I would say it’s not possible. The art IS the artist. The art only is what it is because the artist is who they are. But a lot of people seem to be very comfortable with the idea of separating the art from the artist. What say Lemmy?
Depends on the context surrounding the art and whether enjoying said art is directly funding the artist’s problematic views. Someone enjoying a Lovecraft story isn’t doing shit for him. No one’s views on race are going to change from stumbling upon his cat’s name either. Whereas someone buying a Harry Potter product is directly funding trans people’s deaths. However, buying a Harry Potter book secondhand is supporting local business (though I will still judge you for shitty taste and for promoting the franchise)
Context matters a lot.
You’re right. I wish I hadn’t let my wife buy hogwarts now
You can. I can enjoy Hitler’s paintings because they contains no nazism, even if a nazist mind produced them (you could argue that in his youth he was not yet a nazi, but that still doesn’t matter).
Heck, I’m going even further and say that even if a form of art posses some inheritely bad aspect, you can still separate it from other artistic characteristics.
Let’s say Hitler did a panting of a gas chamber killing people in a death camp, but is painted in such a skillfull and technically relevant way to be revolutionary in the art, then it’s ok if people like it (technically, not ideologically), it’s ok if it’s owned and hang in a museum, even if it depicts real, evil and needless suffering. You can approcciate something technically or artistically without having to embrace the ideals it represents. And it’s important to not cancel things just because bad people did it, because remembering is important.
As for modern bad artist, it’s more complicated because you might not want to financially support an artist who is a criminal/terrible person, but that still doesn’t mean you can’t appreciate their art.
I think the first problem is art is so broad we shouldn’t be making generalized sweeping statements. One piece of art might be made by someone and it is its own object, e.g. an unrelated painting of a landscape.Whatever that person has done doesn’t change what it is or what it represents. Perhaps that art doesn’t deserve to be shared or promoted in a way that benefits the artist though.
On the other hand, some art like a film that has so much of the artist in it, can’t stand on its own as much. It’s harder to separate them. It’s ok to enjoy the film but still not share or promote it in any way that benefits the artist. We should be ok with having mixed feelings about it.
As with complex topics, it’s really a grey area, there’s no 1 rule.
That last point is why I pirate all my Kanye
I tried but he got mad and chased me down the hall yelling “give me back my stuff, you filthy animal!” 🖼️ 🦝 💨 🤬
Only purity-testers have difficulty with this.
Imagine saying Alice In Wonderland isn’t good.
Besides, to condemn the art because you condemn the artist, you’d have to be playing the game of giving absolute moral condemnations of people in the first place. That’s a mug’s game. Everybody’s got good and bad in them.
you can try but if someone is awful you’ll probably find that awfulness reflected in the art too.
The art is not the artist. You may not want to support an artist based on whatever they have said or done, that’s all fine and good, but only really applies to current artists.
Art won’t stop being art and such pieces that are enjoyable won’t stop being enjoyable. Also people are complicated, they might be a piece of shit, and still have opinions that are worth listening to, or capable of creating something that is a positive influence.
Consider some old art examples, might be a concert piece, or a painting, a sculpture… Think about the artists. Depending on the time and society they lived in, they could have easily been racist, homophobic, sexist… If they had twitter back then we could probably have plenty of reasons to hate them. There’s plenty of art pieces that have been a positive influence to me in my past, and nowadays we unfortunately know how horrible some of the artists involved were. This happens more with current artists because now it’s easier to publish your shitty ideas in a public forum without the option to shut everyone’s mouths.
Some examples, Harry Potter was a huge influence to me and many around me, it was a positive influence that created a more inclusive point of view on us, it’s a pity the author is a piece of crap now, but the art still remains as a positive influence for many. Basically all works by Joss Whedon have been amazing in my opinion and his female characters have usually been some of the best examples of what good writing can be, alas he seems to be abusive and an ass to many people he has worked with. Neil Gaiman is another example, such a brilliant mind capable of creating incredible characters and stories and he is a piece of shit. Yet their art might actually have helped so many people that needed it. No matter what many might say, it’s never so clear cut when it comes to people.
Depends what the artist did and when they did it as well as the conection to the art.
The internet really likes to forget that people and their believes change over time. You don’t have the same believes you had at 14 when you are 30 or 40.
So you could be a biggot and racist as a teen because you grew up in a home in which this was normal. Mybe you later get to know people you had prejudiced against before and are now in your 30’s/40s an ally.
You could also be chill growing up and than for some reasons, fall pray to the right wing propaganda machine and become an anti-woke poopy-head.
So in my opinion, the time when the art was created plays a huge impact on how I see it and if I can separate it from the artist.
Is it possible to dissociate the note from the instrument? This note from a violin clearly comes from a violin. The instrument shapes the sound, even though all instruments can produce that note. However, that note belongs to me, bow. It’s in my head. I can attach it to sad or happy emotions, or close my eyes and imagine a landscape with it.
I think this art/artist debate misses half of the action. Once the note or the art has been produced by the artist, it belongs to the public, that vibes with it in the way they chose.
It’s a personal choice. I do separate the art from the artist because it’s not like me not torrenting their art will make a difference.
this is the best thing I have ever read on the subject: https://www.theredhandfiles.com/should-we-separate-the-artist-from-the-art/
Yes.
Even if it’s something current, I can enjoy the work and just not pay for it.
Separate, no, not completely.
I’m very “Death of he Artist”, though, and think that the artist gets no special say in what the art is about once it’s complete. So yes, I still listen to and enjoy songs by The Mamas and the Papas and most songs by Ace of Base despite the reprehensible qualities of those artists, because the former didn’t write songs about sexual abuse and the most of the letter’s songs aren’t tinged by white supremacy.
But knowing what I do about them now, I definitely cast a critical eye over their catalogs, and of course I’ll never pay for anything by Ace of Base ever again.
I get a funny feeling when I watch recent Will Smith movies, but anything before MiB2 imo is fair game.
I still enjoy Tom Cruise movies, though. I know he’s a wackadoo scientologist, but goddamn can he make an entertaining movie.
My absolutely favorite take about art is the one from the edge of the 19->20th century, where they got obsessed about art having to be absolutely separated from reality, to be even worth considering, since that would only taint it, and just be perfect.
So in that case, I have no issues with separating the art from the artist. Or, since they also tried to make art out of their lives (the whole dandy thing), which made basically professional posers, I also don’t mind separating morality/reality from the artists and viewing their life as art. For example, Motley Crue were extremely bad people to be around, but their lifestyle was portrayed well enough that it does sound kinda fun (as long as you don’t actually live like that in reality), so I don’t judge and kind of appreciate them trying.
On the other hand, if someone is a dick as an artist without their behavior being refined enough to pass as an art/pose/dandyism, I make sure to not give them any money whatsoever, or promote their products, and just shittalk and laugh at them. Even if their actuall art is good, which I will probably enjoy, but will definitely not pay for.
Is it a good take on the question that makes sense? Probably not, but it does work for me.
deleted by creator
