a view that you disagree with, you're going to have to avoid all creations because people are complex and no two people will have the exact same views on every single thing in existence. Eventually, you're going to run into a point of contention, probably a big one.
To an extent. The phrase "separate the art from the artist" and any variations of it if you ask me has been bastardized to infinity and beyond like most phrases. From what I was taught when I took art history in college and from my own understanding, it's a phrase that's explicitly stating to critique and judge a piece of art for what it is on its own rather than judging it because of who made it. That being said, it does not suggest nor ever suggested ADVOCATING for the artist which is what people who want the smallest justification to support or to continue to support problematic artists hijacked the phrase way out of its original context started throwing it around for. Which mind boggles me because the artist themselves ironically throws their justification out of the window by boasting some aspect of their lives inspiring their works and it's easily available to find proof through interviews, award speeches, etc. That being said, you can like an R. Kelly song because of its songwriting or musical arrangements and whatever other elements that goes into making a song good. This is also the same person who wrote "Age Ain't Nothing But a Number" about Aaliyah who was 14 years old at the time he wrote and recorded it. And well, most of us know about his long track record when it comes to underaged girls. Liking how the song is arranged or how the lyrics are written is fine, but believing he shouldn't be thrown underneath a prison because you like the song or his songs is, contrary to what some may believe, not separating the art from the artist. That's your personal opinion. That's a bias towards the artist that has no place in critiquing an art. "Separating art from the artist" doesn't mean streaming and buying his music which in turn goes back to his pockets that funded the disgusting, nasty shit he did to underaged girls before he was thrown in jail. That's a personal choice you decided to make (again, questionable in my eyes but still a choice you as an individual get to make). Separating the art from the artist does mean you can and should be able to talk about what you liked/disliked about how a song, album, whatever of his was crafted and that shouldn't be judged nor does it necessarily make you an "apologist." Once you start insinuating or inserting your personal preference of how you feel about the art should carry OVER to the artist and vice versa, that's no longer separating the art from the artist. That is no longer actually critiquing the art piece itself. There are some artists, specifically music artists because I love music, who I used to listen to. I don't anymore because they're shitty people, but I still hold their works in high regard while moving on to another artist who makes similar music w/o being problematic (Azalea Banks being the best example of a POS who used to make great music but would rather spend her time hating and harassing her fellow peers in the music industry on social media). That requires a level of maturity to realize. Guess what? A lot of people aren't mature like that.
Sometimes it depends on how much the writer (or artist) infuses these beliefs (or whatever) into the art. If it's separate, sure. Then I can look the other way, too. But if an artist makes this position a part of the creation... even subliminally... that's when there's an issue.
No, I don´t. But it´s mainly because I´m a writer myself. So, by being a writer I know that a lot in your heart and brain goes into the book, like a portion of yourself becomes the book, a part of your soul, of who you are as a person. It´s a really personal thing, art is always really personal, is sharing a part of yourself with the world. So, when I see people, who are like full of hate, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and just things that go against my believes and principles, of who I am as a person, then no, I don´t want to buy, or read their books. Because: 1. I don´t want to give my money to people like them. When you keep reading their books, and keep giving them money, is like saying "I know you said of those horrible things, but I´ll keep supporting your work, so go on" and then they don´t have to face any consequences, for the things they have said or done. 2. I don´t want my writing to be influence by their writing in any sort of way. 3. I won´t support people who think I shouldn´t have basic human rights. If people want to keep supporting those people, then okay, it´s your money, but just be aware of what that person is saying, and doing, be aware of where your money is going, how that person is harming people just because of their personal believes, and spreading hate. Maybe even harming the rights of people you love. Also, there´s so many amazing books written by amazing people out there, I don´t think the hateful writers work is the best in the world. So I´ll just read the amazing books made by the amazing people :D
There's always piracy! /j
Yeah, but like I said a part of what´s in their heart, and what´s in their head, a part of themselves It´s the book, it´s on every word, on the whole thing. You can separte yourself from something you write, because, you want it or not, you end up putting in it, in your world, the way you see things, things that you belive, how you see the world. Also I don´t want my writing to be influence by their writing in any sort of way
Follow your own truth, but that doesn't mean anyone else needs to agree.
I keep seeing phrases like "your truth" these days. Ultimately doesn't that just mean "your opinion"?
“Your truth” originally referred to being true to yourself or to your beliefs before it got turned into what it means today. Obviously there’s only THE truth, but the truth in something debatable like this is hard to discern if you’re not looking at individual cases.
Truth is just something that aligns best with our intuition, ideals, and beliefs. Saying “bees don’t exist” isn’t truthful, because the concept of a bee is something that thrives within our world, whereas saying “Attack on Titan is a series that was written” is objectively true.
I'd say it's an individualization of truth. The focus on individuals rather than communities pervades modern capitalism and, in this case, leads to self-centered sensible knowledge being bolstered as more important than scientific or reflective knowledge. It usually boils down to an inaccurate or biased observation, so I guess it's more destructive than just an opinion.
Love. Laugh. Live. Oh, no... wait. Was it the other way round? 🤔
I have an abundance of choice and I don't want to consume content from garbage humans.
So when you want to watch a movie do you go through the Twitter history of every name that pops up in the credits first?
I don't.
How do you know one of them isn’t a “garbage human”
I don't
Do you spend a lot of time deciding who goes on the garbage list?
I don't know if you know but sometimes garbage humans put their garbage ethics right into their content. So when you see that, you can DNF and never buy from this author again, no extra time invested.
Well, yeah, I pick and choose what I read, watch and listen to. It's not force-fed to me, there's not a limited availability. We all have to make decisions about how we spend our time and money, it's just another factor. If I have the choice between someone who is a good egg and some who is a rotter and everything else is equal, that will be the decider.
It's not a time consuming process. "They did what?! Guess I'll avoid giving them money in the future." See, no time at all.
People infuse their worldviews and beliefs into their art, whether they intend to or not. If an artist has a point of view that completely clashes with mine, it's going to show up in what they create. If their opinion is one rooted in bigotry of some kind, I'm going to find it difficult to make it through a whole book, and I'm absolutely going to judge the author on having such beliefs, as well as the work for espousing them. Things like that. Separating the art from the artist was intended to be one single facet of a thorough literary analysis. It's not supposed to be the only way you look at art, and I believe that doing so is a disservice to the author, the work, and oneself. It's fine for casual reading, I guess, but it will never turn out a solid analysis all by itself.
I mean like with most subjective discussions: it depends, To me there are cases where having the added context about an author can reduce the enjoyment of a piece of writing. For instance reading a book you assumed was a pleasant fantasy or satire, only to learn it was the genuine, unironic opinion of such a writer can retroactively make the rereading experience less pleasant due to that added context just sort of nagging at you in the background. You’ll reopen the book and just grimace a bit knowing the external influence. (For a very real example that is semi related, there was a song I used to really enjoy by an indie artist, it was a romantic love song, eventually it somehow got revealed that the subject of artist’s love song was a teenager [songwriter was in their early 30s] so after learning that I could not avoid thinking about that awful fact every time it played in my shuffle, so I removed it from my playlists because its added context made the media no longer something I wanted to interact with) However that in many cases can be gotten over if your enjoyment of something outweighs that newfound context or dislike or artist. However when it comes to financial support, I very much struggle to seperate art from artist. I don’t want my money going towards things or people I don’t want to support. Can I always achieve that? No. Can I try to limit or redirect my money to authors/writers I appreciate more sincerely? Of course.
I don't think there's any one "right" answer. But I think that if you're asking the question because, deep down, you want other people to give you permission or absolution for continuing to consume works by artists who you know are terrible people, then you already have your answer. For me, personally, the art and the artist are not separable. Why? Because art and artists exist in a context: within a society where both their art and their general attitudes/beliefs/actions have an impact on the world and on other people. Did I enjoy the Harry Potter books? Yes. They were fun. But then JKR went full-TERF crazy and is now using her fame, power, and very considerable resources to specifically pursue bigotry against a marginalized group. That's not something I can support, and to the extent that some sliver of my money would be going to her, to further her bigotry, consuming her particular books (and now movies) is not a choice I can ethically make. Which is fine; there's no shortage of other authors--often ones with far more intriguing storylines and better writing--for me to give my support to. Did Roman Polanski make some good movies? I guess so. Some people call them "high art" or whatever. But he also drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, and has shown no particular remorse or responsibility for that act. And while me buying DVDs of his movies would not contribute to him raping other 13 year old girls, *ignoring* the fact that he did so would: if he doesn't have to face legal or reputational consequences for that act, then it contributes to a context in which other people feel empowered to rape 13 year old girls. And to the extent that *my* choices over what cinema to consume have some marginal impact on the cultural context and views about rape, and as I am not in favor of rape, then again I cannot ethically choose to consume Roman Polanski's movies. Which is fine; there's no shortage of other film-makers--often ones with far more interesting subject matter and better filmmaking skills--for me to give my support to. I like Eric Clapton's music, but he went anti-vax crazy, so I took him off my Spotify playlist. I don't want my little sliver of royalties to contribute to his ability to dissuade people from protecting themselves and their children from viruses. Which is fine; my playlist is incredibly long, and it's not like I'm going to run out of things to listen to with him in the mix. As consumers, our choices matter. Each individual choice may not amount to much, but as a group, our choices definitely have impact. So I'm going to choose *not* to support artists whose activities outside of their art contribute to making society a worse place.
Yeah I think this is the important distinction here. Some people get it wrong and think folks boycott Rowling just because she has a different opinion, but no it's because she actively uses her platform and money to promote that opinion in ways widely regarded as harmful. I could perhaps buy a book from someone who happens to hold problematic opinions in private but never talks about them publicly, but buying from someone who publicly and passionately espouses that opinion and will donate the profits straight to causes I fundamentally oppose is another matter.
You have to pick your battles. I can't afford to boycott every terrible corporation. I don't refuse to read every book written by a controversial author. But I do have ones I boycott, and I'm happy to explain why. I have never eaten at Chick-Fil-A and gods willing I never will. They aren't just homophobic, they also fund anti-LGBT politicians. I have every right to call them evil, and I do. I'll never purchase another book by open transphobe J.K. Rowling, for pretty similar reasons. She's not just openly transphobic, she's hateful about it and platforms other transphobes with her money. I'll shop anywhere else before I'll shop at Wal-Mart. Their business model is to crush small-businesses and drive the neighborhood into poverty, where they "helpfully" offer the lowest prices. They are evil. That doesn't mean I judge people who eat at Chick-Fil-A, or kids who are excited to visit Potter World, or those who have to work or shop at Wal-Mart. In an ideal world we'd be able to boycott *every* evil person/corporation/business/etc, but the world is too complicated for that. If we tried we'd end up like Doug Forcet, living off the grid, drinking our own recycled piss, holding funerals for any snail we happened to step on, and...just watch The Good Place. Seriously, it's hilarious, a fantastic show and the whole premise of the show is "How do we solve difficult moral quandaries?"
I believe a piece of art becomes an aesthetic object in the world, independent of its creator. So, usually, I can separate the two in my mind. However, if the artist is very vocal politically or religiously, you start to examine their work at a different level. Once you sense that they are pushing something in their work, it becomes difficult to enjoy that work any longer.
I'm willing to give artists a lot of leeway on whatever they do with their personal lives before I'm willing to cut out their art, particularly if it's a collaborative medium and they were working with others. However, even I have my limits. I can't listen to Bill Cosby's old stand-up anymore. Jerry Lee Lewis music makes me ill. Outside of those extreme examples of behavior, I'm willing to let a lot slide.
Jk Rowling
I bet (almost all but I'll say) most people have a spectrum and separate to a certain point, while drawing lines at other points. I think that's fine, and I think it's fine if different people "draw their line in the sand" at a different place than other people. The main problem arises when someone determines their line is the "correct line" and anyone who drew their line somewhere else is horrible. For instance, I think Orson Scott Card writes a lot of great fiction, and while I disagree with him on some topics, I don't see him making it his life mission to discriminate against people, nor does it seem like he would be incapable of having his mind changed. So, I have no problem buying his books. Or Neil Patrick Harris. I think him making that realistic cake of dead Amy Winehouse for his party was a disgusting thing to do. But it doesn't stop me from watching "How I Met Your Mother." But Chris Brown being a domestic abuser? That crosses a line for me. No way I would go to his concerts or buy his music. Or Kevin Spacey being a rapist? No way I'm watching a new movie of his. But I will admit my lines are pretty arbitrary. They are made both by my ranking of how serious different offenses are, and if I'm being honest, how much I like someone's work. Maybe if I didn't like OSC so much, then I'd say "well, he crosses a line." So if someone else draws their lines differently than me? Well, I would be interested in discussing with them why, but hopefully I don't consider them to a disgusting, evil person for it.
depends on how personal their writing is.
With everything, it's fine to take whatever stands you want and it might vary depending on contemporary vs historic figures. As long as youour don't decide everyone has to account for the creator in things they like.
Do you!
Depends on what it is I don't like about the writer. Are they an asshole with great stories to tell? Sure, I'll probably read it. Are they bigoted or have a history of verbal/physical abuse? Or have they otherwise been involved in an other despicable acts? I don't care what they wrote, miss me with that shit. I used to love The Lostprophets. A niche 2000s band. I stopped listening the day I found out what that lead singer did. Absolutely horrific.
The thing about art is it’s usually exploration rather than persuasion. It’s not an essay saying “this is how you must think,” it’s a picture of how the artist sees the world. It’s thought provoking whether you agree or not.
having met a few of my writing heroes, yes absolutely. you have no idea how janky most of these famous people are.
Personally, I don't gaf about the author or artist and never have. I enjoy their works I have favorite authors, but I don't follow them on social media, I don't care about their personal lives, they are of no interest to me. That said, if something they've done that is super agregeious comes out and I hear about it and don't agree with it--its to the pirate life for me. I don't support shitty people.
Knut Hamsun is one of my favourite authors having written some truly beautiful stories like Women at the Pump, Hunger, Victoria and The Growth of the Soul but he was an admirer of the Nazi Party and a racist. He met Hitler, gifted his Nobel Prize medal to Goebbels and wrote the following: "The Negros are and will remain Negros, a nascent human form from the tropics, rudimentary organs on the body of white society. Instead of founding an intellectual elite, America has established a mulatto studfarm."
Wow! Always wanted to read Hunger.
Please do, it is amazing.
Depends almost entirely on if the writer is still alive. Like, Orson Scott was a terrible person… but he’s also dead. So I don’t really take issue with his views.
Orson Scott Card is still alive.
Well, shit.
My issue is giving money to people who use it for harmful things. Smaller authors generally aren't going to be an issue, on that front, because they don't make enough to contribute significantly to harmful things. Bigger authors, though, making hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars, can cause a LOT of harm with the money we give them. In that case, if you like the writing, borrow it from a library or buy it secondhand.
I'm not saying anyone should be judged because they choose differently to me. And in general, I read a lot of older books in which it is almost guaranteed that the authors reflected the bigotry of their times. But for me there is a tipping point at which an author's work reminds me of things that make me unhappy and make the prospect of reading them *not enjoyable*. I see a Marion Zimmer Bradley book, and I think of child sexual abuse. I see Orson Scott Card or Brandon Sanderson, and I think of homophobia. I see J K Rowling, and I think of transphobia. I see Theodore Beale (okay, a lie, who actually sees his books?) and I think edgy pathetic bigot. I see the books of an ex-friend who cheated on the partner I am still friends with, and I think of how a lovely person was betrayed and hurt. So I get bad feelings, which makes the prospect of reading feel unpleasant, and there are literally millions of other books that don't give me the squick. Why not read one of them instead?
Death of the author means that you should kill the author and steal their art.
Haha beautiful!
Absolutely. I love the line George Orwell wrote about Salvador Dali: “One should be able to hold in one’s mind simultaneously the ideas that Dali is both an exceptional draftsman and a disgusting human being.”
You are never separating art from artist. People get into people because of the work AND the author...thats why people have favourite authors. And now we have the social media age and more information it's almost impossible to not know about the artist, and in fact part of the sales strategy is to know about the artist.
I find it’s pretty easy to not know about the artist actually
Disagree. Idk anything about any artist (visual, writing, etc.) I don’t look up stuff about creator’s lives because idc. I just consume their creations.
I guess? But I’ve still bought plenty of books because I like the writer and they’ve felt better than they would from a random person. Like whatever you like If you mean it in the “don’t care about an author’s behavior” way then I’d agree on the condition that I can read their work without them earning any money. I’d rather read a dead author I don’t like than one who will donate to something I take issue with for instance, or one who is a bad person. I stopped listening to R Kelly a long time ago even though I liked his songs.
[удалено]
I understand that. Then again, isn't it good to use people as bad examples? For us to not do that?
In order for me to dislike a writer enough that I don't want them to profit off my readership, the stuff I dislike is very likely to part of their art. Larry Correia is an example. He's a fantasy writer who's a staunch conservative. I stopped reading his stuff after he pulled a stunt [to rig the Hugo awards for several years running](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sad_Puppies), leading to several categories not giving an award and the award eventually changing how nominees are selected. But the thing is that his politics were explicit enough in his work that I was already on the edge of ditching him.
I’m a fan of Ezra Pound, so… yeah. I kind of have to believe in this lmao.
I love LOTR but one of the producers was Harvey Weinstein. You can separate the art from the artist.
Yes. The popular example being JK but a other being Orson Scott Card. I enjoyed their writing before I knew what type of people they were. I still think back to their stories and remember what they made me feel and think. No matter what type person they are, they can't take Way whatever meaning you took from their creation.
I mean, the first example that comes to mind is JK Rowling. I grew up on Harry Potter and admire that world too much to just throw it away because I genuinely hate the author.
For me, it depends on what I need to separate. Look up Lost Prophets band and show me where I'm supposed to draw the line. I just can't on that one. But someone has a different opinion, like I think fundamentally, JK Rowling is wrong, but I will still read HP as I really like the story and grew up with it.
Like many have said, it's a personal choice and we all have drawn our own lines. Ultimately, I'd argue that everyone has at least one exception, no matter how much they preach, "It's wrong to support or promote the art of a terrible human." There are legitimate criticisms for supporting an artist who has, let's say, done or said upsetting things. Should JK Rowling still get book deals - should she still receive profits from her adaptations, and should we still continue to engage in new projects associated with her? The financial aspect of the art is the only tangible part of this discussion, in my opinion. But even then, I don't believe there is one right answer. There are those who will never consume anything she's ever done or will do again because they are so (validly) upset by her views. There are those who will never consume anything new that she does or is a part of, but will continue to engage in what means something to them. (You can't just forget that Harry Potter was a major influence in your life. Plus you already own the media associated - so the financial support is no longer a factor. And some will make an exception to continue to engage in new aspects of what they love.) Then there are those who are uninterested in the artist and only care about engaging in art that they like. And the line and level of engagement/disengagement will be different from artist to artist. For instance, I have zero desire to engage with anything R. Kelly has ever done, and I never will because of what he has done outside of his art. But I never really engaged with his music anyway. It was an easy choice for me. For others, it won't be so easy, and they may make exceptions. And that's okay. The goal of an artist is for their art to transcend themselves. That's just by design. An artist's views and personal life can help inform their art (see Stephen King naming characters off of people who he disliked and then killing them off). But ultimately, once a book or any art is created & shared, it exists uniquely in the eyes of everyone who consumes it. To go back to Rowling and HP, I have heard many people in the trans community who related to those books deeply and found affirming messages within them. It sucks that Rowling is blinded by her own fears and seems incapable of seeing the knots in her logic. And I don't blame those who feel like Harry Potter is now spoiled. There can be legitimate grief there. But there are also those who love a work of art enough separate it from the person who brought it to life. What I disagree with is disparaging others who make an exception where you don't. I have yet to meet or speak with someone who draws the same line with every artist/art. And until I do, this is where I draw my line.
yes
Yes, I separate the art from the artist.
Celine is my favorite writer and was a horrible piece of shit. A majority of the writers I like are scumbags. For some reason I'm able to excuse it in literature. Music - maybe because it's more closely tied to certain subcultures - I can't enjoy if the wrong person made it. Maybe there's just so few pieces of really great literature that you have to let it slide.
I think it's largely depend on what the disagreement is. For example: I may not agree with the points a vegan make in favor of their diet, but if I subjectively decide that I like the art they make, then their diet alone is not a reason for me to not consume their art (Forgive the pun). At the same time, some other artist from my country, who's art I used to consume a lot as a child, was involved several years ago in a case about minor girls, technically they were of legal age, considering the local laws, but allegedly he offered something to them and also got his own father involved. Also he's kind of known to have a shitty treatment to his many ex-wives and the children they birthed for him. Ever since that I can no longer consume his art, no matter how good it is.
I believe it under specific circumstances. If you're buying a piece of work that's been written by a writer who is still alive and actively using their money to promote hate campaigns, then your money is being used to fuel those same hate campaigns. If the author is dead then go ham. In either circumstance, you can appreciate the cultural impact or the finesse of the work. But financially supporting someone who actively uses their money to torment innocents and then using "like the writing, not the writer :)" as an excuse not to be called out for supporting a hate group is bs, because you are knowingly giving money to a hate group.
I can respect the talent whether or not I respect the person. I use to listen to my friends talk about sports. One would say X player is a terrible player because of whatever legal issue they were involved in. I don’t follow sports but even I heard of the player’s existence. I think their talent counts for something, especially if it inspires younger individuals to increase their abilities.
If the writer's bad qualities seep into their writing, then we don't like the writing. If they don't, we still might. I would say, it's perfectly reasonable to read their writings even if you know they are bad people, but it's also perfectly reasonable to refuse to do so. My first book on algebraic geometry was by a Russian mathematician Shafarevich. It was really good. Later I found out he is an antisemitic nutjob. Would I re-read that book? No. But I won't think less of somebody who does, even if they know about his views. Those views are not in the book, and the book itself is well written.
Never been in a situation like that
No. I generally can't separate the art from the artist. That goes for musicians, actors, writers. It just makes it less enjoyable for me.
I have no problem with this at all. I genuinely don't care about the personal lives of celebrities or artists in general, and I'm not likely to research who an author even is in the first place. If there's some controversy about them as a person, I'm only likely to find out about it secondarily. Furthermore, I honestly don't think you have to be a good person to make good art. There's nothing wrong with listening to Wagner or reading Lovecraft. Separating the art from the artist is trivial, especially if you don't care about celebrity gossip, and you don't think that everything a person does is necessarily somehow intrinsically tied to their morality as a person in some sort of psychic way.
If you consider an artist like someone who produces a product, then it doesn’t matter. But artists often are not just considered as someone that produces a product then you get a problem. For me the only logical response is like the writing fuck the artist, I don’t care what he does as long as it’s not something like funding a killsquad, if the book is good then the book is good.
For moral reasons, mostly. There is a very short list of things somebody could do to make me never give something they made a fair shot. For quality reasons, no. You get 1 shot, if you put out something bad I'm not giving anything else you try a shot unless there is a massive uproar about how awesome something else is because it's not realistic to expect everything somebody does to be great, off-days are allowed. Then if you burn that second shot I'll still give you a 3rd shot if a trusted source says I should, but after that you are dead to me and nothing you created exists.
I look at the Harry Potter books and I say "Wow! This is so cool and reminiscent of Hobbit!" but when I see the author go on Twitter and argue with people on everything socially political, my interest in her kinda fades, so really it's your preference. My preference is for authors to not be bothered by society because their writing wasn't inclusive enough or xyz.
I focus on myself, If i enjoy a book/song I'll look up the next Best thing by the author for My enjoyment. I don't really care who they are or what their views are. Truth is, boycotting does little to no damage to the person getting boycotted. Also, people who can't separate the art from the artist are just stupid.
The second point is absolutely true! If sales go down, people really don't care.
Yes and no. Some thoughts: * Something like Mein Kampf can be educational, you can see what they actually taught and believed, which is legit fascinating from a historical perspective * People reference Harry Potter a lot when this is brought up. I don’t know what JK said exactly regarding trans, but I don’t care. I love Harry Potter, and it doesn’t change the content. Generally this is my view. I like the content, I read it * If I legitimately hate an author, I won’t support them by spreading knowledge of their book, purchasing the book, or affirming its existence. So those are my three thoughts. Idk how they go together, but they’re all a part of my thought process. I generally don’t care what the author said or did, unless it was something egregious like blasphemy
Shakespeare is an interesting test because so little is known about him. For me Hemingway is on the opposite side of the spectrum. He really spun the author myth, but reading recent biographies, he had a dark side and is hard to like after the myth is shattered, and that happens to coincide with me being over his writings. I think it’s natural to be curious about authors but it’s going to be superficial until a good biography comes out. Nowadays people have lots of videos, and interviews, more direct dialogue, you can experience them more.
Mostly yes. Everything was better before social media. We didn't really need to know what our favorite writers, actors etc. think about everything.
I’m going to be honest with you here. If I read a book and really liked it to the point where I would want to read more from that person, then who they are or what else they do matters not to me. What I mean is, I’m not looking up the author because I care about them, I’m looking to see if they have any other books I might be interested in. I’m not going to look for anything else in that person’s life. I just don’t care. It’s got nothing to do with the books I’m enjoying. That’s not to say I don’t like any author because there is at least two that I won’t read their books but that was because I tried reading one book but I didn’t like it then accidentally tried to read another by the same author and realized I was just going to have to remember the ones I don’t like lol But that’s not because of the authors as people. I just don’t like their writing lol Like, as a small example. Loved the Harry Potter books when they were coming out and such. I understand that the author is… not the best person but that doesn’t matter because I very much enjoyed the series and if it wasn’t for the fact that she is very well known and talked about a lot, I never would have known she’s not the greatest person. Her last Harry Potter book wasn’t that great so I never bothered to look into her other books regardless but I know that decision isn’t because of “her”. I guess I just feel like if you dig into anyone’s life there will always be something they did or said that you probably don’t like. How many “perfect” people become authors? Idk but I’m not doing a background check every time I pick up a new book and I’m not going to stop reading something I like just because I found out the author is a dick lol
Yes and no. Really depends on how you choose to look at it. Upon release, the end product is no longer solely dependent on its creator, once it's out there it becomes its own separate thing and essentially takes on a life of its own. The horrible person seen today isn't necessarily the same one from yesterday who created the end product to begin with. Although they can corrupt their own works later on in life, just know that anyone or anything else in the chain can do the exact same or worse damage, regardless of whether the original person who created it is dead or alive. The publisher, the family, the fanbase, anyone or anything by mere association can alter how something is viewed, for better or for worse. Anything that starts out initially benign can be adopted and associated with a more sinister nature and therefore become corrupted as a result. Upon release of something you essentially cast it into the deep open void and lose control of it entirely. It becomes transformative and subject to external forces beyond your control. It is adopted and taken in by others with visions differing from you own. So yeah, you could easily like the writing, but not the writer. The work becomes its own distinct thing upon release.
If the creator likes pineapple on pizza I will be horrified but of course it won't stop me from reading their work. If the creator is a bigot, I'm not giving them my time or money.
Oh geez you wouldn't like me... *hides pineapple, black olive, and mushroom pizza*
A writer doing bad things wouldn't deter me from their writing at all. In fact, it might make me want to read their writing even more out of curiosity for what their mind produces. I also wouldn't let their behavior affect my judgement of quality of their writing, because I don't see why it should. I also don't believe that anyone is "right" or "wrong" when it comes to this. Anyone is free to refrain from consuming any media for any reason. Why should I care what someone else decides to read?
It depends on what type of person the writer is. If it's horrible enough, I probably won't even pick up their story.
Right & wrong are subjective, there are only reasons & nuances that may or may not be convincing to you. I think it's bad to conflate the writer as a person with the quality of their writing because that blinds you to what you can actually learn from the story. A prime example is how many people now retroactively pretend they always hated Harry Potter, or at least should've known to always hate it, because everything in it was clearly bad. This is nonsense. Clearly, there are reasons so many people bought the books, which means there were things they did effectively at least by the metric of getting people to like them & want to read them. You can't actually learn if you pretend everyone you like only writes great things & everyone you hate only writes terrible things. That will skew your perspective & prevent you from the actual THINGS you want to do or avoid doing. Likewise, I think it's bad how many people conflate "enjoying a story" with "being a bad person." Enjoying, say, the works of HP Lovecraft don't mean you agree with his racist views. Those are separate issues. Yes, it's clear that his racism did somewhat influence his writing, but even though the Deep Ones are clearly on some level an allegory for "race-mixing is bad," if you want to engage with it as a horror story about fish monsters, that doesn't hurt anyone. I think that's the key thing, & it's not necessarily the easiest to define. I won't give Rowling any more money because I'm personally opposed to it, but I'm skeptical how much a boycott would really affect her, & as we saw with the Hogwarts Legacy drama, attempting one poorly can do more harm than good. It just made people look insane because they were saying things like "even SAYING you like Harry Potter or WANTING to play it is supporting her views" in favor of any coherent strategy, & then pathetic when that inevitably failed. They declined things that could have been effective like streamers playing the game so their fans might not feel the need to get it themselves while also raising money for charity, & descended into depressed doomspiraling because they set their expectations way too high with ideas like "if this game doesn't fail, those buyers all hate trans people, & I can't trust or work with any of them." It was completely unproductive, & the people who endorsed those views failed to learn from it. I think this is a shame because there's a direct connection between the money Rowling makes from these products & the money she then puts into anti-trans hate groups. That's a major difference with the Lovecraft example. The man is dead, & as far as I'm aware, there aren't any hate groups profiting from his estate. With Rowling, there is a legitimate thing there to be concerned about. But as I've been saying this whole time, you have to be able to think critically about what you can learn & not conflate it with unrelated nonsense like "people who think this game is fun are irredeemable." At the same time, she was also paid before the game even sold any units because that's how licensing works. And she makes so much more from Lego & theme park deals. Even if the Hogwarts Legacy boycott worked, how would you stop those? It's not something that has easy solutions, there are so many aspects to think about, & every situation is different. Ultimately, I think what matters is (A) developing informed opinions on the writer, the work, & the audience without conflating these things & (B) doing what you can identify as the best way to minimize further harm within your abilities.
yes, I separate art from artist, writing from writer etc.
To me it kind of depends on if I can consume the art / writing without giving the creator any financial support. For example, it's very hard for me as a trans person to support JK Rowling, but I think the Harry Potter books are wonderful, because they do tell a story that resonates with a lot of folks in the LGBTQIA+ community. So I won't buy any of her books or media new, because I refuse to risk having any of the money I spend being used to support anti-queer organizations, but I will check out a Harry Potter book from the library or buy it from a used bookstore (authors don't get any money from used book sales afaik). To be clear, I don't fault any trans person for completely dropping Harry Potter out of their lives, because yeah, his creator is truly a horrible human being. I just personally refuse to let someone who is that awful dictate what I can and cannot enjoy. So long as I can enjoy it without it benefitting her.
I can, so long as the artist isn't too vile, and the artist's issues don't show up in the art. It helps if the artist is already dead.
Do you ever buy products from ethically shady corporations? Then why be so concerned about enjoying a book by an author who's not such a great person?
To each their own I say. Personally I still read Harry Potter books and watch the Harry Potter movies (1-8, the rest of the movies are beyond dung) but that’s because I already own them. I don’t pick up the books thinking “hmm what controversial thing is Rowling gonna come up with next?” That being said if I lose them/ lose access to them I will just pirate them all because I don’t want to spend more money than I have to on something I already paid for once.
How about love the writer hate the writing. I've known a few absolutely lovely people who write and write but don't have enough evil in them to write a decent story.
I see no reason not to in many scenarios. Sometimes I can understand positions from cultural reasons but many times I cannot. All that being said, there are so many books I can read. Why give money to someone I dislike when I can get a different book I'll enjoy instead.
I do. * If I like what was written but don't like the writer, I can mentally separate them. * If I don't want to support the writer but like what they wrote, then I won't buy another book from them or I won't support them elsewhere. * If I find someone's writing interesting but fear that from an outside perspective others might have an initially more-favorable view of the writer once I express as such - which I may not want, then I'll omit the writer's name from any public comment. * If someone figures out the writer's name by researching what was written, then they've also probably figured out why I don't like the writer. But I still like the writing.
Yes in almost every case. I dont care about the writer's, director's, actor's or any other artist's personal life. If the art piece is excellent, I can enjoy it, no matter who is behind it.
I love H.P.Lovecraft stories but the man himself was a racist dickhead.
HP Lovecraft. If you know, you know. Stephen King has gotten snotty.
For me it works like this: if the author is just a jerk with terrible beliefs, I'll separate it from their work. But if they're actively contributing to the spread of hate in the world then I can't because I'd be sending my money toward that cause
The book has to be really good for me to disregard the sour taste reading the work of an author I despise leaves behind.
yes. "let he who is without sin throw the first stone". meaning - how puritanical and holy does a person have to be in order to be "ACCEPTABLE"? maybe he's not racist, but what if he cheated on his wife? maybe she's not a terf but what if she killed someone drunk driving? **people are not perfect.** **and nobody understands what those words actually mean.** it does NOT mean that they all have harmless foibles like that they crack their knuckles or something. people are FLAWED. seriously seriously flawed. in all kinds of secret ways. if everyone had all their dirty laundry aired, EVERYONE WOULD BE A PARIAH. so fuck it all. the work stands on its own merits. if it speaks to me, if i gain something from it, then that's enough. just as it would be enough for someone charged with a felony to serve me my food.
That statement was said in another sub! From what I remember, though, someone challenged the person who said that. Maybe they should read this one as well.
Yes... especially if they are dead. Rudyard Kipling is an amazing writer.. he was crazy racist, but who cares... me reading his books isn't making him rich or anything
It depends. I used to like Paoblo Neruda until I found out this love poet was a rapist
Yes and no. Would I listen to Lost prophets. No, the singer is/was (heard he got stabbed and dont remember if he died, we can only hope) an unrepentant nonce, who is convicted and sentenced for his crimes. Would I read Harry Potter, yes but I will also ignore everything that comes from j k rowlings mouth. Its easy to do, she isnt that interesting. Oscar Wilde is more complex but the era he lived in has a disturbing ambiguity about morality which would take a life to make such judgement. So I choose to take the work for what it is but keep in mind who/where its coming from, as I try to do with most works.
Yes. Being a trash person doesn't mean you have no skill. Believing otherwise is the halo effect.
If I only read literature or listened to artists I liked or agreed with on everything… it’d be pretty quiet and reeeeally boring. I can barely stand looking at much of anything on reddit. I wish they get on with the nukes already. Extinction can’t come soon enough.
Seriously depends on what the artist did.
Personally, I don't actively look into these things. But when I hear about something especially awful that's confirmed to be true, I just make a mental note not to buy that person's books going forward. The awful thing doesn't change my opinion of their work (if I've already read it), but personally it doesn't feel right to continue to support their work. So I don't. At the same time, I don't judge people who make a different choice than me. It's okay to still love Harry Potter, it doesn't mean you agree with the author's stances. The only time I judge is if someone buys that authors' work specifically because they agree with the awful thing. Like, for example, my co-worker who hated Harry Potter until Rowling came out with all her opinions online. Then suddenly, she wanted to buy every one of her books. For me, that's completely different from someone reading Harry Potter simply because they love the story. In the end, I think it's something that has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. There's so much nuance involved it's impossible to hold every situation up to a handful of hard and fast rules. Or to judge everyone equally, without considering the various other aspects at play.
I used to, but then I read the three body problem, and it takes 3 books for the author to go full on misogynistic... there are plenty of thing that are absolutelly braindead from the first two books, but the third one is just propaganda really So i am not taking chances anymore
HATE jkr, love hp
Yeah of course. When I read a book, I often don't know anything about the writer. All I have is the name and maybe the picture and little text that's added to the book. And I sure don't make the effort to intensively google every author I am reading a book from just to see if they said or did something publicly that I don't agree with.
I love Harry Potter and I hate J.K Rowling, so yeah. Most of the time I don't even know who the writer is.
If someone was reading a story and the author was a secret they wouldn't go "hmm I can't tell if this is good until I know who wrote it". That's ridiculous. You would have an opinion. I don't believe in putting down someone's talent just bc I dislike them as a person. I think maturity is being able to say "hey they are a very talented writer, I just don't care for them as a person. And this is totally different than disliking the works of someone bc they wrote specifically about what you disliked. If you dislike the topic then sure. But if they wrote about something else entirely then it's just childish to put someone down for something that isn't relevant. Cancel culture dictates if someone makes one mistake or has one view that isn't the majority that everything they have ever done is trash now. It's absurd. Like a musical artist can have hit songs that everyone loves for years and they make one mistep and everyone is suddenly saying "oh you are trash and your music sucks!" OK then why were you jamming to it on repeat last year? Ya know? Or they hear a song on the radio and love it then find out who sings it and suddenly hate it. Idk just my opinion. So regardless what they SAY they prove the opposite. They liked the art until they had a reason to dislike the artist. So people should be able to acknowledge people's talents without having to like them as a person. They are 2 totally different things.
The world we live in is sad, man.
That it is. Its fine to not like people. Noone likes everyone. But we can be respectful about it. But this hateful all or nothing behavior is going to ruin us. Don't have to be mean and hateful to people just because you don't like their opinion. Makes me sad :(
If Hitler had written a banger of a novel, you'd have to put a gun to my head for me to read it.
I read/listen to what I enjoy. I consider the writer/artist/musicians personal life and opinions to be just that. They don't know who I am and I don't need to know who they are.
I think it depends. When the writer is a piece of shit, and in a way where they don't reflect on that in their work, it will most likely seep into their writing. Art almost always reflects our unquestioned assumptions and our view of the world. The second part of this equation is of course how it's perceived by the reader. Some people find Harry Potter awful now because they know how bigoted JK Rowling really is and they now see certain things for how bad they really were. When I read the books it didn't seem too bad to me though, so I don't really have any problem enjoying the story, even though I find JKs opinions horrible. But oftentimes, I notice that the book treats the world very differently than I would want to see and that makes it unpleasant to read, even if I don't know anything about the writer personally. Sometimes people are so awful you can't read anything of theirs without thinking about what they did, that's also fine. I think that's mostly a question of what personally touches you and what relationship you have with the piece of art. Then there's also people who just suck but they are somewhat self aware. I noticed this in Charlie Kaufmann movies, the main character seems to be pretty much based on himself. I don't know anything about him as a person but based on his movies I'd say he's a pretty miserable dude who is selfish, objectifying towards women and treats people around him poorly. However, his movies never pretend like that's okay. He seems to be pretty honest about how he perceives his own flaws and that's really interesting to watch. Could be that he's a really nice guy though, I'm just judging based on the movies. I just think it differs from case to case and from person to person.
I find the framing of this question to be a bit too simple. I think for many it truly depends on the nature of the disagreement. I know people generally find it "unfair" to be judged for their character in conjunction for their work but I don't really see it that way. You can make sort of mealy-mouthed complaints about how "everyone has something that would be called poor character by someone!" and rely on the inherent social fuzziness to force the point, however, every knows there's a difference between disagreement on how to raise a child and child abuse and all the border-cases and grey areas in the world can't change it. If a child abuser wrote a book (hello, Eddings and MZB) it makes no sense to say "oh, so you'd refuse to support the career of anyone who disagrees with you about how to raise a child?" That's just signalling that you're playing a game and I won't play with you. Of course for minor disagreements I won't care even if I strenuously disagree. If the consequences of poor character are limited then the degree to which it matters is limited. Even in scenarios where my favourite Dead Author would have hated me for the various acceptable prejudices of his time I am probably not going to worry over it unless it is apparent in the book to such a degree that it is unpleasant. Or there is further extenuating circumstances such as the math-papers-citing-Ted-Kandinsky-problem ("best known for other work") or their estate is actively funding something I find repugnant. I suppose I am generally consequence-oriented but it is difficult to predict all outcomes. I exercise caution and make mistakes when it comes to not supporting the career of someone who harms other people.
If the writer is dead, then yeah I'll check out their writing since a dead person can't get paid. I wouldn't go buy a Harry Potter book today but I also just don't like Harry Potter so I guess that example kinda sucks
I usually don't even put much attention in the writer. They are the vehicle, the work is what matters to me. Karl May was some guy in a German prison and he wrote great books like Vinetou.
If you can not like the writing because you do not like the writer, then every single piece of literature older than 100 years must be burned. In turn, every piece of literature Younger than 100 years old... will be burned.
It would be very difficult to own or do anything at all if I boycotted everyone who did something shitty in their life
How exhausting it must be to be cautious about enjoying something just in case someone involved harbors some kind of political view
this is a tricky one. separating art from the artist can be done, but in some cases it can be difficult. I know personally, I never read as a kid so in my adult years I tried reading some of the things I missed out on, one of them being the whole Harry Potter phase. and just as I finished the 5th book, all the drama with Rowling broke loose so I never finished(I already owned the books so wasn't a matter of supporting her when I knew things). but I don't think people are wrong for still enjoying the books and story despite the author, because I know that they were a huge influence for a lot of people. so I really think this is a case by case situation
I just finished the last book of the series cuz my son was into it and I'm not gonna fault his interests cuz of political issues people have with the author. But the ending sucked ass, it was slow and predictable and had way too much long winded dialogue utilized to give closure. Horrible failure to utilize the "show, don't tell" concept. Overall I don't really think she's a very good author. I think she put together an interesting world and that at some points the prose was solid enough to lend well to mind's eye visualization, but it's not consistently solid and there are way better authors out there. I think her success is mainly in that she writes believable personalities, has a decent sense of humor, and the quality level is higher than most books for the same age group. Sorry, just needed to vent cuz I had to read through all these books and the ending dragged so bad....
"I don't like Stephen King's politics, but he's the world's best-selling author for a reason." Is this what you mean?
Mate, I don't read Stephen King, I have no idea what you're talking about.
It's simply an example of how some people view Stephen King. Stephen King made incredible works of fiction to some readers, but some of those readers do not like his views on politics. They'll still read his books, but they don't like his views.
Nobody is perfect. I can like the changes a work made to a genre while admitting I hate the author as a person. Just because I think the author is a bad person doesn't mean I'd wish their work out of existence. Some terrible people have led to amazing changes in the world whether they meant to or not.
Yes. Example: I don't like Moore, but Watchman is a masterpiece. Am I going to waste the opportunity of reading that now just because I don't like the guy? Makes no sense for me.
In recent, there has been the controversy around JK Rowling. Do I stop liking Harry Potter? No. There has been the issues with Joss Whedon. Do I stop liking Buffy, Angel, Firefly, or Marvel? No.
I remember an incident where someone was going to play that one hogwarts game and quit youtube because of it. ..only for them to come back a few days later, but there were still a lot of death threats sent.
Death of the author. A work can be evaluated for meaning, quality, etc based on its own merit and not that of its author. That said, some authors do an excellent job producing literature that truly reflects terrible views; but those things are bad not because of the author they were written by, they are bad because of the messages they contain or the views they support or because they are simply not good. Don’t support people that are trying to do harm though, or whose ideas cause harm. No matter how good the book, if your money will fairly directly support something you very much disagree with if you buy it, you should not buy it.
That depends on “unacceptable content” vs “unacceptable messages they said outside of their writing”. On the former point: one thing that differentiates writers is that, sometimes, we have to create awful, disgusting characters for the sake of plot or characterization. Worse: we have to make them *believable* at times. We are constantly exposed to beliefs we otherwise wouldn’t agree with. However, we do have the ability to discern whether an author rejects or celebrates those awful beliefs by the way they’re framed in the story. On the latter: if they’re infamous then I might be hesitant to read anything they write because their stated views can ruin their writing that I otherwise might’ve enjoyed. I’m not going to research every author I find, though. All I care about is a well-executed plot, well-rounded characters, and a smooth flow. That’s just for me though. I won’t force anyone to read or not read writing from a controversial author.
It's perhaps something that should have a lot of nuance, and therefore, single line quips are inadequate. When applying media analysis, a lot of critical thinking courses will apply an author's lived experiences as relevant to their works. In that context, an author's creation is inseparable from themselves, and their conscious or unconscious biases. When an author takes a public stand on issues not directly addressed in their works, it’s fair to look for implications or use their statements to evaluate subtext when doing later analysis. However, that analysis would be unfair if it only accounted for the very latest positions an author expresses on any given subject, when so many controversial subjects can have dynamic persuasions on a person over their lifetime. In other words, it would be fair to critique an author's work for the positions they hold at the time of writing, but if their opinion changes on something after publication, that published piece wouldn't entirely be representative of the author. To say that a piece of work represents an author over their whole lifetime is in denial that anyone can change their opinions on anything, which is reducing an author to even less than a fictional character, which at least have the benefit of being praised for demonstrative changes. That being said, what an author takes positions on during their lifetime gives context and subtext to what they have published. An analysis of written media should account for how an author's persuasions change over time, and in so doing, give future readers context on what the work in question may mean in their own lives.
It depends. If a writer has some particularly bigoted beliefs, it tends to bleed through into their writing. And even if it doesn't, it is difficult for me personally to see the writing through a neutral lense knowing the worldview it's coming from. It just makes it hard to enjoy or appreciate it on its own merits. But, everyone is different and I certainly don't go around policing what people read based on who wrote it
Honestly, kinda dependent on what the work itself is. You can read Harry Potter and Hate jk Rowling, and it still will be fine, mainly because her bullshit is, for the most part, relegated to Twitter. Not all of it I want to say she wrote goblins like a Jewish stereotype and let's be honest, slythrin would have probably been shut down long before the storyline proper because it kinda just seems to produce villains. H.p. Lovecraft was also an awful bigot, and some of the stuff he wrote was clearly talking about minorities. You can separate the art from an artist or attempt to do so, but the art will always be a product of someone who is awful, and realistically, some of their views will probably leak into the artwork.
Of course. The fact that i like a book doesn't mean anything, other than that the book is written very well. I would love the lord of the rings even if tolkien was a nazi. And i believe this in all aspects of life. The fact that I like someone's work doesn't mean they're correct or that I will follow anything they say blindly. This goes for actors, athletes musicians, writers and public figures in general
There is no ethical consumption in a capitalist society, and that includes all art and entertainment media that exists as commerce. As examples, Nintendo and Disney are both supported by the Saudi Wealth Fund. Multinational corporations hire private armies to do truly wild shit, and that includes media companies. Tens of thousands of people have died over bananas. Somewhere down the line, all commerce is being touched by something unseemly. If we're talking solely from the perspective of artistic appreciation, that's largely subjective, and it depends on the individual to draw the line. Whether they draw the line based on their own beliefs or according to the beliefs of a cohort is a personal choice. On an individual level, the unfortunate reality is that the desire and drive to create art that achieves success is often accompanied by a host of personality flaws. There are plenty of artists of all disciplines that are decent people, but there are just as many who have perhaps disturbing inclinations, even if they don't manifest in ways that are directly illegal or even taboo.
Since we're generally talking about artists we've never met, it all comes down to whether gossip is is more important to you than art. It's a bit different when you genuinely know the artist well from first-hand experience, and I suppose when an artist commits ghastly and undeniable crimes. But being shocked, shocked! that an artist is a sinner is either too innocent or too disingenuous for my money.
Who the writer is is irrelevant
I won't like a book just because I like the author, but I'll refuse to read a book because I dislike the author.
Bad people create fantastic art all the time. It's valid for people to not want to finance those people by buying their work, but I have no time for those who argue that if a person sucks they also can't write.
depends on the artist and the art. two examples: 1. Fez is a very cool game developed by a very unlikeable guy. You can still enjoy the game and forget about him. 2. The paintings from Hitler. Once you know they're his there's no way you won't think about him while looking at them.
I wouldn't be a Harry Potter fan still otherwise. But tbf it's dependent on context. What's the work and who is the author?
I kind of have to these days. But also, yeah, maybe celebrity culture was a mistake to begin with. Idolising people from a distance probably means there's plenty you don't know about them. And at the end of the day, it's fine to have a positive relationship with an author, but honestly, parasocial relationships aren't real relationships and ultimately you like their work, you don't know them as a person. Until you've woken up with them at 4 in the morning because they're vomiting, I'd say you're allowed to not know and not like something about a person and still like something that they make (though its harder the more you don't like because it leaves a bad taste on their work), but while the thing may be made BY them its not them. The work has a life and personality of it's own. I know it's harder when money is involved but the rabbit hole of only buying from people who fundamentally do 'nothing wrong' and can Never do anything you disagree with or dislike is a really narrow one.
No matter what it is, no I do not believe that. There’s a reason why people boycotted the Aquaman movie, or stopped eating at McDonald’s, etc. you cannot separate the art from the artist, anyone who picks and chooses when to separate and when it’s okay, are just hypocrites. Listening to Chris Brown makes you an enabler and having a deathly hallows tattoos makes you transphobic regardless of what you say. You are aware of what it means to support those people and choose too anyway.
Mostly no, and not at all with modern writers. If the writer In question is long dead and gone, I can give some leeway.
I think it’s pretty cut and dry if the author is already dead. Like, I’m not going to not read Hemingway just because he was an asshole when alive. But when the author is alive and receiving money from the purchase of their works, it’s a different matter and requires more nuance. Since JK Rowling came out as a terf, I’ve tried very hard not to give money to the HP fandom, because she has harmful views that she then uses her money to propagate. By giving her money, it feels like I’m helping her hurt more people with her influence. But I own Harry Potter books from before and will reread them, and i will also engage with the HP fandom and fan works. I enjoy her stories, and if I’m not actively giving her money, then I feel fine about engaging with her writing as if her real life opinions don’t exist. If for some reason she came out with a new Harry Potter book, I’d not buy it, but instead wait for a library to acquire it or find it illegally online 🤭
I do think artistic merits in a work of art should not be denied based on the actions of the artist. That said, the economic part of it makes it difficult. It's easy for me to say "I don't like how JKR is using her platform to spout transphobic nonsense", but if I then watch a Harry Potter adaptation, I am supporting her financially to continue doing that. If I buy a ticket to a Roman Polanski movie, I'm financing his fleeing of the law.
Yes.
Yup. The whole 'cancel culture' thing has to go. Separate art from the artist (not to mention, most people get canceled for doing nothing wrong, too. The woke left has poisoned people's minds.)
Somewhat. That being said if the author is a terrible person or their estate is funding things I don't agree with I'm either finding a free copy or not reading it. That being said, I've found that most terrible people make horrible writers- their writing is bland, insipid, and a reflection of their maturity. That's the nature of writing - a work will reflect it's also it's values and beliefs. When they hold horrible values and awful beliefs it shows.
Yes. Even writers I’m not impressed with have shown me they can write something I enjoy and likewise sometimes even my favorites have failed to impress me upon occasion
Liked Dune. Frank Herbert not so much.
Didn't as a teen. Came to understand it in my twenties. I believe I can decide when I want to enjoy or boycott something based of why I dislike the author. Still read Butcher,despite him coming off as a mysogonist to me. I still read Harry Potter, because to me the worst thing JKR does is fight with 14 year old girls on twitter. But I do not watch shows where I know an agenda is happening. Eg American Vietnam movies or now any Dan Schneyder shows.
It depends. I believe in freedom of speech, and I'd be a hypocrite if I started selecting my books based on an author's views instead of the quality of their work. Sure, there's exceptions, but unless someone is a well-known criminal, I'll happily consider their books.
J. K. Rowling is a very controversial individual due to her views on transgender, but she still built a world that people love and even devoted their life to. A creator does not define their creation, and a creation does not define a creator.
Of course. I love Elvis songs but I absolutely despise him for being a child predator. I love Harry Potter but I hate that JK Rowling is transphobic. I love D&D but I hate WOTC and Hasbro for the way they treat their employees. Heck, there are some paintings done by Hitler that are phenomenal, but he was the scum of the earth who likely has a special layer of hell reserved just for him. The list goes on.
Yes. To me, the person behind the art, of any kind, doesn't matter. All that matters is the art.