this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
139 points (94.3% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26753 readers
1495 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Continue buying products direclty supports the company, that doesn't necessarily apply to art. Me simple enjoying a piece of art doesn't support the creator. Only when I buy or licence it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The popularity of art can both increase it's value and promote the creator, making their other works more valuable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Potentially, sure. But that also doesn't apply if you're enjoying it in private.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Privately inside your own head or from a book you already owned that you then proceed to never discuss, sure. But views, downloads (even pirated), word of mouth, all help promote the work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

What about when the artistis is dead and can no longer profit of his work by any means? Does that make the art "ok" again?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

We work really hard to deprive ourselves of our own culture. From 90 year copyrights, to allowing all this geolocking multiple streaming services, to digital text, and to self-censorship.

Is anyone going to claim that they are a better person because they never read Harry Potter? No, I don't support her bigotry I just don't know what we gain out of having less culture.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I totally agree. Ignoring the positive contributions from bad people just makes for an overall worse world.

My best practice is basically to try to ignore as much "celebrity news" as possible. Last I heard was that was "too woke" for making dumbledore gay, even there was nothing about it in the books. No idea what she did now to be a biggot ... and I don't really care.

They were great books and decent movies and her actions outside the fictional world won't change that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I think for a great many artists being remembered after their death is a significant part of making art. So if the artist like tried real real hard to remain in obscurity but was nevertheless discovered (a reverse-Van-Gogh if you will) then maybe.

Unrelated by I also think the artist, what they experienced, how and why they made it, are all implicitly part of the work.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but overlooking moral misgivings is the similarity. Just like I wouldn't tell someone 'hey, I love this sale at Hobby Lobby!' I wouldn't feel right about endorsing a star or director or artist or musician who was found to be a terrible person. The same applies to enjoying it in private - my knowledge about the creator would somewhat ruin my enjoyment of their work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I wouldn’t feel right about endorsing a star or director or artist or musician who was found to be a terrible person.

I don't think enjoying or even endorising a piece of art is equivalent to endorsing the people that produced it.

For example I will always enjoy Firefly and will keep recommending it to people, simple because it's an amazing show. What ever Joss Whedon has done doesn't change that. Hell, I wouldn't care if it was directed by Hitler and produced by Jeffery Dahmer.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That seems to be the topic here... some people do feel uncomfortable about works having a connection to a terrible person, others don't. Personally I do think about the creator of artistic works when consuming them or as a fan, and I don't really want to be thinking "huh, I wonder what Hitler and Dahmer were thinking when they made that decision". On the other hand, some people love thinking about awful people like serial killers.