Is there an artist so horrible that no matter how hard you try that you cannot separate their art from them?
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?
Very boring answer but JK Rowling.
Her books already had some questionable shit in them but witnessing that shockingly venomous transphobia really recontextualizes everything. I used to re read the Harry Potter saga every few years, but never again now, this whole, very nostalgic for me franchise is forever ruined now.
Can I recommend reading/listening to Ursula K. Le Guin's Earth Sea books?
They're also coming of age books about a young wizard, which almost certainly heavily inspired Rowling (although AFAIK she never admitted it), but the author is far less problematic. Also arguably much better books, so they're more enjoyable to read for adults too.
And the cherry on top is this. You may notice a bit of misogyny built into a first couple books in the series, which is surprising given that Ursula is a woman. She not only noticed, admitted, and confronted that patriarchal slant, but corrected it by writing later stories in the same world that reversed that course. Those stories end up being much better than the foundational works in the series. I have become an instant fan of any author that can confront the flaws of their earlier writings and deliberately alter course to do better in their life and their writing.
Yeah, I actually read her last book in the series first, (it’s a distant sequel, very far removed from the rest of the series), and I can attest to the fact that she grew tremendously. I went back and read the first book, and was surprised at how different the last book was.
Another great choice is The King Henry Tapes by Richard Raley. It's a take on HP, but the magical kid from a dysfunctional family is a juvenile delinquent with a foul mouth. One of my favorite series.
Pendragon by DJ MacHale is also a great set of books.
Id kill for an HP quality set of movies of this series.
Hey I know that series! And agree, though I think the last few books kinda lost me.
The Quillan Games is the book I remember being a bit tougher. It's been quite a long time since I've read the series.
Yeah if I recall correctly it was basically a mix between Squid Game and Hunger Games? Before either one existed.
I always thought harry potter was boring as shit. Never got through a movie, never read a book.
But the people who I did see reading the books in class were the ones who definitely would take issue with Rowling's transphobia.
Yeah I was already a tiny adult when they came out. I tried reading them as an older adult and only got through one and a half.
Chamber of Secrets is definitely the weakest book in the series
Her vehement and vocal hatred for trans people is pretty strange to me. She just won't let it go, no matter the fact that her very vocal opinions on the topic are destroying her own legacy.
I get that people are entitled to their opinions. But most people keep their thoughts to themselves if they start getting a lot of backlash. But she just keeps picking at it and making things worse for herself. I don't know if it's some sort of resentment born out of deeply hurt feelings, or unbridled arrogance that as a very rich and successful person people need to accept her opinions. Or maybe both. But it's not working and she's doing more harm than good, including to herself.
Try the Mage Errent series by John Bierce. It's a full fantasy world with a hard magic aystem that's about kids going to magic school.
same
I looked up all her tweets, and I don’t see much to disagree with.
If you go to Thailand, trans men are called ladyboys and if you ask them if they are women, they say, no, I’m a ladyboy. There’s nothing wrong with having the opinion that trans women will not be real women. She’s not saying she hates trans people, just that they will never be the same as biological women.
Yes, but Thailand is not the entire world, nor was it even the target audience of those tweets.
In the west, when you transition to another gender, it is because you want to identify as that gender. Thus when you say shit like 'trans women aren't real women' you're denying the identity of thousands of women worldwide.
But... the west isn't the entire world either.
I think that's the point. That culture matters and there's not a one-size-fits-all interpretation or response that satisfies all of them.
People in the west want to believe their culture is the best and all others should follow, but that simply isn't how the world works. That won't stop them from getting mad over it, though.
We are talking about a western author broadcasting on a western platform in a western language, often directly in response to other westerners or western ideas of transsexuality. Makes it pretty clear who the target audience and culture is.
This may come as a shock to you, but a lot of westerners don't believe in transexuality either.
Hey, we're talking about one right now!
This is what I mean by thinking your culture is the best and all others should follow. Do you think Rowling would be justified if she tweeted in Thai? Lol. If not, then she isn't unjustified for engaging with westerners.
Try to understand your way of life is not the only, or even the best, way of life.
No, they believe that transsexuals are heathen abominations that should be stripped of all human rights and dignity. There is a difference.
Try to understand that your way of life should not get in the way of others trying to enjoy theirs when it doesn't harm other people.
Some of them, sure. But some just disagree with the notion that trans-X are identical to their cis counterparts.
I totally agree.
It's never been about proving trans and cis folks of the same gender are "identical", no one is arguing that, obviously there are some physical, biological differences. Differences that trans folks are painfully aware of, and that take a lot of time and effort to mitigate for many them to feel like themselves.
It's just about being accepted as, being seen, and talked to as the gender of your choosing.
People like Rowling who argue against the existence or the rights of trans folks overwhelmingly do so out of ignorance, fear, or simply malice. It's not a philosophical question, it's not up for debate whether trans people "exist", if you don't believe in them then you're just objectively, provably, scientifically wrong.
And if you agree they exist and still want to make their lives miserable, then you're just an asshole.
Speak for yourself, I see people arguing it all the time.
Yeah, just like if you don't believe homosexuality is a mental disorder in 1952 then you are "scientifically wrong." Soft sciences aren't 'objective' like hard sciences, which is why they are currently having a reproducibility crisis.
Do you believe in otherkin? I'm sure they would react identically as you towards people who don't see them the way they want to be seen.
Bringing up otherkin is plain what-about-ism, so it proves nothing. So much for some second-class Republicans who tried to push the narrative that schools now add special sandboxes instead of toilets to accomodate them. Reproducibility crisis that is an utter joke, especially when you defend the science-denialist position. All major medical organizations recognize the existence and validity of the trans experience. The one's who don't are the ones who are usually the science deniers on a range of topics. Scratching homosexuality (like after Kinsey studies) and trans identity from mental disorders was not a politically motivated decision, but reflected development of scientific thought about sex and gender, for instance 1600 biologists condemned Trumps idea that he could define biological sex on the basis of chromosomes and external genitalia at birth, Scientific American has published that biological sex is a spectrum, and that trans girls belong to high school women sports because there is no scientific basis for exclusion. It also deemed theories like "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" as pseudoscience. So are you reading actual medical organizations or Dawkins Institute shit, because some of them are militant anti-trans agitators, not advocates of science. It is clear from what you write that you read all the wrong things and formed an ill opinion. 4) And most important, cis and trans might not be identical but neither are people within trans and cis categories. Trans people aren't identical to their birth gender either. And in the end of the day it doesn't even matter, respecting a trans personality has nothing to do with their biological sex, binary or not, fluid or not. It is an ideological stance (fascism) to not respect people who are not cis and/or straight. Even if it is a hairy, 200-lib pre-HRT bulky trans woman it is still a woman in the eyes of the law, like it or not. Source: Scientific American Trans girls belong to female Sports https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/ Scientific American visualizing sex as a spectrum https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ 1600 biologists condemns Trump anti-transgender proposal https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46067559 American Psychological Organization advocates for trans youth https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/07/advocating-transgender-nonbinary-youths World Helath professional Association advocates for transgender adults and youth https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc And as of the last point, if you are out to misgender trans people on the basis of your dogmatic chromosomal determinism and half-baked scientism, here is what happened in the past: “if part of the belief necessarily will result in the violation of the dignity of others, that is a component of the belief, rather than something separate, and will be relevant to determining whether the belief is a protected philosophical belief,” which is from https://criticallegalthinking.com/2021/06/29/not-a-nazi-but-forstater-v-cgd-europe/ .
Yeah I'm not gonna waste more time trying to change a transphobe's mind, peace
I am in the west and don't think we have the best in every way culture. The more I travel the more I am aware of where we have plenty of room for improvement. I prefer living here, most people given the choice would as well, but that doesn't mean best.
Just because one group that has a passing resemblance to another group says something doesn't mean that it applies to every group with a passing resemblance. Especially when the group is from a completely different culture.
What's a biological woman?
They mean people born with female bodies. So Cis women or FtM men.
I want him to define it.
Even cis women might not be 'biologically female'
It comes from a high school level understanding of genetics.
I do get what you mean, it's oversimplifying a complicated subject.
What is a human? What is knowledge? What is virtue? What is justice?
We have known for 2500 years that some words are very difficult to define in such a way that every single edge case is handled, it is complete, and short. The most famous example, 2500 years ago, was an academy defined human as a featherless biped. The next day someone released a plucked chicken.
For those words that are very difficult to define we develop criteria and gradually alter the criteria as time goes on, mostly based on the idea of ordinary language.
A major issue is that she isn't loyal and has her own opinions on the matter.
Independents are seen as enemies in the eyes of tribalists. Eventually, they become enemies.
Kanye. Piece of shit narcissist through and through.
yeah kanye for me too. used to be my favorite artist, paid out the ass for tickets on multiple tours, knew all the words to his first like, six albums. haven't listened to him in like a year and a half after the Alex Jones interview and Adidas stories came out. it's not even virtue signaling, it's just too much work to not think about all the horrible shit he's done and said. i count myself extremely lucky that i never got a tattoo
Exactly, it's laborious separating them. Even shit he's just produced like Hov or Pusha T. My favorite songs come on shuffle in the car, vibin, 30 sec in.. "oh shit.. right.. hmm.. ugh.. argghhh" next track
It was always funny watching him talk about Jesus in his songs as though his lifestyle didn't promote everything Christ went against.
And of course, the next generation sucked it up like a sponge.
Apparently Kanye has copied some great music, and we'll know for sure if he ever releases some.
Kanye West. Maybe he was never 'all there' mentally to begin with, but the guy was clearly a role model to a lot of young people and utterly destroyed his own legacy.
Yep, I was a young person that loved Kanye back in high school when Graduation was the CD I had on me all the time.
Can’t listen to it anymore. It’s ruined. :{
Lost Prophets. Lead singer fucked babies.
I honestly believe that if you're convicted of shit like this the band should be able to sue to have your rights to royalties and any songwriting/producing credits revoked. Even if they have to surrender any monetary outcome to the victims or their families.
I know I loved the band growing up and the band have tried to separate themselves from the singer, but how can you? The music is still good but it can't avoid leaving a bad feeling knowing he used the fame generated by the shared music for such heinous thing
It would make it a bit easier for people who can if you knew that the scumbag wasnt getting royalty cheques anymore.
Ian Watkins is a fucking extreme example, but imagine putting in a dozen years of your life and career, your art and passion into a band and its catalogue only for the lead singer to make it absolutely radioactive.
Hmm not a lawyer but I wonder if there might be some old law about this. Kinda feel like there is one since it's retroactive.
FTFY
Omfg. I'm a big slippery slope, legal precedent, kind of guy. But this demands capital punishment if not castration/sterilization. Just make them laws for one day for this dude. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-25108439
I'm convinced he's not all there. Dude was talking about what he's going to do when he gets out of prison. He doesn't seem to understand they're going to wheel him out on a trolley.
whenever I see a meme with art from stonetoss (a neo-nazi) in it, I have a visceral response
Damn, source on the neo nazi thing? It's usually just memes that I've seen with his content, now I'm wondering what he really draws about.
Here's a video covering it by Thought Slime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdbwZbK7kGo
Hitler
That guy is literally Hitler.
Heard he killed Hitler though
Why would I try to do so in the first place?
Imagine someone telling you "you have to separate the product from the corporation. Yes, they lobby to permit slave labour and are directly funding the genocide in Palestine, but they make one fine chicken sandwich - and if you don't put down your silly objections to focus on that, you have failed as a human being".
Fuck that, fuck everything about that.
Art is political. Fiction doubly so. You cannot and should not try to rip art free from its cultural context, because that context is the perspective that gives it meaning in the first place.
And extra-splintery fuck the idea that the onus is on the audience to sweep everything under the carpet for horrible people.
We're in no danger of running out of art. We have an unlimited supply of artists just waiting for a break in the canopy to sprout up and grow into something new and exciting. If a handful of toxic assholes get canceled despite being popular, then so much the better.
I disagree. You can both admit that the company makes one damn fine chicken sandwich and still not buy it because they support slave labour. Them supporting slave labour doesn’t make it a bad chicken sandwich, just as them making a damn good chicken sandwich doesn’t stop them from supporting slave labour. It’s the method that’s important, not the reason itself.
First up, fandom is free advertising; fuck them I'm not promoting their product for them, even if I don't buy it.
But more than that, it's sending a message that the behaviour is something we're willing to condone, that we stand with the abuser rather than their victims.
Imagine telling a sexual assault survivor to just lie back and enjoy the masterful comic stylings of Bill Cosby, or at least to shut up and let you enjoy it, because they're ruining the funny.
Would that person have reason to consider you a friend or ally after that?
The Harry Potter IP, for instance, is just a giant anti-trans flag now, and the people who wave it around are picking a side. They can't pretend they're not; pinning the logo to their chest is explicitly endorsing the author's views, and spitting in the face of every trans person in their life.
I think you missed their point. They explicitly said that you can at something is a good product and just not buy it because fuck that company. Same point with artists, they can be talented shitbags, we avoid them for the shitbag part, no other reason.
Every work has the author's stank all over it, it can't not. It's seen through their eyes and spoken through their lips (or fingers I guess).
Once you know what it is, it will - and should - colour your perception. If it turns out to be something toxic, then you're allowed to be viscerally repelled by it. It's okay. It's not intellectual dishonesty to have an emotional-based opinion on art ffs.
Now if you let your opinions on engineering get affected by emotion, that'd be another matter. When deciding whether a bridge is safe to carry traffic, you absolutely should not let your personal feelings about the architect factor into the decision.
But this is art we're talking about. Entertainment. Works designed specifically for emotional impact, with no value outside of that. How you feel about them is the only valid criterion.
If a work squicks you out because the author is a piece of shit, that's a genuine, valid and authentic opinion - it's pretending otherwise that would be dishonest.
And in my experience, the ones shouting the loudest about the intellectual integrity angle tend to be fanbois with a huge emotional attachment to the work from their adolescence. Buncha simps, in other words.
Which fine, feelings are valid - but they should damn well own it. If nostalgia > victims, then have the balls to just say it, don't try to well-ackchewally it into some lofty principle, because it isn't.
That's the point though, that some people will use the 'but chicken sandwich is good' as a justification to overlook the other problems and still buy them. My ex and Hobby Lobby, for instance - she'd want to go there and shop for paints because they 'might have a sale', and I was just uh, no? Fuck Hobby Lobby.
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.
The popularity of art can both increase it's value and promote the creator, making their other works more valuable.
Potentially, sure. But that also doesn't apply if you're enjoying it in private.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am a fat guy, there sandwich is only marginally better than the lowest end stuff, any fast casual local place is going to do it better. You can trust a fat man about fried meat.
Right except we can't apply this evenly. You can go right now to any big museum, see elegant wood carvings from like 800 years ago, and we know nothing about the artist except his name. How do you know he wasn't a murdering psychopath? You don't. What you do know is Rowling said some shit on Twitter. We are holding more modern work to a higher standard compared to older work simply because we can document the lives of modern artists better. If you can't enforce a moral principle with anything resembling consistent application I question how good it is.
Also comparing it to Chick-fil-A is bullshit.
A good moral principle is 'don't do things that needlessly harm people', but unintended consequences are everywhere. By delaying a passerby two seconds while you give a homeless guy $5, you might end up causing them to get hit by a garbage truck that would otherwise have missed them.
You can't enforce the principle consistently, but that doesn't make it worthless; you give it a good-faith, best-effort go, and that's all you can do. If your best efforts turn out to be disastrous, that's shitty, but life's unfair like that.
Also, whatever else was going on with the person 800 years ago, JK is right now causing ongoing harm in her relentless campaign of hatred for trans people. Waving her IP around is promoting her cause, and so harming more people, right now.
If nobody knows whether the 800-years-ago guy was a piece of shit or not, then promoting their work isn't supporting some piece-of-shit cause and harming people.
As for chicken sandwiches - without explaining why you think my analogy was inapt, calling it bullshit is no more of a slam-dunk rebuttal than if I called you a poopoohead.
Entity X makes product Y and does shitty horrible thing Z. By being a product-Y fanboi and promoting Y all over the internet, you're expressing approval for X and condoning Z (at least enough to cut them slack for it).
What difference does it make whether Y is a media IP or a food product?
Fine your analogy is in apt because you can get a fried chicken sandwich anywhere. It isnt exactly intellectual property.
Also you are muddling the difference between not being all knowing with not being consistent. Not the same thing at all.
Don't muddy the water: you were talking specifically about chick-fil-A, even though I was using it as a generic example of a product people might get attached to. The 'separate the art from the artist' crowd would have you ignore any unpleasantness on the part of the producer, so long as the product is enjoyable in isolation - and hold it a moral failing not to do so.
And your entire point was that you couldn't be consistent because you werne't all-knowing; not knowing the character of your 800-year-old artist is no different in this instance from not knowing the future: to perfectly apply the principle would require full knowledge of every situation where it could possibly apply (which is of course impossible). This does not, I contend, render the principle, or attempts to apply it as consistently as your knowledge allows, worthless.
Do better, and try again.
John Kricfalusi, creator of Ren & Stimpy. That man is a demon.
The Rick & Morty guy kind of ruined his show, too.
New season with replaced voice actor is really good.
What he do?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kricfalusi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Happy_Joy_Joy:_The_Ren_and_Stimpy_Story
Tldr. Basically, he was a piece of shit tyrant edgelord who kept trying to push boundaries and didn't quite understand humor. His show was only made good by everybody around him trying to rein him in and fix his fuck ups. Also for good measure, he's a sex pest.
I once met Bob Camp in Atlantic City in 2015 and he told me this whole story. He said he hated JohnK and that he was possibly the most deranged person he had ever met. He then told me that the only thing that came out of this that was good in the end was SpongeBob.
Sick Little Monkeys: The Unauthorized Ren & Stimpy Story is the book that he referred me to if I wanted more details.
Classic
Watched a documentary about him recently and it seems like he was using the show/animation staff as therapy, which is incredibly wrong.
Sweet didn't know this was made! I would also recommend Sick Little Monkeys by Thad Komorowski if you are interested in the behind the scenes stuff.
Didn't know all this about him. Not surprised. It was so gross, God knows how it informed our development. It's really uncomfortable to watch as an adult. And my goodness - did you watch the adult version when they brought it back years ago? Jfc
"DJ" Khalid. I've heard that he's actually a very talented musician. I've never been shown proof that the claims are true.
Following is also proof that he can read
https://piped.video/watch?v=3QvgFbjAC7U
Is it proof he can read? He has someone else read the note for him. Seems more like proof he can't read.
Edit: or did I just get whooshed? If you're being sarcastic it's not clear.
You've been whoosed. Not only could he not read the note, he also had no idea what a guitar was or how to play one..
That probably should have been more obvious to me then it was. I'm really sick and taking lots of cold medicine. Should probably stop commenting on anything for a while.
I've heard he's a crappy musician but he's good at getting clashing personalities to work together.
He like Mozart^2
https://youtu.be/XY8kTjw_OZI?si=xQ7vdcVJTqsrMq2B
JK Rowling. Fuck Harry Potter.
Ian Watkins, lead singer of the band Lostprophets. Never read the court transcripts of his crimes, they really are that horrible and will ruin you for some time.
Exactly who I thought of.
I still listen to Michael Jackson but I won’t listen to R Kelly.
Well to be fair one was found guilty in a court of law and the other (I don't believe but feel free to correct me) didn't even have a criminal case brought against him.
Loved Michael Jackson music so fucking much. Can’t stomach it anymore.
But the first few moments of Billy Jean…
Well, one's alive and the other isn't. As long as the inheritors of MJ's estate are decent people, I think it's fine at this point. Still skeeves me out to listen to his stuff, though. Two verses in and my brain is popping.
You know that while he was incredibly strange, there were never any credible accusations right? There were a lot of people fluffing the stories trying to get a payout but there was never any evidence of wrongdoing.
As far as I'm aware none of MJs accusers still say he did anything, and nearly all of them say their parents pressured them to say stuff he didn't do for a settlement. He was definitely a weird guy but you look at his upbringing and it was trauma after trauma by adults exploiting him for money.
If it was one kid? I'd have doubts. Once it passed into double digits? Nope.
If there is one accusation still active, sure. But every single case I've heard of, the family withdrew and admitted they were looking for a cash settlement.
Ian Watkins. Leaf singer of Lost Prophets.
Convicted baby rapist.
Roman Polanski and by extension Jack Nicholson
Wait, what's up with Jack Nicholson?
Polanski's known crime happened AT Jack Nicholson's home. Nicholson tooooootally didn't know about any of it.
Marlon Brando
After hearing from Maria Schneider, and confirmed by Bertolucci, how he and Brando treated her filming the rape scenes in Last Tango my Brando crush instantly withered on the vine. She was only 19.
Not even a fan of marlon brando, but i think i'll pass on reading into it.
Not as if I'm a fan, but Eric Gill is/was a prolific, respected and internationally renowned artist. You'll his work across the UK, perhaps most notably on the BBC's broadcasting house.
Also designed the Gill Sans typeface, which I think everyone's heard of or even used. Used all across the world on signage or stores.
Here's why I have a hard time taking his works at face value:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric\_Gill
That's the pokemon TCG font, also notably
Eh, not really.
Now, there are some examples where I won't/can't actively seek out their work, and would never contribute to them by buying anything at all, ever.
Cosby falls into that category, just as an example.
But, I have a complete separation as far as the work itself being valid/good despite the origins. Using Cosby as the example again, if I'm somewhere and one of his performances is on, I'm not going to care enough to change a channel or leave, or even say anything.
That's pretty much anyone and everyone. I just don't have that thing where a given item, piece of work, whatever, is "tainted" just because the person that made it is a piece of shit. I don't form an association like that. It's that I choose to not seek out some things as a matter of principle.
But, as a general rule, if they're dead, I don't care at all. And, if the person in question is only one person involved in a group effort, that group effort is fine by me. Like, if the guitarist of a band is a piece of shit, but everyone else is not, why would their work be a bad thing?
Now, this isn't to say that I ignore any bad acts when interacting with a given work. Take van Gogh as an example. His excesses and disturbing behaviors are part of his work to an extent. It's a thing where knowing the person's flaws informs the interaction with the work. Kinda like "gee, I wonder how much of this work stems from the same root as the bad acts did?"
But, I can enjoy the work of people I personally despise with no issues. I just don't have whatever it is that other people have that makes a thing tainted based on the creator.
Part of that is knowing how shitty humans in general are, and how hard it is to find any artist that didn't/doesn't have massive flaws. In music and painting in particular, you run into a shit ton of artists that were abysmal people. If I did have that whatever it is that causes a connection between the art and the artist's flaws, I wouldn't be able to listen to much music at all.
George W. Bush
What art had he done?
Underground bukkake performance stuff
Bill Cosby.
I never found anything he did appealing enough to even try to separate the art from the artist. He was always a dipshit. He used to call comedians like eddie murphy and told them that their act would shine a really bad light on black people.
Terry Goodkind.
Can't separate the work from the author since both are pretty bad.
It takes a special kind of person to require a pinned "please don't celebrate deaths" reminder on Reddit when you die...
God. Sword of Truth was one of the first books I read when I was trying to get back into reading (I think I got it in some bundle)… And at first it was like, cool, I like wizards, great… and then it got really fucking weird and rapey and I was embarrassed to have read that book. I didn’t look into the author at all, but I would be so incredibly unsurprised for them to turn out to be a terrible person.
So he was neither, then?
No. He was a misogynistic piece of crap that wrote morally questionable material that was also disrespectful to his assistants, illustrators and fans.
Allegedly, the "good" and the "kind" were stolen during the Great Battle of the Terry's, where one Terry used the "good" to build a Temple, while the other Terry with a meteor sword used the "kind" to empower actual quality fiction.
::: spoiler spoiler GNU Terry Pratchett :::
Don't forget all the blatant copying from other authors like Robert Jordan. Or refusing to call his work fantasy because he was an Objectivist and Mommy Rand said fantasy was a worthless genre, even going so far as to kill off a huge number of non-human characters off-screen in a later book so people couldn't point at the creatures like dragons as evidence.
I certainly won’t listen to Gary Glitter’s music
Except sporting teams keep using Rock and Roll part 2 in stadiums.
Adolf Hitler.
NGL If I were rich Id probably buy one of his paintings just to hang it in the least used guest barhroom.
Id never mention that it was a "Hitler" or why I had it. Id just like to have his failure be something my least favorite relatives have to stare at while they take a shit. My own personal fuck you to the cunt.
I don't like it. It's smug aura mocks me. It's evil, Charlie!
That's really inviting layers of ugliness into your life and your mind, and subjecting your guests to stealth ugliness.
Nope, its hilarious.
Reducing anything that anyone who venerates Hitler or Nazis to a joke is better than destroying it. Because its just a shitty painting, its not evil, it doesnt hold psychic power, its not a banner to rally behind. Its just a terrible mans terrible painting that is now something that hangs above Uncle Joe while he clogs the toilet with his mammoth fast food dumps.
It's poison, and you'd be subjecting yourself and your guests to poison.
It's not funny, and Burt K is a drooling moron. He's pretty much brain dead.
Hitler actually made some pretty good art.
But even way back then, the art world was a crock of shit.
His art was okay, but it's only famous because of some of the other stuff he did.
Plot twist: that was his goal all along. /j
Plot twist: that was his goal all along. /j
Rammstein is terrible. Clear cut allegations of systematic exploitation and lawyers who tried to silence big newspapers.
The perfidy of victim blaming should be enough to never listen to this band! Additionally their music sucks...
Foo Fighters used to be real down with the whole AIDS denialism, even financially supporting it.
I know David Grohl is an internet sweetheart, but every time I see anything Foo related, I just immediately wonder how many people died pointless and preventable deaths because they believed the denialism Foo Fighters pushed.
To be fair, it wasn’t Dave’s idea or something he supported. It was bassist Nate Mendel’s message that they were, admittedly, amplifying. Even the info on their website had a disclaimer that listed it as “being displayed at the request of Nate Mendel”.
I think they all regret being involved in amplifying that message too, including Nate. In the 20 years since they initially broke support with the people involved, they’ve played several shows in support of HIV/AIDS awareness groups, fundraised for Elton John’s AIDS Foundation, and every tour they do now has some kind of fundraising or auctions to support AIDS education or LGBTQIA+ rights.
It feels like they know now, in hindsight of course, that it was harmful and have at least tried to do more good to make up for it. Mendel was even quoted saying that the only reason he did it was because he thought he was helping people, not hurting them.
And yet he kept mendel in the band, and had the message plastered on their website.
Thats not something you get to handwave away with even the grossest incompetence claim.
I mean, yeah. he likes his career, of course he says that.
No one is hand waving anything away. Nate is a member of the band. The message on the website was clear that it was his message.
You make it seem like people can’t change their views based on new information. It’s not like they could go back in time and not do those things after the fact. They’ve done far more in support of AIDS education. It’s not fair to vilify them for something they did for a few years while ignoring everything they’ve done since for more than 20 years.
I never said or implied that.
I said you cant handwave away or excuse Grohls involvement, and that a person who values their career has an incentive to say a certain thing after being called out for being a piece of shit.
Anything beyond that is just your fiction.
If you're gonna argue with people, you don't get to just skip parts of their argument without it being noticed. Don't be a chickenshit. The point theyre making is obvious and valid
Except you did. You’re literally on a discussion where you posted Dave Grohl because of something he was a part of for maybe 2 or 3 years that wasn’t even his idea to begin with while ignoring everything he’s done for 20+ years since.
And now you’re being dishonest about it.
See that?
where I said used to? in past tense? as in not current?
My friend. I really wish you would step away from the computer and take a slow, deep breath. I'm sorry you cant handle your favorite person doing something bad, but its no reason for you to be this upset and go around inventing whole narratives as justification to project your anger at me.
Why does it always have to go to extremes immediately with you people? They are not “my favorite person”. None of them. You are not my friend. Not in the slightest. I’m not inventing a narrative. It is a fact that this was all done at Nate’s request and that the amount of time the support existed is dwarfed by the amount of time they’ve supported AIDS education after realizing it was a mistake. You’re the one basically saying it’s unforgivable, that people can’t change their minds, and are inventing a narrative. You’re just projecting. Stop. Just admit that you mischaracterized it and that what you said wasn’t accurate and be done with it.
Sure buddy. Whatever you need to believe to sleep at night. If I need to be the big bad evil man for that, then you make me whatever you need me to be.
Just calm down so you don't put yourself in the ER for christmas.
LOL. Yeah… you’re the big bad evil end guy in all of our lives. You’re more delusional than I thought.
Whatever you say, Friend.
I’m not your friend, you narcissist. The only time I even acknowledge you exist is when I’m on the toilet taking a dump.
You're not a big bad whatever, just an idiot.
Wow t.i.l.
Kristian Vikernes
I know he used the Papyrus font for his book, but c'mon. It's free.
Papyrus
Marilyn Manson
What did Marilyn Manson do?
Not OP but, Alleged sexual assault, think the cases are still ongoing or he paid them to nda, didn’t follow it much. Man was always creepy so when the allegations came out I kinda thought “no surprise there” and didn’t pay much more attention
Really? It's been widely covered for years now. He's an absolute piece of shit.
He had some ribs removed so that he could suck his own dick.
That's an urban legend that started about Ron Jeremy.
Who himself went from a porn star to meme to being accused of raping dozens of women over 20 years.
Im a firm believer you can like the art and not the artist but if i had to pick it would be the wizard of oz. Honestly what the director did to the actors/actresses on wizard of oz really zaps the magic out of the movie for me.
Maybe John Wayne Gacy, otherwise I accept the art for its own merit.
I wouldn't say the horribleness of a person is ever something that makes someone inseparable from their art. The art and the person just don't necessitate each other. That said, I'm pretty sure someone might make a case for Nero, he burnt people on living candles and called it "art" and would lock people in concerts to hear him perform (if we assume the historical records are true). Relatedly, Saddam Hussein wrote a lot of fanfiction about defeating America with negative undertones that would make a Wattpad writer cringe.
This is actually a pretty big assumption for some of the more outlandish claims. When you dig in a bit, you find many of them are kind of repetitive tropes and generally come from Senatorial-class writers about emperors whose policies were less friendly to that class.
Not to say they couldn't have happened, and even in those days better to exaggerate than to invent from whole cloth, but it seems like an unusually large number of "bad" emperors had the same kinks as each other or the same traits that the literature had always considered "unmanly."
Bono. U2 is pretty mediocre to begin with, but with that asshole in front singing Id rather listen to Miley Cyrus.
What did he do? And what’s wrong with Miley Cyrus?
I'd almost say it's the opposite... U2 is a decent band, but nothing too special. Bono has a strong reputation as a philanthropist doing good for the worlds charities.
U2 sucks. I said it. Singer of my band in HS tried so hard to turn me.. at least 3 mix tapes and I def found some less popular songs I liked. But I'm just not a fan. I change the station after a dramatic sigh when they come on. They don't rock. I like that Batman twist me bang me something me song. Desire is fun. Sunday Bloody Sunday is emotionally tied to historical events, can't sleep on it. Mysterious Ways is amazing and brings back positive feelings from those days (was it in a mixtape infomercial?). But besides the several songs I like, they suck... Shit.. did I just talk myself out of hating them? Was I just an angsty little shit and South Park nailed the coffin?
I like both Bono and Miley. I actually like both music and their personalities at least the projected personalities. I don't feel like they are trying to hide anything and they seem to want the world good
Officially no. Realistically yes.
Gary Glitter... so many sporting events still play this pedophile's music.
Generally all of them. Every time I consider this question about an artist, I try and consider if I was the victim in the crime. Would I be okay hearing, seeing, or listening to this any longer? If the answer is no, then it’s no for me.
I want to live empathetically and have to put my money where my mouth is.
Proko
No. The artists I like are pretty much universally good people because they're not wildly successful and had to mature in order to survive. I can't think of a single artist I am a fan of who has done things that would cause me to question the integrity of their character or reassess their work.
Usually people who have this issue are ones who listen to shitty music or like shitty actors that only care about making money and being superior to others.
It's no surprise to me that people like R Kelly pee on teenage girls, or Chris Brown beats women, or David Bowie has sex with underage girls. None of this surprises me because their creations and lifestyles reflect who they are as people. It's always funny seeing their fans being met with cognitive dissonance, though.
I can't really name any actors though because I already don't like the vast majority of shit that gets pumped out of hollywood and I'm not exposed to it often. I'm sure people who are more familiar with their crap will have no problem thinking of examples, though.
Well aren’t you just so unique and special
Well aren’t you just so unique and special