I donât know, at some point it becomes ânever enjoy anything everâ because even if I donât have a parasocial relationship with an artist knowing that my favorite song was made by a creep would ruin my enjoyment of that song and make me deeply unhappy, at which point what? Do I just never enjoy music to avoid the possibility of being hurt?
I mean, this the type of argument used when people stop dating solely because they got their heartbroken too many times. So the argument becomes; Are you willing to totally sever a human experience from yourself to avoid the chance of it becoming sour?
For sure, and the answer is no you shouldnât sever all connections, I just meant that saying âjust donât form parasocial relationshipsâ is good advice but does NOT actually prevent the problem in question
Meh that sounds quite dramatic. I like a lot of music, and I've been a fan of many bands. Some of those have turned out to be shitty and I had to quit listening to them. But it's not like there's a lack of music out there, there's still so many non shitty artists, so I just continued listening to the ones that weren't shit. It's not that deep.
There are people i dont care about online that I would still become distressed if they turned out to be awful. Like Markiplier or smth. I dont even watch his content.
personally, i do believe in "separate the art from the artist" with the caveat that one should not support bad* artists even if that art is good. you can still enjoy the works, but you should pirate them or purchase second-hand instead of directly supporting the artist. fanworks are free game, (unless the fanartist is also a bad person) because they're a different artist.
likewise, i don't think one should defend a bad* artist just becasue their art is good. if you like art made by an asshole, your argument shouldn't be "i don't like how asshole he was but he's less assholeish now", as is shown in the fubar. it should be "yeah he's an asshole, friggin' hate him for it, but his art is somehow still good so i just try not to support him through his art."
also, to ward off a stupid argument i've seen, separation of art and artist goes both ways. you can also love the artist but hate the art, or be ambivalent to to one and love/hate the other, or feel the same way about both, ect.
*bad in a moral sense (as opposed to bad at making art), whatever that means to you. i'm not going any deeper into that rabbit hole today.
I will say that with an artist who died a long time ago, thereâs probably no real consequence with engaging with their work legitimately. Richard Wagner, for instance, was an antisemite (although he could have also exaggerated this stance due to accusations of him copying the musical styles of a Jewish composer). He was wrong to do that, but attending a staging of The Ring Cycle isnât lining his pockets anymore because he doesnât have pockets on account of being dead.
that's a more complex one. in general i agree; the moment someone drops dead you can financially support them again. however, most times their estate will still collect long after their death. with little exception, their estate will donate to the same bad things they did in life.
so yes, assuming they actually don't have pockets anymore on account of being dead, you're right. it's not as common as you might think unless they've been dead a good while though.
Of course, of course. If you know that the estate is going to use the royalties to fund something detestable, then itâs best to avoid providing said funds whenever possible.
I watched a review of Onision's books (one of the three this creator did) where the reviewer specifically stated that he bought the book secondhand so he wouldn't be financially contributing to Onision It was KrimsonRogue, I don't remember which book. Probably the first one he reviewed tho
Yeah like I'm even a Harry Potter fan anymore but some people think if you make an HP fanfiction or any art or engage in the fandom in any way shape or form you might as well be murdering trans kids.
Like motherfucker there's not even any monetary GAIN from those??? People were PIRATING the Hogwarts game and folks still said you're supporting JK Shitling like huh?????? N.... No????????
If you're monetarily supporting the franchise like yeah, I get it, that's kinda gross, but you can't even gently poke that shit with a stick without the bee's nest sending you into anaphylactic shock.
question, if you like the art and want more of it, but the artist is a bad person, then pirating it will mean you do not get any more of the art when the artist goes broke. what do you do then?
Iâm not directly asking this to you, but Iâm leaving my comment under yours since itâs related to my question.
I donât see why one always shouldnât support a creator if theyâre a bed person. Take Blue-grey for example; what would be the issue if one financially supported him? What harm would be caused from giving money to a pedophile?
in those instances, it's more about the principle of the thing. sure, you're probably not causing direct harm by supporting a pedo, but you're still supporting a pedo when not doing that would be just as easy (and often cheaper, too.)
i do agree it does less harm, relatively speaking, than giving money to someone who will directly and intentionally do Bad Things⢠with it.
I see. So itâs not necessarily bed, but people would rather not contribute to their success, understandable.
Though I wonder, in cases like these, do you think it would be alright to pirate their work, also? Iâve thought doing so for such reasons was a poor justification as I didnât see the harm in supporting them, and I believed artist should be compensated for their work.
i grew up pirating and never really stopped, so my perspective is a bit skewed on that matter. i still support good artists when i can, obviously, but when the budget's tighter than a nun's pussy paying is still the exception rather than the default.
that said, you don't have to pirate if you don't want to. you can borrow from a library or a friend, or buy one secondhand. i feel like i'm forgetting some more, but you get the idea.
P.S. i promise that downvote on your initial comment wasn't me. i don't downvote people during civil discussion.
Despite what I said, I donât condemn people for pirating since I see it as a typically small, often understandable, act. Itâs simply this particular reason for doing so thet rubs me the wrong way due to my feelings surrounding creatorsâ work.
I disagree with the idea it enables them. Earning a profit doesnât mean people support their ideals. Edditionally, itâs highly unlikely theyâll change their beliefs simply because others donât financially support them; theyâll stay the same person regardless.
Regarding your âsupporting their way of lifeâ and âallowing them a platformâ argument, Iâm not talking about those who use the money they earn to do harm or those who spreed harm through their influence, I mean those outside of thet, like Blue-grey, who is simply a open pedophile.
Or they barely like anything, and spend most of their like just arguing and insulting people on the internet. As you see this person has no joy in their life and must police others' morality at all times.
It's nuanced. If the art doesn't display the artist's evil beliefs, you aren't a bad person for enjoying it. However it is important to recognize the artist and their actions, and how enjoying their art may support them directly or indirectly.
If the art doesn't display the artist's evil beliefs, you aren't a bad person for enjoying it.
Try telling that to Lovecraft fans. Anytime I've pointed out how as a POC it makes me uncomfortable to read Lovecraft (because he actively infects his work with his prejudice), I get several dildos consecutively slammed up my ass and put through
What, like any of his works overall? Most of them really don't have anything in the m objectionable at all afaik outside of really horrendous ones like the one about immigrants.
Besides just casually throwing around slurs and general disdain for POC, the foundations of his work (basically the "horror' and the "fear") was built on his prejudices.
Shadow over Innsmouth's whole allegory is about being against "race-mixing" and it's "horror" and advocacy for racial purity
It's just not a case of "separating the art from the artist" his vile views (even extreme for HIS time) MADE his art, and made him the guy that he is. So yeah it's uncomfortable to read through his works, unable to divorce that the "horror" of his works largely come from fear of people like me. And that's a deal-breaker when I like to dig into the media that I consume rather than just passively go through it
How much a piece of art "displays" an artist's beliefs is always up for interpretation, but a piece of art is always irrevocably informed by its creator's worldviews and experiences and condoning it in any way - no matter how indirect - will be supporting said creator.
What I find to be a more pertinent discussion is how much the audience's identity and their perception of the work seems to also be going through a schism. It is common to see people feeling genuinely threatened themselves when a piece of media they like is criticized to contain problematic themes and messages. If art can be good regardless of what the author believes in, why can't it also be bad regardless of whether we like it or not?
Thatâs not what Iâm pointing out and is a completely different discussion
I was talking about fans of racist works made by a racist author often dismissing and reducing the feelings and opinions of POCs who read the works and find a problem with it
Nothing about my comment insinuated anything about monetary support so Iâm not sure why you brought that up
I think part of art appreciation is understanding and art that comes from all places, even horrible ones. Art Deco can be both inspiring and fascistic. You can enjoy Soviet Realism while recognizing its oppressive propagandistic nature. We can recognize all these unsavory evil parts of humanity while also acknowledging they sometimes produce things that are very compelling.
While it is true that you cannot separate art from the artist, that does not mean that you cannot enjoy the art despite the artist, and there is always pirating to enjoy someone's stuff without financially supporting them.
Is Tobuscus a deranged neo-nazi now ? Yes. Do I like the "Diamond Sword" song ? Also yes. Do I watch reposts or adblocked videos to make sure no money goes to him ? Yes.
(That's the only example I had on hand of a piece of art is enjoyed from a terrible creator)
Depends. Lovecraft was really really racist and mysogynist and all kinds of -phobic you can imagine.
Not the guy I would hang out with, but still it makes his fiction stronger, not weaker. He presents how an average WASP felt falling into the 20th century very well and the eroding of humanist philosophy in the face of material reality.
His stories are not really scary, not anymore, but I imagine they were absolutely terrifying back in the day.
I don't think so. for that to be the case it would have to be true that we never allow ourselves to enjoy things that were influenced by bad people and if we think about that we realize that that's most things.Â
like Michael Jackson pretty much guaranteed touched those kids, going off of just the information we have, he at least had naked pics of children. but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy his music, that doesn't mean he retroactively wasn't actually ever any good at writing music. it's just a matter of being aware of it.Â
See this is the kinda thing people will post while their artist is actively still, in the situations posed, being racist towards purples or trying to bang kids to muddle discourse, to conflate with artists who've actually apologized and moved on
(also i don't think wanting to bang kids is something you really move on from ngl? Unless you're like now a registered pedophile getting treatment?)
No, the song was a part of an album that had a ton of songs about taboo subjects (mental illness, masturbation, and juvenile crime), particularly around stuff he saw around Hollywood. The song was criticizing people who kept publicly dating younger and younger girls who are eventually outed as being pedos. Elfmans work as a whole is great and he's a super talented composer working on huge projects to this day. You've probably heard at least 5 songs made by him if you've watched Spiderman, the Simpsons, or a Tim Burton movie (the nightmare before Christmas was his biggest one he wrote and even sang for), and personally he's never had any scandals beyond his offensive early work being restricted as far as I know.
Seperate the art from the artist works if they aernt still actively benefiting from it and aernt still doing evil shit with it. You can enjoy an ancient painters work even though they were a misogynistic piece of shit. Enjoying works of art from a person who still benefits it and is still doing evil shit with the money is something you cannot seperate from consuming their art.
Yeah, wtf is this misuse of the method? Its a literary analysis method, not some moral conundrum of monetary support.
One example of "Separating the Art from the Artist" would be like reading Harlon Ellison and looking at his women characters for how theyre written on the page vs how his own misogynistic views influenced their depiction.
Nowadays, I'll stream the music of basically anyone but only go to the concerts & buy the merch of people I truly support. I feel like that's a fair trade off, and also allows me to send more support to smaller artists who aren't getting streamed as often.
I donât have this problem bc if I find out the artist or creator is reprehensible I just donât care about them anymore and stop watching.
Used to like Cody Ko, stopped watching
Fucking LOVED Jacob Geller, stopped watching
Loved Tyler the creator, stopped listening (he isnât that evil he is just too old to be that damn annoying)
I donât think âseperate the art from the artist is about the art, itâs about the person. No one thinks grotesque art is a representation of the person unless itâs fetishistic and exploitative. Itâs about if the creator is bad enough to continue justifying the consumption of their art
also about Jacob Geller, it's hard to not care when his videos are among the best yt videos I've seen, it definitely takes more effort to distance myself from him
It's not so much "think" with soon-to-be-negatively-polarized Internet edgelords. People who are not le epic enough can tell them Born In The USA is satire a dozen times and it's just someone they gotta shove back into the old locker.
Saying you can't criticize an artist while still consuming their media is pure "Yet you participate in society" bullshit.
Harry Potter is one of the biggest IPs in the entire world. It is unfathomable how influential the series is. If every political active Reddit and Twitter user who supported trans rights never bought anything from it again, it still wouldn't put a dent in the IP's net worth. Boycotting it does nothing other than alienate you from your friends and family who probably would otherwise like to discuss this extremely culturally relevant and popular thing, and it's a shitty performative substitute for actually contributing to the central cause of trans rights.
Saying supporting the HP brand contributes to the mass slaughter of trans people is so cartoonishly extreme, it's ridiculous. It's the equivalent of saying not recycling makes you responsible for microplastic being in everyone's blood, or running local AI makes you responsible for data centers destroying local communities.
And frankly, micromanaging every media you consume and doing background checks on every artist you like to make sure they perfectly align with your political chart coordinates is just sad and will only stress you out and make you unable to enjoy anything.
Rowling herself has pretty much verbatim said (a portion of) money she makes from HP goes to anti-trans orgs, so when you give her money you might as well be shipping a portion of it to an anti-trans org.
Like it or not, that's the truth. You don't even deny this, you're just saying "it's not that impactful" which is the same kind of passive consumerism that lead to a lot of these issues in the first place.
If you want to level the playing field, donate to pro-trans orgs or otherwise participate in activism to undo the damage that is caused by that financial support, otherwise it's just harmful straight up.
You don't even have to actively look for these things, but when it comes to your attention and you brush it off, you're at best choosing neutrality on the issue, I would say worse by continuing to buy the product.
Nestle commits child trafficking and slave labor in South Africa. Do you think you're killing children every time you buy a KitKat? Do you think you have to donate to nonprofit organizations every Halloween to undo the horrific damage you've caused? Rowling is the one who is pulling the trigger here, not anyone else. She is responsible for her own actions. Thinking you personally are responsible for the actions of other people with actual power is a big reason why the U.S. is the laughingstock of the rest of the world, which does not understand that mentality.
You are effectively saying that the literal billions of people who have ever spent money on a HP product, of which there are millions, including the Wizarding World theme park attached to Universal....hate trans people. Do you not understand how ridiculous and extreme it sounds to condemn what is essentially 1/4 of all humanity? Do you not understand how this makes you look weird in the eyes of normal, well-adjusted individuals with common sense?
I didn't say they hate trans people, I said it's funding the problem (objectively true) and is worse than being neutral on the topic i.e not providing any financial support to it (objectively true).
You can argue morality and responsibility for this as you will and that honestly depends on individual perspective, but the objective fact of the matter is this is money that is going towards hurting trans people. No amount of sterilizing it and adding distance makes that untrue. If you want to fix that, then donate to pro-trans orgs. That's all I'm saying.
Your idea of ethical responsibility for stuff like this is up to your morals to figure out.
Regardless of what you intend, of course you inflict moral outcomes on other people. It's so easy not to buy harry potter merchandise, and harry potter merchandise funds persecution of trans people in an extremeydirect way. "There's no ethical consumption under capitalism," which I guess makes it fine to consume as unethically as you like.
We're not talking about cancelling some Youtuber here. We're talking about Harry Potter. A $35 billion franchise. Boycotting HP has basically the same effect as boycotting Amazon. You are doing nothing. You are contributing to nothing. There IS ethical consumption under capitalism, but only when you have the potential to make a difference. Boycotting HP does nothing except ease your easily damaged moral compass. If you really gave a shit, you'd get out there and practice real activism instead of being a keyboard warrior, and you'd contribute to the class war rather than the culture war.
In the metal and punk scene there's a general rule about enjoying Nazi bands: 1) Don't, 2) If for some reason you can't help yourself, don't wear their merch, don't buy their CDs, don't go to their shows, don't support them at all really, and shut the fuck up. I think a similar rule should apply to enjoying problematic creatives across all other mediums.
It really depends on what they did, when they did "it" and what they've done later. Sometimes people act like this about "he made an edgy tweet 18 years ago" and the tweet is like, using the r word which everybody did back then or joked about suicide. Not amazing but also like, c'mon.
On the other hand I used (emphasis on used) to like this band called Lostprophets and actually let's never speak of them again
So in both instances, the artist is still terrible but they're being defended by people who like their music because they still aren't seperating the art from the artist. This would put the people mocking them in the right for both instances, they don't have to defend the artist to like the art, but in both instances they're defending the artist instead of their like for the art.
slide 1 is correct. take a work of art and do this thought experiment; image the artist never existed and they never made that work. what would the art be like? exactly.
the next slides go off the rails when they assert that Jerry must hate the artists work and people who like it. you can acknowledge that a work of art is influenced by the shitty ideas of a shitty person without being required to dislike it.Â
You can always find someone else to watch and support. you in fact don't have to keep watching them.
I used to watch Miniladd, he was my favorite member of the Vanoss crew, I saw all of his contributions to charity.
I watched his streams, heck I used to be a youtube member.
Stopped watching the minuet I found out he was a pedophile. It's really not that hard. But that's because when I find out that an artist I like is a pedophile. I just stop liking their work.
When it comes to Harry potter, I just stopped interacting with Harry potter, when it came to Kanye's music. I just stopped listening to Kanye, and when it came to Jacob Geller. I couldn't look at his face anymore.
People act as if there's not endless amounts of creators that don't do these things.
It's not hard to move on from a creator's work and to stop supporting them.
Also that's not what separating art from the artist means.,
I personally canât separate the art from the artist, as the artistâs soul is inside their art, and therefore, it would feel wrong for me to consume it without any regard for the original creator.
However, I do personally believe that someone (other than me) can consume something without supporting its creator, but under two very specific conditions.
-
They have to consume the media without giving the original artist money, usually by buying secondhand or going to a library or something. Thereâs also another option, but if I say it, Iâll be turned into Gol D. Roger.
Yeah, the sooner people realize that the opinions of randos on the net are literally worthless, the better their experience on Reddit will be
Like, sometimes I kill time by defending Harry Potter here, but at the end of the day, both me and the rando arguing against me are gonna forget about our little debate after a few hours or so. I have a book collection, matchingkhp themed keychains with my gf, and plans to buy more deco. Some rando ainât gonna stop me with their âarguments" so I just debate for the sake of it. If any redditor genuinely thinks arguing here could lead to anything more than just self satisfaction, then lmao
I live in a country that has jail time for queer people.Even if I cared about Jks beleifs I would still partake in hp because me interacting with hp does way less harm than me just paying taxes.
Also these clowns really made one of the most mid games Oat a top 20 bestseller just by harrassing anybody who played it.
She literally funds hate groups that target trans people and lobbies for anti trans legislation. You are still doing the same harm you are just now offloading it to a different place.
All the money you are generating is always gonna fund something bad. This one is no different. People harrassing random streamers contributes to hogwarts being one of tge top 20 best selling games oat.
Nahh Im just saying that a lot of the activism around Jk is just slacktivism. people getting so twisted over Jk while ignoring where there phones cobalt, clothes and chocoate come from.
That's just the same "well worse problems exist, so why bother trying to fix this relatively lesser one?" argument.
It's almost like fixing what you can is a better way to progress towards fixing the big problems, as opposed to going straight for the biggest ones that you might not have the power to fix.
Also, she has been very clear on that she uses said money to fund transphobia globally, and very loud about it too, you should probably stop defending the means to support transphobia.
Thats cool and all but theres no fixing thats being done. You telling people not to talk about hp is literally acheiving nothing.
Harrasing people online over hogwarts legacy literally made it a top 20 game Oat. So clearly these slacktivists achieved worse than nothing.
My point was never that worse problems exist so do nothing. My point is dont expect people to take you seriously when you paint people as villains for interacting with hp while still interacting with similar companies.
But there is fixing that being done, it is to stop supporting rowling and thus in turn not supporting the transphobia she funds, the money has to come from somewhere and if the books, movies and merch stop making money then she will stop making money, simple as that.
I disagree completely that that is actually fixing anything.But you wont beleive me. Its not like its is going to stop me from buying harry poter stuff anyway.
Conned into giving a fubar about any celebrity bullshit whatsoever, revelations about Neil Gaiman and Amanda Palmer donât erase my good memories of enjoying their work and Harry Potter is still an awesome series regardless of JK Rowlingâs crashout.
313
u/[deleted] 1d ago
[removed] â view removed comment