You can, when you pirate their stuff so they don't get money.

in my opinion, no. an artist's worldview informs their art, so things like racism/misogyny/ableism etc etc seep into the works they create. consuming media like that uncritically can be harmful by reinforcing biases, conscious or unconscious.

there's also the more direct harm that can be done by financially supporting certain artists. jk rowling, for example, is funnelling any wealth she gets from the harry potter franchise into funding anti-trans organisations.

in my experience, people who want to separate art from the artist just want to continue uncritically consuming everything, without feeling guilt over the harm they could be doing by "voting with their dollar".

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.

If the artist is constantly in the news reminding me what a POS they are IRL, then no, I can't enjoy their works because that's always in my mind. Otherwise, if they just fuck off into obscurity, then I can enjoy the works independently for what they are.

I struggle with it and am hypocritical about that.

Roman Polanski was convicted of a terrible crime, but I appreciate his work.

Weinstein’s production company made many of my favorite movies.

Kevin Spacey played some of my favorite characters.

EDIT:

And then there is Bill Cosby and OJ Simpson. I love the Naked Gun Movies and both are pure gold on screen.

Bill Cosby’s Chicken Heart routine is so fucking funny it was making me laugh my ass off until the mid 2010s.. Now I when I ever I see the album it just makes me sad….

Hermione is a total transition goal, so sure!

I also wrote a HP fanfic where a trans squib connives her way into Hogwarts :p

The art itself has its own problems, eg slavery, protectors of the status quo, but the excellent sense of place/wonder will always be part of my childhood nostalgia :3

As long as you're not supporting the artist financially, eg by pirating any media associated with it, I say enjoy what you like and condemn the artist as a separate person 🤷‍♀️

Depends on how dead they are for me, honestly

If the artist in question is actively campaigning and spending their wealth to support the things I oppose that's not great, but if they're dead then it's a lot easier to justify, since they're not capable of hurting people, unless whoever owns the rights holds the same opinions

There's also willful ignorance where if you like an artist's work in a genre known for having problematic artists you simply choose to not look into them, so you don't have to deal with the moral implications, which I admittedly am somewhat guilty of for music

Yes, but only in this specific case;

• the artist is dead
• the people profiting from their works don't have the same beliefs
• the content itself is innocent without the knowledge of the history of the artist
• any continued profits do not go towards funding advocacy groups for their shite beliefs

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.

It depends. JKR or Kayne West? Absolutely fucking not. They are such incredibly shitty people, that you can not separate them. I would not even consume there stuff if its pirated. However, I have plenty of pirated music where the artists are complete shitheads, but I still like their stuff. I Would not give them any money for it or would show it to other people, but if its only for myself and pirated its fine.

However if someone still wants to listen to as example Kayne, please just pirate it. He actively uses his money to do malicious things.

Yes.

Liking this painting does not make you a Nazi.

The best answer I can think of is it depends, and it's always on a case-by-case person-by-person basis.

It's like finding out that a famous painter whose art you really like did a murder suicide.

In some cases, that could actually add to the allure, even though it's horrible.

But in the case of a musician that used their musical career to coax underage girls into performing sex acts for them, like the singers of the Lost Prophets, it's a lot harder to separate the art from the artist.

I don't really think so... Especially in an era of AI-generated slop that's devoid of the human touch, it's more important than ever to recognize the people who make things.

With that said, I do think that we should be able to accept flaws and imperfections in human creators. I think people should understand the fact that you can like someone's creations without endorsing every aspect of them as a person.

For example, the number of zoomers who I've met that claim that "the Beatles suck" because they have a problem with John Lennon's personal flaws is pretty wild to me. It's cool if people dislike the Beatles, whatever! Did John always practice what he preached? Probably not... But, like, even knowing that he was a bad father to his first son and a bad husband to his first wife, that doesn't really change the fact that his band was objectively one of the most influential musical acts of the 20th century. You don't have to like the guy, the band, or even the songs, but to ignore their once-in-a-generation skill and cultural importance feels like willful ignorance to me.

Like many people, I love Jamaican music: reggae, dub, ska, dancehall, etc. At the same time, I'm not a rasta, nor do I totally agree to some of the religious and political ideologies that rastas have typically believed in (judeo-christianity, African zionism, ethnostatism, the ideas of Preston Garvey, the cult of personality around Haile Selassie, etc.). I choose to look at Jamaica, Rastafari, and the endless library of amazing music that they in the context in which it was created. I try to understand their point of view and relate to their experiences to the best of my ability, even if I don't exactly believe in all of the things that they believe in. The Rasta's music is a window into their world, their culture, and their perspective on life, and I love that music allows for that.

In other words, I think we should be able to judge the work and the person separately, with our understanding of one informing the other, but not dictating it. We shouldn't expect artists and musicians to be any more perfect than any other human being. At the same time, it's fine to judge creators by the things that they say and do outside of their work, and it's understandable if someone has stances or a history of behavior that totally turn you off of their creative output.

If JK Rowling's stance on trans people takes away from your ability to enjoy her work, or at worst becomes a personal attack against your identity (her attacks against trans people are active and relentless), then I think it's perfectly understandable that you can't enjoy Harry Potter anymore. I near read, and was never emotionally invested in, Harry Potter so it's always been very easy for me to say "nah, fuck that shit", especially when she made it her life's work to attack trans people for simply daring to exist. I'm not trans, but empathy alone tells me that trans people should have a right to exist and define themselves as they see fit.

Graham Linehan (creator of some great Irish/British comedy shows that I love, like Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd) went down the same path of trashing trans people on Twitter, and I still watch and enjoy his shows for what they are, despite the fact that I think he's an idiot and an asshole for making his anti-trans hate the molehill he wants to die on.... I don't like him for being that kind of person, but why don't I hold it against him to the same degree that I judge Rowling? I guess probably just because I liked his work in the first place.

So, basically, I can enjoy works from flawed or controversial creators without totally divorcing their work from who they are as a person.

Only you, yourself can that decide for yourself. People on every platform will throw their own opinions but at the end of the day, it is you who either enjoys whatever it is or not.

Logically it's pretty easy to demonstrate that you can. You could simply let someone experience a work of art, and never reveal any information about the creator. Boom, that person can experience the art completely independently of who the creator is, because they simply don't have any information about the creator. In fact, that's more or less how most people have experienced art for the majority of human history up until the past few generations.

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)

If they're still alive and still benefitting from said art and still harming people, no. Any time, money, or attention you give to them enables them to hurt other people.

A couple years ago I saw a band I really liked live. They were really important to me because their music helped me get through the collapse of one of my past relationships. Then it came out that the singer had hurt multiple people in multiple cities on their tour. So now if I stream their music, or buy their merch, or even just listen to their music alone, it'll be materially supporting a person's ability to hurt other people.

It's much easier to separate art from people who are no longer around to hurt other people. I don't feel bad for appreciating Guernica or reading Infinite Jest because doing so doesn't support the artists behind them causing harm.

No.

Speaking as an artist and a writer myself, I put my entire heart and soul into my work, especially the characters I make and the setting I put out. My work is inseparable from my mind.

You can say that the quality of the work is good, that they're skillful in their craft. That's a very different thing from saying that its content, its heart and soul, is something that stirs you. That the story resonates with you, makes you want to embrace the artist's ideals and understand their view.

Do not separate art from artists. Describing their skill and making excuses for their broken moral compass are two VERY different things.

If I found out that I had fans who were Nazis, and they were making the excuse that they're "separating the art from the artist", I'd start including even more blatantly anti-Nazi plotlines to make sure they know that they CAN'T.

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.

Yeah, no problem. I just acquire the media in ways that don't benefit them. Second-hand books, movies, CDs. Perhaps from the seven seas. Turns out Nicki Minaj is a nut. Well, I already owned some of her CDs. She isn't going to know or care if I snap it in half, or pop it in and listen to Bees in the Trap. So, I might as well if I want to. Same thing with Kevin Spacey, L Ron Hubbard, etc.

Only when:

• The art isn't significantly tied to the artist's views/publicly spouted opinions/decisions/etc (e.g. if the artist is a Nazi, you can't really separate an artwork they made with a swastika from the artist. If they painted a nice flower field 10 years ago, it's hard to say that it is likely to carry any Nazi-adjacent themes, and is probably pretty distinct from whatever they'd make if they made art now)
• Consuming the art doesn't financially support the artist (so in the case of J.K Rowling, you could pirate the books, or read a copy you already have, but you can't buy new ones (or get them on loan from somewhere that could compensate her, like a library), pay to stream the movies, go to a theme park based on the work, or buy any licensed merchandise, assuming you want to not give her money and thus separate her from the work)
• Your consumption of the art won't indirectly cause someone else to benefit the artist (e.g. you wear a shirt you already own with Harry Potter on it, and it reminds someone else of the series and they buy the books)

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 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 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.

Yeah, but you shouldn’t be blind to it.

It depends what you want to do with the art. But an easy answer for me is: the author dies when the author dies. Buy things after they die. Before that: pirate, second hand (I'd reccomend second hand everything though, within limits).

That's not typically how I want my art though. Knowing what informed the art is interesting to see where it's supported Vs contradicted in the piece.

Two examples: knowing jk Rowling is bigot then reading HP, well how did we not see it sooner? The series becomes a lot more sinister knowing who wrote it.

In contrast Ender's game, how is that series written by that man?! It's about love and the limits of love. It's about life and the limits of life. Reading the series knowing the person who wrote it is baffling.

In general, knowing the contexts of the piece is interesting to me. Like Saturn Devouring His Son, it was painted directly on the wall of Goya's house... Why, who paints that directly on the wall of their house?! Wait, Black PaintingS? There's more?! Not knowing the story of the Black paintings, it's just an interesting interpretation of a greko-roman myth. But, what hat did Goya see in his past to see that? What did he see in the present to need to materialize it in his dining room? What did he fear for the future?! Fuck.

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

I don't think I have any moral obligation whatever to try to separate the art from the artist, I'm not in a PhD seminar.

the obvious, surface level answer is that you can't seperate supporting the art from the harm that the artist does. if you're either forking over cash or simply doing free advertising by talking about ir, you're supporting the artist and their ability to do harm. the end consequence of that idea is that you can ethically enjoy a bad person's art if and only if you can source it for free and keep it entirely to yourself

i think there's a deeper level to it, though. there's a quote saying that "art holds a mirror up to nature," and I think that's half true. art isn't a mirror image so much as it is an image seen through a prism, which naturally colors and distorts the image. if i remember correctly, Harry Potter doesn't deal with gender transition or gender non-comfority at all, but it is an image of the world reflected through the lens of a cruel and bigoted person, and that manifests itself in other ways in the story (two obvious ones off the top of my head being the goblin bankers and the house elves). you can't seperate art from artist because the artist shapes the art. the shape imposed by the artist is what makes art art and not merely information or a representation. none of this is to say that the mere act of reading harry potter is immoral, but what it is is dangerous. there's no avoiding doing dangerous things in life sometimes, but trying to look at art in a vacuum is like driving a car with a blindfold. driving with your eyes on the road is a managble danger, an acceptable risk- driving blindfolded much less so!

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

It really depends. Is the art reflective of what the creator believes? There are so many things from Neil Gaimen I love, but I think he is an utter shit pile. I love Good Omens and Sandman. But the money will still go to him. That is pretty bad. As for Rowling, I do appreciate Harry Potter and how each book grew up with the kids reading it, but I never could stand the insane commercialization of it all before her stupid and insane comments. And the new series, she has specifically stated that she wants to create it to separate her work from the three that have spoken out against her.

I think Rowling and West are both examples of where the person's behavior later changed the way people interpret their art. That doesn't happen for every piece of art. Like, Hitler made some really nice paintings of flowers. I loved almost everything I saw with Kevin Spacey in it.

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.

Either you can or you cannot. It's highly situational.

Michael Jackson's music didn't stop sounding good once I learned more about the person behind the songs, but I stopped eating Caesar salad dressing after I found out it contains anchovy. Maybe comparing a musician to salad dressing isn't the best analogy, but the point is: in one case, more information changed my subjective experience of something, and in the other it didn't. I didn't choose that - it just happened, for no reason I can point to.

No.

No. At best you can try to shunt it to the side in your mind, but it's still going to be there. Worming away what's left of your conscience.

No.

And you shouldn't.

Art, "true" art, is not merely some product. It's a personal expression of the artist. An artist cannot separate themselves from the art they create; it's always based on their experiences, their outlook, their opinions, their own ways of expressing emotions, or reacting to events however fictional.

Yes, a writer can create characters with opinions or behaviours that aren't their own, but things that are personal to the artist will always be the benchmark. You do that automatically. There's no other way to make a character unless they're a plank of wood with a face on it.

I myself am an artist and I have many original characters.

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.

Separating the art from the artist has never been about avoiding the moral complexities of supporting bigots and fascists (financially or just keeping them in the Zeitgeist). It is that authorial intent is not relevant to personal interpretation (aka death of the author). So yes, you can separate the art from the artist but that’s an entirely different thing from what is being argued here.

If you want to argue as to whether their works should be consumed at all - paid for or not - we should absolutely not be separating the artist from the work. There is little value in them that can’t be found elsewhere and capitalists see the enduring popularity of „that fucking book“ and keeping forking over money for the IP, whether people pirated it or not.

🙄

I'm tired of seeing this nonsensical argument too often on Lemmy so here it goes:

Ofc. I love some things about Kanye, the things that make his music just straight bops and his lyrics so fun and ridiculous at times, and I hate other things that are not related to his art. I know his weird anti-"Semitic" (Polish/Ukrainian people are not Semites but Anglo/Western cultures find any reason to hate other people, lol) rants are off-putting at the very least but I don't know what that part of him has to do with "Flashing Lights" or "Guilt Trip", they're completely unrelated.

Now, when the art is a reflection/in praise of the artists' ideology and takes, and those are morally and/or intellectually fucked, and you liked them, then that certainly says something negative about you. You can love or hate that one painting by Hitler and it would say nothing about you, but if you enjoy Mein Kampf you're an immoral dummy, certainly.

Most of the time I don't know the artist, and usually don't care about knowing them. In the rare cases where I do know them is usually because they're a PoS. And in those cases I make a point of not giving them money, but that doesn't mean not enjoying their art. For example Harry Potter has a quote that is very pro-trans, during the scene where everyone drank Polyjuice potion to look like Harry there's this bit of text:

Hermione looked reassured as she answered Kingsley’s smile

Note that Hermione was in Harry's body at that moment, so she was a woman in the body of a man, and notice how JK Rowling uses a feminine pronoun there. This means that she fully understands that trans women are women, she's just a PoS that even understanding that devotes time and money to take away their rights.

Sure, JK art is still bad.

Up to a certain point. If an actor or artist is just like an asshole, that’s fine. People are allowed to be curmudgeonly. When it crosses the line into hatred, like JKR and Kanye, then I’m out.

If you are into reading maybe Art Worlds by Howard S. Becker provides some interessting perspective for you. He sees art as a system, not as the accomplishment of a single person, the artist. It is a scientific studie but really close to every they language and filled with a lot of examples

Would you be ok with visiting a cafe that has a bunch of paintings by Hitler on the walls?

I would think largely it depends on how bad the artist is too.

I think I can but I don't really know. I can't think of any examples of things I no longer like after knowing what fucked up thing the artist did nor I can otherwise, stuff I still like regardless.

I guess it will depend mostly on how much is the artist involved, for example, I think I could read a Neil Gaiman book but I don't feel like listening an audiobook narrated by himself.

Sure, unless the artist is a tattoo artist and uses their own body as their canvas.

But as long as money is flowing to an artist who pulicizes what they will use that money for, your choice to give the artist that money is supporting the causes that artist supports.

It depends. Take Morrissey, for example. Do I have to hate the smiths because he's developed some political views I disagree with? I'd argue no.

But then I'd also be suspicious of anyone enthusing about Hitler's water colours..

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

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.

Ok then: why does one have to be a loud asshole to be an artist?

If it’s about Separating the artist from the art:

There are plenty of non asshole artists. Celebrate them.

Now take that concept and apply this to the rest of your life.

Stop overlooking the good that decent people are doing around you. They deserve your energy. Not just the loudest, most toxic attention grabbing assholes.

Only assholes blindly support assholes. So you can also stop being an asshole who only supports assholes at any time. Now even. Now is a good time.

imo, Death of the Artist is a literal statement of the requirements to separate the two.

to me yes. I can easily rewatch the harry potter movies. I just don't like wests music.

"Can you" as in "are you able to" or "should you"?

Anyway, yes on both counts personally. It's like reviewing resumes with identifiers removed.

Otherwise, one would be judging the content with preconceived bias. IMO it's a slippery slope to, and belong in the same subset as, so many other identity-related issues in society e.g. tribalism, identity-based politics, discriminition based on identities like race, etc

yes

Yes, you can. Well, I should say it’s possible. Maybe not for everyone, but some people can do it. For example, I still appreciate and read Ender’s Game, even though Orson Scott Card is a homophobic prick—I just won’t buy a new copy of it, so I know I’m not giving him money.

Not really, I can distance them in my mind to some degree while still appreciating the art but only if it doesn't require a bunch of mental gymnastics. J.K is past the level for me because I took positive lessons from her books that she ironically didn't learn herself. Her stance irl seems to be antithetical to the books, she would be the villain in her own stories.

Kanye... more complicated for me. I can still separate art from artist when I listen to his old work. I've struggled with some pretty similar things to him, mental health wise. It's hard to imagine being in his position. Now he's apologizing for the nazi shit, and yeah words are great but they need to be followed with actions, and a lot of them. If what he said is true (walking around with an undiagnosed TBI for years) then what he did makes sense, but just apologizing isn't enough. Not even close. His trump arc did immeasurable damage, so for the apology to feel legit, he needs to put in enough positive work to balance it out plus extra. And I haven't really seen any actions to follow the apology yet.

The more I like your art, the more I am willing to put up with some bs from you as a person. But the line, for me, is hypocrisy. Because then the art loses meaning as a piece of the artist.

Idk about others, but I can't. I tried, but I couldn't love it anymore.

Maybe that's for the better. I was too obsessed with Harry Potter to move on and read other, better books.

If the artist died a long time ago, absolutely. Lovecraft for example has been dead long enough that his horrible views can be looked past.

If they are still alive and causing problems, then not really. Fuck Rowling and Cosby.

Anything in between depends on what they did, whether they reformed, or if the art is completely separate from their behavior.

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.

To a certain degree, I'm a big fan of Hip Hop and Reggae and both genres are inescapably homophobic and misogynistic but I can look past most of the less than savoury parts, there's also a lot of glorifying violence in a lot of the music (though once you dig past a lot of the gangsta stuff it's much less common) but it doesn't bother me.

I can't listen to Afrika Bambaataa anymore though since the child sexual assault cases came to light, same goes for a lot of acts.

I also can't support anyone who is actively oppressing others like Jim Rowling or Graham Linehan despite how much I may have previously enjoyed their work.

I'd LIKE to think so, but then Woody Allen did this:

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Whats-with-Baum/Woody-Allen/9798895652381

"A middle aged Jewish journalist turned novelist and playwright, consumed with anxiety about everything under the sun, Baum’s turgid philosophical books receive tepid reviews and his prestigious New York publisher has dropped him. His third marriage is on the rocks and he suspects his handsome and successful younger brother may have seduced his Harvard-educated wife. He is uneasy with her close relationship with her son, a more successful author than he, and suspicious of her closeness with their neighbor in Connecticut. And in a moment of irrationality, he has impulsively tried to kiss a pretty young journalist during an interview that she is about to go public with.

Is it any wonder Baum has started talking to himself? Strangers shake their heads and walk around him on the street. Meanwhile he learns a startling secret that could cause havoc should he expose it. Should he keep it to himself or reveal it and blow up his marriage?"

Of course you can, but why would you do that? I believe that it is essential to understand the artist, the art, and their contemporary environment. All together. This is the deepest respect and appreciation that we can show to the arts. If you were to commit any error of omission in studying the art, that is your volition. Ask yourself: what is motivating me to make this decision? It starts and ends with you.

I wanted to add one more thing, I am sorry: I never cared for jk or Kanye to begin with so there is no conflict for me if I decide that I don't appreciate them as an artist anymore. I do believe that if you raise your artist standards to a high level you will inevitably do less backtracking and have less angst over this subject. Have more respect for yourself and for the arts.

"Can you truly separate an artist from their art?"

Is much more a personal question of one's ability to overcome a challenge. It's much like "are you racist?"

Hitler's paintings weren't absolutely godawful and he should not have dropped out of art school. They weren't great paintings by any means but if he stuck with painting he could have blown his brains out in a bordello in Berlin instead of a bunker all blitzed up on benzedrine.

Some things are more-fundamental:

the artist was expressing something that many know/understand/mean, & they were just the renderer of that meaning, in a recognizable way.

there's a poem by Robert Frost which many people automatically recognize as him having experience induced understanding of depression.

many insist that that's just projection, baseless..

but the problem is that if people who've experienced depression recognize that that-rendition honestly-does represent it well, & that is consistent, then the deniers are maintaining that there is "no basis" for that correlation.

Sometime's it's simply skill-of-artist: there was a writer who wrote about abused-children, & everybody who'd experienced it concluded that the author, too, had been abused, but that was mere-skill, & he found it frustrating that people woudn't accept that..

but either can be.

Representing a meaning can be of-one's-self, XOR can be of-one's-skill, without any deep inner-recognition or experience-induced-meaning/understanding.

So, to the degree that meaning can stand on its own, yes, art can be separated from the artist.

But to the degree that art can't stand on its own, because it is only expression-of-skill, or expression-of-someone/inner-meaning, it can't.

& THAT is a spectrum, which different works occupy different locations on.

_ /\ _

if you like Harry Potter or Kanye West, you are a baby idiot

Apparently not. Even good AI art is "slop" according to the majority here.