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

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

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

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

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

No. Not as long as the artist gets benefits.

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

I can’t, that’s why I don’t look too closely. But if their shit is being aired publicly and they are decently popular then I will hear about it.

I wish I could listen to r Kelly again, but my feelings don’t let me.

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

Why would you, though? I’ve always been baffled by this idea. Art is a method of conveying something, and in that sense, I don’t see any reason not to see that similarly to the artist just describing it, sans what’s intransferable and, possibly, some beauty. If someone speaks of yearning for the world peace, it’s important context whenever they are warmonger of pacifist. Attempting to interpret any art without including the artist in it is, in my opinion, the same as if you conveniently covered parts of the artwork you didn’t like. And that’s just about the interpretation, I can’t imagine myself actually trying to enjoy any Tarantino movies knowing he’s a zionist. Or, for that matter, enjoying reading Rowling. I can attempt interpreting their works via the lens of them being pieces of shit, and that can be interesting, but that’s exact opposite of separating the artist from the art. I can’t see myself enjoying anything made by someone who’s clearly evil, and all of that is excluding the obvious argument of supporting them by paying for or recommending their art to others, just assuming you pirated the thing.

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

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

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

There is room for both.

We can. Thankfully though, art is plentiful and we don’t have to.

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

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

yes

the entire argument that art is corrupted by the action of the artist is dependent on the idea of guilt by association.

A lot of us don’t believe in guilt by association. I am not responsible for the actions or views of other people, nor do I endorse them by my interaction with them or their works.

My dad was racist af. I knew him for 27 years and cared for him for ten of those years. Am I a therefore a racist? No. Only insane people would make that argument. And yes, there is a lot of collective insanity going on in the world. In the 2000s if you asked this question most people would laugh at it, but social media has warped people into believing that if you ever read Harry Potter you are a transphobe by the ‘associative transphobe property’ or something equally absurd, or if you watch the new upcoming HBO Harry Potter, you are going to become a transphobe. It’s a completely stupid POV and not any different than thinking that if you watch a movie by a Muslim director you are now Muslim. The background assumption also lurking int his guilt, is that there is a state of ‘purity’. If I denounce and never consume another HP product… I am somehow ‘purging’ myself of any possible transphobia!

It’s not any different with crime. If my dad killed someone, I am not in anyway responsible for that action. Yet, people are stupid and will start assuming that I am also a murderer or be more likely to murder someone. They will then make up arguments to justify this suspicion, it’s genetic, or I ‘should have known’ and stopped it and I am therefore responsible… blah blah. It’s especially toxic when you combine these things with the arrogance of hindsight and the exaggerated interpretations of events and words… like we were magically supposed to know in 1997 what JK Rowlings personal views were based on some random passage of her first book or something.

It’s tribal ape-brain nonsense that falls apart when you remotely begin to approach the idea with any skepticism or scrutiny.

It’s also equally as stupid as thinking if I read Mein Kampf or do primary source research for a paper on Nazi Germany… I’m a Nazi or I will somehow be ‘tainted’ by Nazi ideals. Essentailly it’s rooted in a fear response, fear of becoming the ‘bad thing’ or fear that others will think you are ‘bad’ if you enjoy the ‘bad person’s work’. It’s also even stupider when you realize a lot of these associations are completely false. For example Nietzche is considered a ‘Nazi’ by a lot of people, despite the objective historical record showing us he was not, but because his sister was and she edited his works after his death to curry favor with the regime. I had professors in college who woudln’t teach him because they were afraid of being labeled a Nazi because of this ‘his associations with Nazism’. Fast forward 20+ years and nobody ever talks about him in association with Nazism because that myth has been largely busted.

But again, it’s all about people’s emotional reactions and moral panic and their inability to understand that people’s actions and beliefs are entirely their own and your enjoyment of anything or consumption of it is not an endorsement. I can watch Pulp Fiction and not want to do drugs or rape gimps… but very dumb people think that I can’t do this and if I watch Pulp Fiction I must want to rape gimps or something. Or probably go as stupidly far to assume that I somehow will inherit Tarantino’s foot fetish if I like his movies…

People who think like this are the equivalent of those who think Haitian immigrants were eating cats and dogs because Trump said so and he never lies! It’s a baseless accusation that is entirely rooted in fear and ignorance and a need to perpetuate that fear and ignorance to solidify the in-group identity. It’s a form of witch-hunting, people desperate to show they aren’t the witch by casting blame on others who the witches in an effort to distance themselves from accusation.

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

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

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

Yes and it’s easy

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

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

Yes.

Liking this painting does not make you a Nazi.