General Entertainment Separating the art from the artist

[Fizzzzle]

This is something that has come up with increasing frequency. Especially since the release of Hogwarts Legacy, the announcement of a new Harry Potter TV show and all the shit that comes with that.

 

How do you feel about it and how militant are you about it?

 

I'm not sure where my line is, but I know there is one. One of my favorite bands growing up was a metal band called As I Lay Dying. About 10 years ago, the lead singer was arrested and went to prison for trying to have his wife killed. After he got out of prison, the band kept making music, but I found that I had no desire to listen to it anymore. It wasn't a conscious decision, I didn't think about it, there was just a part of my brain that was like "nope, don't care what this person has to say about anything" and moved on.

 

On the other hand, every time you (legally) watch Pulp Fiction, Harvey Weinstein gets paid. I did look it up, he still does. I thought his royalties would go to a fund to pay for his lawsuits or something by now, but no, Harvey Weinstein still makes money directly from every movie he's ever produced, and it turns out he's produced a lot of movies.

 

And yet... I still will watch pulp fiction.

 

I think the difference is that something like a band is so small compared to a movie (as I Lay Dying is Tim Lambesis' solo project at this point) that it feels more personal. While a director of a movie might feel like a very prominent part of a project, they are just a part. Hundreds, if not thousands of people work on these things. It feels wrong to pin it down to one person.

 

To top it off, while I personally never want to listen to As I Lay Dying again, I'm not going to vilify those who do. I don't think you're perpetuating evil if you stream their music on Spotify. Just like I don't think you're perpetuating evil if you legally watch Pulp Fiction.

 

 

Just like, I dunno... You do you, man. Assume that the money behind the content you consume is a monster and decide for yourself where that line is. Don't attack other people for not having the same line as you. There's always going to be someone else who calls you a rape apologist for watching Pulp Fiction, and in a way they're right to do so.

 

Catch them the next time they listen to Dr. Dre on Spotify.

[Fizzzzle]

I guess the point of this could be labeled "stones and glass houses."

[Guest]

My standard is very straight forward: I don’t spend money on products or services that I believe are made in ways I find morally or ethically objectionable. I don’t concern myself with the private lives of the people who make the product or service, that isn’t relevant to my decision to buy their product or service.

[DarkStar189]

Unless it's a single artist making music or art by themselves, I can't write off the whole product.  I don't think it's fair to all the hard working people surrounding the problematic person. There's so much going on in my life i don't have the brain power to keep up on who did what/when/ are they guilty/are they not. 

[TwinIon]

I rarely, if ever, avoid art because someone objectionable makes money from it. I'll rush out to buy tickets to Mission Impossible even as I recognize that Tom Cruise's involvement in scientology is objectively terrible. I don't have any issue buying a new Harry Potter game even if I disagree with JKR's comments on trans people. Weinstein produced some of the best films of all time, there's no way I'm avoiding them just because of him.

 

Sometimes I do find that I can no longer enjoy art because I can't separate the art from artist, as is the case with Cosby's stand up. I haven't watched much of it in recent years, but I've seen some clips, and because it is just him on stage, it's just harder for me to laugh, even if many of his bits really hold up. Where as I recently watched Baby Driver and Spacey's involvement didn't really turn me off, likely because he isn't the lead.

[Kal-El814]

"Separating the art from the artist," as I understand it, initially came about as a way to not stifle discussion about art when the person making it did lousy things. So you could have a discussion about the merits of The Shining or Kubrick's oeuvre without the discussing his treatment of Shelley Duvall.

 

The notion of whether spending money on art / media you like that's made by someone problematic, alive, and who stands to profit from the purchase is a newer, different thing.

[Fizzzzle]

11 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

"Separating the art from the artist," as I understand it, initially came about as a way to not stifle discussion about art when the person making it did lousy things. So you could have a discussion about the merits of The Shining or Kubrick's oeuvre without the discussing his treatment of Shelley Duvall.

 

The notion of whether spending money on art / media you like that's made by someone problematic, alive, and who stands to profit from the purchase is a newer, different thing.

"Political answers to the question" for $400, alex

[GeneticBlueprint]

I still fuckin' love AILD.

[skillzdadirecta]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

My standard is very straight forward: I don’t spend money on products or services that I believe are made in ways I find morally or ethically objectionable. I don’t concern myself with the private lives of the people who make the product or service, that isn’t relevant to my decision to buy their product or service.

Pretty much the same with me. I can still enjoy Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone movies despite their unfortunate racial mishaps in the past. Shit My grandfather LOVED John Wayne and would get pissed everytime I pointed out how racist he was. And try enjoying any anime or manga from before the 2000's as a black person. Shit ain't easy 

 

EDIT: The exception to this rule for me is Kanye West. Fuck that guy.

[Kal-El814]

1 hour ago, Fizzzzle said:

"Political answers to the question" for $400, alex

I mean… yes, but it is also correct

[Kamusha]

14 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Pretty much the same with me. I can still enjoy Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone movies despite their unfortunate racial mishaps in the past. Shit My grandfather LOVED John Wayne and would get pissed everytime I pointed out how racist he was. And try enjoying any anime or manga from before the 2000's as a black person. Shit ain't easy 

 

EDIT: The exception to this rule for me is Kanye West. Fuck that guy.

Kanye is a noteworthy exception to bring up because he has long made himself an integral part to the art he makes. He constantly talks about himself and references his personal life in his lyrics. You simply cannot separate the art from the artist from him because he intentionally made the lines between the two blurry.

[Fizzzzle]

20 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Pretty much the same with me. I can still enjoy Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone movies despite their unfortunate racial mishaps in the past. Shit My grandfather LOVED John Wayne and would get pissed everytime I pointed out how racist he was. And try enjoying any anime or manga from before the 2000's as a black person. Shit ain't easy 

 

EDIT: The exception to this rule for me is Kanye West. Fuck that guy.

Wait, is Sly Stone racist?! ... shit.

 

The Kanye thing speaks to the point about music, though. Kanye doesn't have hundreds of people behind his music, so you can more directly tie listening to his music to supporting him directly. Kanye IS his music.

 

JK Rowling had literally nothing to do with Hogwarts Legacy beyond owning the IP

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, Fizzzzle said:

Wait, is Sly Stone racist?! ... shit.

I don't know if he's racist but he did call a paparazzi a N****R once.  I still enjoy his movies though.

[Fizzzzle]

1 hour ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

I still fuckin' love AILD.

I don't judge you for that. Like I said, I never made a conscious decision to stop listening to them, I just realized that I have no desire to.

[Fizzzzle]

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I don't know if he's racist but he did call a paparazzi a N****R once.  I still enjoy his movies though.

Oh, now that you mention it, I feel like I have heard of that...

[Bacon]

It's an excuse so you can enjoy something while not feeling bad about it. Not that I think you should feel bad about it. Enjoy what you like, or if you can't due to the artist's actions then abstain from that content. If you fear judgment then don't talk about it in a place where others may judge you for it.

 

I generally don't pay attention to the personal histories of a creator. While I am excited for FFXVI because CBUIII is working on it, I have no knowledge of its creators and their opinions and actions outside of the gaming sphere. Except that Yoshi-P is a smoker. I do know that.

[Kamusha]

18 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

Wait, is Sly Stone racist?! ... shit.

 

The Kanye thing speaks to the point about music, though. Kanye doesn't have hundreds of people behind his music, so you can more directly tie listening to his music to supporting him directly. Kanye IS his music.

 

JK Rowling had literally nothing to do with Hogwarts Legacy beyond owning the IP

It’s important to note that in our capitalist society business and art are one of the same. Unless you are pirating something anytime you enjoy art you are also making a business transaction. So while JK Rowling is not involved in the artistic side of Hogwarts Legacy, she is involved in the business side of the game because she does make money off of it, and she uses that money to further fund her causes.

 

Whether that matters enough to stop someone from purchasing something is really up to the individual consumer. I can’t control the lives of others and how they chose to spend their free time but I know what my personal stances and ethics are.

[Fizzzzle]

3 minutes ago, Kamusha said:

It’s important to note that in our capitalist society businesses and art are one of the same. Unless you are pirating something anytime you enjoy art you are also making a business transaction. So while JK Rowling is not involved in the artistic side of Hogwarts Legacy, she is involved in the business side of the game because she does make money off of it.

So that begs the question "where do you draw the line?"

 

That's why I mentioned Harvey Weinstein in the OP. He still gets paid every time someone (legally) watches Pulp Fiction or any of the other billion movies he produced over his career. In fact I'm pretty sure every Tarantino movie was financed by him in some capacity. Are Tarantino movies just off-limits now?

[SimpleG]

This topic is like religion , folks are gonna pick and choose their own rules and validate breaking them when ever possible. I am gonna watch Repulsion or Rosemarys Baby. I am gonna listen to Mayham or Burzam. My fruits and veg that I buy , likely picked by immigrants being paid slave wages at best. My electronics made with strip mined minerals and child slave labor. At this point there some walking dick tip making money off everything we consume.

[Moa]

2 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

"Separating the art from the artist," as I understand it, initially came about as a way to not stifle discussion about art when the person making it did lousy things. So you could have a discussion about the merits of The Shining or Kubrick's oeuvre without the discussing his treatment of Shelley Duvall.

 

The notion of whether spending money on art / media you like that's made by someone problematic, alive, and who stands to profit from the purchase is a newer, different thing.

 

This is 100% correct. The concept of separating the art from the artist, has everything to do with artistic criticism and nothing to do with the political complexities of supporting problematic people.

 

Rosemary's Baby isn't a bad movie because Polanski's a rapist.

Harry Potter isn't a bad series of books because Rowling's a TERF.

Hitler's art is bad, but not because he's a nazi.

 

That's it.

 

Separating the art from the artist has nothing to do with whether or not you should stream Rosemary's Baby on Prime or buy the new Harry Potter game. That's a different, albeit valuable conversation, that has nothing to do with the quality of the art in question.

 

[Keyser_Soze]

Topic should be changed to, "What is your threshold of how shitty a person is to how much you will will spend on the product"

 

Also, the Harvey Weinstein thing is a weird thing to bring up. He's not the artist, Tarantino is. And you're saying he gets money every time I watch the Blu-Ray?

 

Rowling is the better example of this, yes she didn't make the game, but she created the world that the game is in so of course she gets more credit than most and benefits more from the profits of the game.

 

I stopped listening to As I Lay Dying because they suck.

 

[Fizzzzle]

1 minute ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Topic should be changed to, "What is your threshold of how shitty a person is to how much you will will spend on the product"

 

Also, the Harvey Weinstein thing is a weird thing to bring up. He's not the artist, Tarantino is. And you're saying he gets money every time I watch the Blu-Ray?

 

Rowling is the better example of this, yes she didn't make the game, but she created the world that the game is in so of course she gets more credit than most and benefits more from the profits of the game.

 

I stopped listening to As I Lay Dying because they suck.

 

Whether they created the product is kind of irrelevant to the discussion, in my opinion. Both JK Rowling and Harvey Weinstein get paid when you watch Harry Potter or Pulp Fiction, respectively.

[Guest]

Producers are definitely artists. 

[unogueen]

If we reach back through time and bother to curate under 'problematic', we might as well burn down every history museum. The real problem is the apparent death of constructive criticism, since I imagine the likes of Nabokov and Marques would be having a very different time today

[unogueen]

Otherwise we're just running the clock on historic limitations, which does nothing.

[unogueen]

The funny part is accusing Marques of pedophilia, and buying front row seats to the Stones.

[SoberChef]

So personally speaking, it does cringe me out something awful whenever I fire up not just QT's films, but anything produced under the banner of Miramax in the 90's/00's. The slime just oozes all over it, but I'm watching a film, so I look past it even if it makes me uncomfortable. However, with talents such as Tom Cruise or even Marilyn Manson for instance, I love & enjoy their respective forms of art that they create. I don't have a care in the world necessarily for those two individuals as people, but as artists, I love, respect, and admire their passion.

[gamer.tv]

I literally stopped listening to Lost Prophets as soon as the story about Ian Watkins broke.