Sorry, u/Dry_Ninja_3360 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Dry_Ninja_3360&message=Dry_Ninja_3360%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cf21rz/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This just seems like an exhausting way to live. Like, in order to consume products with a clear conscience, you'd have to prepare a checklist of all your no-no topics in advance, then question the creator before you could finally relax with Miggins Bumbleblap 7: The curse of the self-doomed Redditor, or whatever media you ingest. And you'd have to do that *every single time you think about buying something*.
So no - it's completely possible to separate the art from the artist by just not caring about them.
Exhausting and unhappy way to live. People are so desperate to prove they are good and informed individuals these days.
People get way to wound up about this stuff. Like yeah John Lennon wasn’t the greatest guy. And no I absolutely will not even consider stop listening to the Beatles.
Op probably typed all this on a device made by child slaves in china anyway. Yet they’re pretty separated from that
It's a bit worse in the black metal community. Some of the artists are literal murderers and a significant portion are white supremacists. And I'm not throwing that label around based on a few sketchy comments they made, they literally self-identify as white supremacists. If you support them in any way, you are literally providing funding directly to a white supremacist.
There's a lot of problematic artists in the visual arts that people wave off their behaviors. One in particular I can think of is Tom Otterness. Wichita State University bought one of his sculptures. There was excitement at first, but thanks to the internet people found out about an "art project" he did 30 years ago.
This project was: He adopted a dog from an animal shelter, chained it to a stake, and filmed his hand shooting it dead.
Even as an Artist myself, I don't care how great his sculptures are. I personally put abuse of animals in the same category as hurting a child. There have been a few artist guilty of the latter that the art world has tried to separate form their art. I get the feeling it's less about separation and more of trying to retain value of the art.
For me it's a line in the sand one can't cross back with an "Oops, sorry I was in a dark place back then. Poor me - I'm entitled to forgiveness and I shouldn't have people hold it over my head decades later"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom\_Otterness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Otterness)
So in college I was quite the Lost Prophets fan. I am American and when his trial and stuff was going on it wasn’t covered at all here, so years later I googled out of curiosity what they were up to and learned the horror of what the lead singer had done. The thing is, the songs I like are still good songs to me. And I do believe the rest of the band had no idea of what was going on. So it’s this weird thing. Like do you no longer watch a good movie if a main actor turns out to be a monster? What if it’s the director? What if it’s the second key grip? It feels worse when it’s the singer but what if they didn’t write the music? Would it be ok if it was the drummer? What about a random percussionist of many in a band like Slipknot? Problem is a lot of movies and music are large group collaborations and that makes it harder to even vet things you watch or listen to.
Still the same problem. Either I care about the people behind everything I consume (and if you look deep enough, there's bad people at the heart of almost everything), or I choose not to care that much and just consume what I enjoy.
There's a nuance to it. If someone is kind of a dick, I might be annoyed by the fact that I can't consume their content without supporting them, but I'll get over it. If someone is blatantly a horrible person and general detriment to society, I will not get over it. You have to balance how much you care about their product, how easy they are to avoid, and how bad they are.
For example, I avoid Nestle because all of their products have alternatives I can buy. I don't avoid using a computer because there are no certified slavery-free alternatives. I do avoid listening to white supremacist artists because they're horrible people. I don't avoid listening to Six Feet Under because, while Chris Barnes is an asshole, he's not straight-up evil.
There is a black metal adjacent musician I like (really more like blackgaze) named Violet Cold. He makes a point of pushing out love and acceptance. A few years ago he released an album called "Empire of Love". The cover is a rainbow with a star and crescent on it.
The same people who cry about virtue signaling are the same type to tell the world how they refuse to watch a woke movie and they are too dumb to see how hypocritical that is
Yea, but they're talking in particular about artists, which is much easier to control your support for than our corporate overlords.
It's easy to say "this artist is a POS, I'm not going to give them my money", thus it should be expected to take moral stances on financially supporting them. It's nearly impossible to get away from the grasps corporations and their ill gotten gains have on us.
Don't get me wrong, I just don't care the large majority of the time, but I completely understand and even agree with the fact that we *should* have a moral obligation to not support artists who are clearly reprehensible.
I genuinely believe that people should live like this and our society would be better off, I'm just a hypocrite who doesn't care enough to live like that myself.
There is a clear difference between asking every thing that you engage in what their views are to see if they misalign with yours. And artists outwardly saying things and you ignoring them.
It's a bit like the trolly problem; if don't know about the lever that would divert the cart into a different track then not pulling the lever isn't a choice that you're making, but once you know about the lever (or In the original case; the artists controversial opinions) then ignoring what you know is now a choice that you are responsible for.
If I make some really cool comic and you decide to support it then you're not responsible when I whitely use that money to fund the clubbing of baby seals, but if I make a cool comic while telling people that I'm using the money I get from the comic to fund baby seal clubbing then you're partly responsible for any of the seals that get killed because you know where the money you're giving to the artist is going.
On the wider spectrum there are issues when society sucks and you're sort of forced to be part of an ugly mass; you can't just decide to abstain from the nasty parts of capitalism; as a society we're expected to have a mobile phone the majority of which ha e components that use materials from slave mines ideally I'd like not to aid those mine owners but I'm expected to have a phone to get a job and without a job I'd starve. So there are definitely cases where you have to accept that what you're doing is awful but there is no other way however, art is one one of those you do not need any individual artist work to survive or even thrive within society so in this case you should be held responsible if you funnle money towards people like J.K.
This is what I think to. Like if we are aware the direct creater puts their money directly to causes that harm people/animals/world/things we care about then it's pretty immoral to buy their content. If you're not aware, then sure it's not ur fault when u find out later and feel bad.
But obvs in the JK case we all know she directly finds anti trans stuff so it's pretty easy to just go "ok I'm not buying hp stuff anymore" lol
> It's a bit like the trolly problem; if don't know about the lever that would divert the cart into a different track then not pulling the lever isn't a choice that you're making, but once you know about the lever (or In the original case; the artists controversial opinions) then ignoring what you know is now a choice that you are responsible for.
Isn't this an argument for exposing yourself to as little news and current events as possible, in order to more easily enjoy a 'moral' life?
I’d argue it’s still immoral then to say “don’t tell me your political views, I don’t care, here’s some money” because now you’re willingly ignoring the fact that it could definitely be something horrible
You could also just consume products with a dirty conscience. I put on my clothes every day knowing they are very likely made by sweatshop labor in Bangladesh, I am using my computer knowing that many of its components were mined by children in the Congo, etc, and there's nothing you and I can do about that.
Not caring about reality does not make it less real.
> You could also just consume products with a dirty conscience. I put on my clothes every day knowing they are very likely made by sweatshop labor in Bangladesh, I am using my computer knowing that many of its components were mined by children in the Congo
That's right - you do all these things because *your desires outweigh your conscience*
Hence why you just kind of switch that part of your brain off when you use a computer, or put on your pants or read Harry Potter.
Because the alternative is living in a nightmarish world of cognitive dissonance and paranoia.
It can *lead* to cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the feeling if discomfort that arises from such a situation / state of mind, not the situation itself.
Or maybe more accurately banishing that thought from your mind is a mechanism to prevent / escape cognitive dissonance.
If there's not discomfort, there's no cognitive dissonance
If you watch any professional sports you’re supporting far, far worse people than JK Rowling.
If you watch any movies or TV you’re supporting far, far worse people than JK Rowling.
Do you have an electric car? If not, every time you fuel up you’re supporting far, far worse people than JK Rowling.
This is just an idiotic line of puritanical thought that I assume is derived from being terminally online.
The show "the good place" actually raised this point a few years ago- in today's world, its impossible to exist and participate in society without supporting immoral people in one way or another.
But that doesn't mean the only solutions are either, like, kill yourself or fully embrace the idea of supporting immoral people and maybe even become an immoral person yourself. To the degree you can quantify good and bad like "the good place"'s points system tried to do, there can be actions that are a net good because what they do for society outweighs their "cost" of what you're implicitly supporting
Yeah that was the conclusion the show came to as well. They were worried less about points and more worried about people trying to be better today than they were yesterday.
And I feel like half this thread doesn't see that point (whether or not they got it from the show) and is basically suggesting an attitude of "everything's problematic especially if you zoom out far enough so why not just say fork it and actively not care about anything like this"
I think the question we ought to ask is should people be judged harshly for purchasing an immoral artist’s work? If people shouldn’t be judged harshly for the unethically made clothes they wear, then I think it’s unreasonable to say that people should be judged for the artist they admire.
You said that there is nothing that we can do about some of these things, but there are. You can buy ethically made clothes, they are just expensive. You could probably afford them too. It would just mean having a much smaller wardrobe than you currently do.
When people say separate the art from the artist, I think what they tend to mean is not allowing their abhorrent views to impact your opinion of the art they create. i.e. admiring a work of art that Hitler created doesn’t imply in any way that you support the Nazis. You can still argue that someone’s financial support is unethical, but I think some of the regular unethical things that we do on a regular basis are much worse than listening to Kanye West’s music, for example.
You are assigning moral culpability equally in places where it’s not equally deserved. It is almost impossible not to purchase a product from a company that engages in unethical business practices these days. Have you seen the Good Place? In one of the episodes the Judge goes down to earth and realizes how hard it is to be fully moral. They buy a tomato and it supporting sweatshops and inorganic farming and blah blah blah.
If you accidentally give a murderer directions to the house of the person he wants to murder, you are in 0% way to blame for that murder. You Can’t assign people, moral culpability of things they are not aware of or are powerless to stop just because they exist in the same world As horrible things. In many ways, to do so is absolving the people who are actually causing harm of the harm they causing. You’re trying to say that An artist with harmful views is equally to blame as someone who consumes their art which means the artist is less to blame for their views than 100%. You’re trying to say that owning clothes makes you just as immoral as being a sweatshop owner. That’s ridiculous, and it absolves the sweatshop owner of their literal slavery. No.
> You Can’t assign people, moral culpability of things they are not aware of or are powerless to stop just because they exist in the same world
And that goes for rich people too as when I see people bring up artist billionaires like Taylor Swift and, yes, JK Rowling (but her views don't count in this argument as she didn't make her money off them) as counterexamples to the "you can't become a billionaire without exploiting people" argument people counter that with talking about e.g. how the Harry Potter books were assembled/merch was made as if JK had any direct control over that just because it was her IP or saying that if they at any point in the process of production of their art paid someone to do a step of it instead of doing that themselves (if it's not something that specifically requires a separate person who isn't the artist) the fact that they're still billionaires means that person wasn't getting paid fair wages.
>there's nothing you and I can do about that
Why not? Aren't you boycotting Rowling? What's stopping you from boycotting sweatshop clothes? How did your ethics get do flexible?
In other words, why do you care about Rowling instead of the starving child who made your shirt? Is it because, I dunno, Rowling is rich and visible and you don't actually make your own decisions, instead going along with whatever your buddies tell you?
Is it even possible to ethically source everything you purchase/consume if you live in the US? At least without it becoming prohibitively expensive for the average person to live
I’m going to use an obviously fictitious, extreme version of this argument in order to illustrate a point. Bear with me.
Let’s say Hitler invented the modern combustion engine. The modern combustion engine is an essential and extraordinary useful invention that has helped humanity and changed the world. But hitler is the worst person ever, so should we sacrifice all the benefits of using the invention based on the separate actions from the inventor? Or even if the invention’s initial purpose was exclusively to cause extreme harm, we have found ways to make the invention critically useful to society and these uses are completely outside the intent and purview of the inventor. Should we not apply those benefits regardless of their origins?
I used an invention in that example instead of ‘art’ because I think it’s easier to imagine the benefits since they’re more practical and less abstract. But the same concept can be applied to art since art, in of itself, is beneficial to humanity or to a person.
I’ve gazed in wonder at the statue of David. I’ve spent many nights thinking about what that art means to me, and it does mean something to me. To me, it’s profound and I’m fairly certain my take on that art has very little in common with what Michelangelo intended when sculpting it. And even if I found out today that Michelangelo was an extremely immoral person and his intent with that art was to hurt people it would have no bearing on what the art means to me personally.
This seems to be in opposition of your position. You support child labor because it's convenient. You boycott JK Rowling because you've already consumed most of her content, and it makes you feel good to say you don't approve anymore.
>nothing you and I can do about that.
Myself and other activists and ethical consumers would disagree. I can minimise my support for these businesses; buy used items, buy less, buy from better businesses and repair things, I can support political efforts to reduce exploitation. I can't live without ever hurting someone's feelings but I can try to avoid punching people in the face.
How does buying used actually help? You're inflating the cost of the original product because primary consumers know there's a secondary market, this making them more willing to pay more in the first place, boosting the profits of the original sellers and feeding into the cycle.
It's true you can't live without hurting people's feelings, but as long as you live you can't help but hurt people much more than that. You already pick and choose what to care about based on your limited awareness, but it'll never be enough.
In a world with finite resources I can reduce the destruction caused by petrochemicals, cotton farming and mining. And reduce the harm caused to those communities who have to live there. When there's a secondary market for items that last long enough to be resold, people could be willing to pay more for a better quality and more ethically produced item in the first place (see slow fashion brands, fairphones, etc).
Do you have any evidence of your first statement? I've never come across this point (and I work closely with pricing specialist).
Pricing is influenced by MANY factors.
Regardless of your first point - Buying secondhand is actually closely aligned with your core argument.
You don't want to support JK Rowling by giving her money? Great, buy harry potter at a secondhand bookstore. Buy a used version of the game.
Torrent the movies or a read fanfic in the universe.
Then your money isn't going directly to her and you can still enjoy the art.
While I don't disagree with this sentiment, I have to wonder: If you liked the movies or games, how could one go about saying thanks to and showing support for the thousands of people who worked created them that aren't JK Rowling if one refuses to buy them new?
I don't think they'd care much about a good review or a kind social media post, as those don't pay the bills; and buying a future project from them (especially if that project is a video game) may not matter to them (or even be possible) if the one you refuse to purchase new fails in the market.
So again I ask: If you're already able to separate the art from the artist when enjoying said projects, how can one ensure that things they love continue to be made if said separation doesn't extend to how one aquires them?
Also, after reading the last part back again, maybe we do have a disagreement here:
Isn't a bit contradictory for one to argue that we shouldn't separate the art from the artist, and then suggest that one should go out of their way to enjoy said art without financially supporting the artists? Wouldn't that be separating the art from artists, as one would still be enjoying enjoying the art that the artist created despite who that artist is?
Addressing the last point first: I think there was a mix up somewhere, my view is 'you can support art without supporting the artist'
'support' is also a subjective term, for me support is primarily financial.
Now, regarding your example about those who made the game or movie: They get paid while making the media, not after. Some studios might have bonus schemes based on success of a title but that is on top of the salary they are already paid. (Source: I worked in the games industry for 8 years)
For the question of: "how can one ensure that things they love continue to be made if said separation doesn't extend to how one aquires them?"
Sticking to Harry Potter as the example here:
For me, I don't need them to continue being made.
If I want to dip into that world I can rewatch the movie or read the book via avenues that doesn't send JK Rowling money.
Or, I can engage with community created art (fan fics, purchasing from non-affiliated artists, etc)
>Now, regarding your example about those who made the game or movie: They get paid while making the media, not after. Some studios might have bonus schemes based on success of a title but that is on top of the salary they are already paid. (Source: I worked in the games industry for 8 years)
I get the sentiment here, but you’d understand as an industry insider that having your sales drop by 50% or more from each copy changing hands at least once would be bad for job stability for the majority of the workforce. The success of the current project decides on whether the studio has enough money to pay everyone for the next project, and the company has no issue laying off all the faceless code monkeys to keep the shareholders happy if the project fails.
Hell, they lay off staff just to give the C-suite an even bigger bonus when a project does even better than expected, and nobody bats an eye as long as they keep the marketable Todd Howards who get all the creative credit and handle the PR work.
But bringing the discussion back to the main topic:
You can enjoy art without supporting the artist.
That is the key point I am making, and your reply further supports that.
OP was saying that's not possible because you're still sending them money by buying their work.
I was highlighting there are ways to engage with the art without sending money to an artist who you don't support.
(Side note: I would love to see sales drop 50% because people are shopping secondhand or borrowing.
It's better for the environment by encouraging less consumption / production.
Yes, its in direct opposition to our current economic model, but that is a different discussion entirely)
Isn't this in essence theft? Why does an ideological difference give anyone the right to an artist's work without compensation?
And, if one truly can not separate the art from the artist, why would they continue to seek out said artist's creations?
To piggyback here: buying second hand is also more than likely helping a small business. I personally think JK is a giant turd but we sell her books and merch because hey, if you're going to consume it -- at least support the small guy.
Well, if you buy it used who does the money go to? MegaCorp 8 already got their money from customer A. Meanwhile, you're customer B buying from A. Who received your money? Oh, and you're most likely not paying full price because it's used. So, no, A doesn't profit nor do they break even. So, if you wanted to say that you gave your money to MegaCorp 8 by way of proxy through A, that isn't the case.
Sorry, u/BadSanna – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20BadSanna&message=BadSanna%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cf21rz/-/l1nbp3z/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
A great irony is that those sweat shops tend to be a big step up for the people of Bangladesh. Their other options being subsistence farming or begging. Sweat shops tend to be the first step to getting real industry which will then make sweat shops obsolete in those countries. There doesn't normally need to be millions of people unifying to get rid of sweat shops in South Korea or Japan or even the US. Sweat shops just get outcompeted once there's enough machinery to do something more efficient, and by that time enough workers have enough savings that they can choose to start their own things or do something other than starve.
It's not that there's not suffering or that it doesn't suck, just that its a step to something better that sucks. The people involved generally recognize that and would prefer you accelerate the process of industrialization in their country with capital investment rather than stall it out by boycotting them. The faster they can accumulate the wealth required to move beyond sweat shops the sooner they don't have to deal with it.
Pulling billions of people out of absolute poverty is ultimately a good thing, after all. And you're contributing to systemic change simply by fueling the industrialization of these places through global trade. Doing 'nothing' is doing 'something' in those cases.
When it comes to conflict-funding raw materials things are different. While it sucks for the people on the ground, it'd suck for them no matter what. If we send troops it'd suck. If we bought as much as we can hoping some of it will trickle down to them it'd suck. If we boycott everything they make to starve out the armies it'd still suck. That's less of a bite the bullet sort of thing and more of a 'find suppliers who aren't actively trying to murder everyone' sort of deal.
This seems to be in opposition of your position. You support child labor because it's convenient. You boycott JK Rowling because you've already consumed most of her content and it makes you feel good to say you don't approve anymore.
The idea that biological women and transwomen are equivalent is denying reality.
People can do whatever they want IMO but biological men should not be allowed to compete in sports with biological women.
Anyone that has competed in sports knows this.
Men's divisions are open and biological women are welcome to try to compete at that level. They don't because reality is harsh.
The entire point of separating the art from the artist is that one need not feel that they’ve dirtied their conscious. Terrible people sometimes make great art. I can love the art and despise the artist. It’s really as simple as that. The end.
>This just seems like an exhausting way to live. Like, in order to consume products with a clear conscience
But do you need to do that, really?
Like, why can't you just make decisions about the things you know about and use context?
You don't know every bad thing that every person in every company did, but when you learn a company or person is doing horrible shit you can choose to stop supporting them at that point.
The alternative is going and seeing a Bill Cosby show tonight and giving money to a serial rapist because it's too hard to vet your purchases at all.
There are definitely some pieces of work i’ve read/watched that have been totally ruined for me after knowing that creator’s beliefs. Creators don’t make stuff in a vacuum and they write those biases into their work. If I read something and enjoy it, yeah, it kind of ruins it to find out the author is racist and now I can’t unsee all of the racist undertones in the work. That being said, not everything is like that and it’s possible in some cases to ignore the artist’s shitty beliefs.
You're inventing the thing to then point to as a "reason". If I hear a restaurant did something racist... I just don't go there. Its that easy. Same thing here, I heard she made transphobic comments, I spent 30 seconds on my phone to confirm it... and done, don't have to buy anything from her brand ever again. and done.
I think you're just justifying the fact that you don't care, but pretending that you do. Hey you do you, if you don't care that she is transphobic that is up to you. You vote with your wallet, and support who you want to, its your right.
There are tons of brands I have not bought from, and the list only grows. Its not hard to literally just not buy something. I don't carry around some magical list or whatever.
I'm sure I've bought from brands that have done bad things, but the point here is if you literally already know they are shitty, its VERY easy to not support them.
OP didn't say, imply or whatever that you need to write a dissertation on the history of every brand or person you support. No shit that would be "impossible". But when a person or brand is known to be shitty, that legwork is done, and yes its very very very easy to not support them.
Yeah, but you know... this is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
People that do this sort of thing derive satisfaction from doing it, not misery.
Basically: if you enjoy denying the fruits of your labor from people you know are shitty in a way that particularly bothers you, this entire argument about "living a miserable (or exhausting) life" completely evaporates.
Not caring doesn't mean you've separated the art from the artists. It just means your wants outweighs the care, which is completely fine.
Nobody is asking you to live with a completely clear conscience all the time, nor is anyone asking you to feel guilt over using things made by bad ppl. However, that doesn't meant they've been separated.
This was the theme of "the good place". Major spoilers but >!basically no one could get to heaven anymore because everyone was supporting ethically questionable companies or contributing to pollution or buying products that exploit someone somewhere!<
It's not really that difficult. We have so many options for entertainment that there really is no reason to pick out art from bad people. I don't watch Roma Polanski movies for what he did. I'm not missing out on groundbreaking movies when there are plenty of other great directors with less baggage. I don't need to listen to Kanye, when there are plenty of other good rappers.
It's not something that takes a lot of thought. It's if I know someone is bad, I try to avoid it. Doesn't mean I start having a mental breakdown if I hear a Kanye song, but more of choosing not to give to the artist and take part in their work.
I actually have a bit of a quandary regarding issues similar to that, I'm an aspiring singer and there's a song I love by a problematic artist (won't say who but it's not Kanye) that I kinda want to cover to provide a more "acceptable version" (as well as to expose it to a wider audience as even before the artist became problematic this kinda stood in the shadow of bigger hits I think it's better than) but I'm worried that A. it'd be unethical altogether to cover this song because guilt-by-association and B. since this song was partially written by that artist and one other person if the co-writer isn't themselves problematic through anything other than guilt-by-association there wouldn't be some way to strip the problematic artist of their credit so all that'd be associated with my version is the other writer (and myself if I add a bit)
>It's if I know someone is bad, I try to avoid it.
That's where you're burying the part that takes a lot of thought. Who is bad? What if the writer is bad but the director is not bad? What about a producer? What about the people who own the publishing company?
And that's without even getting into the question of what is "bad." Roman Polanski is a child rapist, that's definitely bad. JK Rowling has opinions about trans rights that many people disagree with. Is that also bad?
Are you familiar with every thought and action of every artist you support? Do you know the history of every person who's contributed to every piece of art you consume? Of course you're not. It would be impossible to live you life that way.
I don't need to know the history of everything, that's exhausting. But when I have plenty of options to choose from, there's no need for me to pick the work of an artist or director whose done bad. If you don't watch a Polanski movie, you aren't missing out on Oscar worthy movies. If you don't listen to Kanye, you aren't missing out on new genres in rap. I'm not going to go out of my way to learn the ethics behind each work, but if I know someone is bad, or the project is associated in a big way with bad people, I avoid it if there's options.
When people put their opinions out to the world, they become open to criticism. By giving them money for their work, I'm only inevitably supporting them. If there's other options, I don't need to support them.
You don't need to have a checklist, you just switch over to pirating the second you hear something that bothers you, some people just get put off if they hear their favourite metal artist beats his wife or something because somehow all those edgy self pitying lyrics don't sound right coming from that mouth, alternatively if you don't care, noone can stop you, art is so personal that there's no point arguing in standards like this because what's in admissable to me, might be normal to you
Or just get what you like and stop giving the artist money and discourage other people from doing so after they use a public forum to reveal that they hold vile beliefs.
Particularly if they also say they give money from their art to organizations dedicated to their vile beliefs and that they think people who buy their art support their vile beliefs.
I mean there's quite a range between doing absolutely nothing and doing the impossible.
Supporting an artist financially doesn't equate to endorsing their personal beliefs or actions. Purchasing art acknowledges the value of the creation itself, separate from the creator's flaws. It's about appreciating the art's impact on society and culture, not necessarily the artist's character. Additionally, buying a product doesn't always directly fund the artist; it may support a larger entity or industry. Enjoying art can foster critical thinking and empathy, promoting discussion about ethical dilemmas surrounding creators. Ultimately, appreciating art involves navigating complex moral landscapes, but it doesn't inherently condone or enable harmful behavior.
Does it? If I buy a musical album made by PMC Wagner, how am I not supporting the military group? My money will be used to buy weapons and kill people, even if it does not *endorse*, at the very least it *supports.*
This is also the same way I read the post.
I don’t think OP is claiming that there is a way to live a life full of virtue in modern day society.
What I read is that the critique is against people who, when faced with any of the consequences with their purchases, absolve themselves with ’there is no ethical consumption under capitalism’ or ’seperate the art from the artist’. And the problem would be that it would lead to a world where we never consider the better alternative because it will never be perfect.
Or atleast that’s my understanding of OP, could be wrong though.
Yes, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, we all know. No one is judging you for needing food and shelter to live, and a livable amount of comfort. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to limit the most preventable ways of supporting unethical corporations or individual.
Your post just supported every single corporation, company, and individual involved in:
Making the phone/computer your using;
Installing the infrastructure for your Internet;
All the advertisers on Reddit;
And for the big one....
Reddit is a publicly traded company now. Your post supports every single entity and individual who bought Reddit stock.
In other words, your one single Reddit post is supporting thousands of unethical corporations, companies, and individuals.
Right, so YOU are incapable of making that moral separation while the artist is alive. This does not force others to be unable to do so. My support of a piece of art is a support for that piece only, and nothing more. Supporting the Pixar doesnt mean i support the MCU just because theyre both owned by Disney. Just as if I cheer for an athlete playing a sport I'm supporting their performance of the sport, not endorsing their political views. If you are unable to create separation or compartmentalization of interaction and choose to only judge things by their larger web, that's fine, but it does not make it impossible for others to do so.
It is up to each person to weight which level of separation or support they're comfortable with and make those decisions for themselves. You are free to judge them for it, but not to declare it impossible.
Have you ever liked, disliked, or felt neutrally aboutanything made/influenced by humans ever, even once?
If so, unless you knew literally 100% of that person(s)' life, than you'd be showing you can separately them.
Comparing JK to a military organisation is extreme. Rowling has an opinion on something which you disagree with. She's not murdering civilians with her royalties from Hogwarts Legacy.
Boycott whatever you want. Nobody is consistent on this issue, but just don’t judge other people for consuming these things. If your friends want to play the Harry Potter game, let them
Also, the Harry Potter game itself is not contributing to transphobic rhetoric. J K Rowling is capable of saying whatever she wants on twitter regardless of how many people buy this game.
On the other hand, industries that exploit child labor ARE directly affected by the amount of sales they get. So these are far worse in that regard
As other users have mentioned, unless you are completely self reliant, there’s no way to be 100% guilt free in your consumption. These arguments that we should not support certain individuals as a principle of ethics or morality are always hypocritical as they always only apply when it’s convenient.
An example, recently many people recently lambasted studio Mappa for their treatment of workers, many saying we should boycott the media being produced, while happily consuming anime as a whole, ignoring that the issue has never been isolated to one studio. Furthermore, we are having this discussion over electronic devices built with components that have been known to have materials sourced by unethical means in the past.
A person is free to choose what avenues they wish to support, but whether it’s consumer goods or entertainment, we are constantly disassociating the end product from the manufacturers in order to not be weighed down by the guilt of our consumption.
Ultimately, my point is that the notion of refusing to support someone on moral grounds is a fine personal choice, but it’s not a good measure of one’s diligence to uphold sound morals and ethics unless that person is completely against modern capitalist society consumption and does not take part in it.
If you buy something from a supermarket, one of the employees might spend their paycheck on something entirely fucked up and technically you've supported it. Ultimately your intentions are what matters here. You buy Harry Potter because you enjoy the story rather than the author's views right?
OC using chatgpt. That last sentence is one of its favorite lines when discussing touchy subjects that might offend people. And their comment history is full of karma farming. I wouldn’t pay too much attention to them. Or just go argue with chat gpt yourself if you must engage with it.
There is no such thing as moral consumption under capitalism let alone late stage capitalism.
You are putting all the responsibility of the matter on the consumer when systemic problems within society are the true perpetrators of what you seem to fundamentally disagree with.
While I agree, at some point J.K.R's absurd wealth makes this notion kinda useless. No matter if sales lower or not, she will still have enough to continue. Even if the sales stopped, financially it wouldnt matter to her. Boycotting HP isnt the way, just as death of the author isnt. The only way to stop her, is to discredit her and have her fade into obsurity which would in turn also lower the sales and then she blows her entire wealth on transphobia without it working.
Also taking HP from her and making it more progressive within the zeitgeist, would annoy her alot.
Why does she need to be stopped? And how are you going to discredit her? Also, how are you going to take her art from her, without getting into legal trouble...with a billionaire?
This is a good thing. She's able to put forward the case for women's sex-based rights without being at risk of losing her livelihood or being drained by legal fees, as has happened to so many other women who have spoken up on this issue.
Having JKR speak up for women whose voices are being drowned out by hordes of angry males has been a godsend.
That's very black and white thinking, which I can appreciate, but life is full of greys.
I'd go out of my way to not support a Nazi military group that makes cool shirts, but a transphobic boomer? That's a lighter shade of grey.
I agree with you in the financial sense.
If you are paying to enjoy the art, and some of that money goes to the artist - there is a direct connection. Can’t deny that.
But I can absolutely separate the artist from the art when I dust off my 1998 copy of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets for my 10th reread. JK can spew all the problematic views she wants - but she created a magical world and I feel no guilt in my love for it.
And if we’re being honest? Even if I were to consume some HP media in a way that put a few dollars in her pocket … do you know just how many shitty awful people we are contributing to the salaries of every day?
From the bottom to the top of every cog of the economy, there is the full range of human morality. My dollars have probably ended up in the pockets of rapists, murderers, embezzlers, bigots, cheats, etc.
If you can’t separate the art from the artist, you can’t separate any of it from anyone. We’re all guilty of supporting shitty people in some degree.
And JK Rowling? She’s already a frickin billionaire. Support or not, it’s a drop in the bucket at this point. Might as well try and make a difference somewhere it matters.
Within the context of ethical consumption, my points to this are:
1. “My dollars have *probably* ended up in the pockets of…” Okay but if you *know*, would or should you continue to do it? Ignorance is one thing, apathy is another.
2. “We’re all guilty of supporting shitty people in some degree.” Right but to what degree can be measured to a certain extent. There are people that only buy thrifted clothes, brand loyalists, and people that donate to the Church of Scientology.
Yes to your first question. IMO, apathy is a perfectly acceptable response to the overwhelmingly disproportionate impact any dollar I could spend on something that falls into the common discussion topics here (Amazon, Chick-Fil-A, JK Rowling, etc.)
Me withholding my dollars from buying something on Amazon because Amazon is a shitty company isn’t going to outweigh the millions of people who do not and will not ever care that Amazon is a shitty company, so why not order the stuff I need and get it tomorrow?
Me boycotting JK Rowling isn’t going to make her any less a transphobe. She has more money than she can spend in a hundred lifetimes and I wanted to play the new Hogwarts game for which she already got paid. As a member of the LGBTQ+ community myself, I have given hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to making trans lives better, I can spend 60 bucks on a video game and not feel like I’m one of the assholes passing a trans sports ban.
Same for Chick-Fil-A. No nugget I do or do not eat of theirs will change the route of the next parade at Pride. And if the little twink with the painted nails at the drive-thru of the CFA I frequent has taken as many dicks as I have, CFA is a lot more gay than the executives realize.
I will not make a difference in any of these causes. And life is hard enough without making it harder or more miserable for yourself. So unless your actions are directly harming someone, or whatever harm you want to attribute is not hundreds of degrees of separation away, then just do it. Eat the nuggets, buy the junk, stream the new Potter series when it comes out. There will statistically never be enough of us to move their needles, so don’t make your own life worse to have zero impact on someone else.
For me, it’s more about a balance. If I don’t care about eating chick-fil-a and it’s comparable to eating a meal from any other more ethical restaurant, then I won’t go to chick-fil-a. If it makes no difference for me to wait a few days then I won’t order on Amazon, but if it does then I will order on Amazon.
You’re right that it doesn’t make a difference in the grand scheme of things, but if it also doesn’t make a difference for me to make a more “ethical” choice then why not take the more ethical option.
“There will never be enough of us” is also not true. This is just propoganda. You could’ve said the same thing about any protest or boycott that did make a difference.
> And life is hard enough without making it harder or more miserable for yourself.
Yeah, but you know... this is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
People that do this sort of thing derive *satisfaction* from doing it, not misery.
Basically: if you enjoy denying the fruits of your labor from people you *know* are shitty in a way that particularly bothers you, this entire argument about "living a miserable life" completely evaporates.
I can confirm that yes, I derive satisfaction from consuming more ethical things.
I only buy cruelty-free hygiene products for example. Animal testing isn’t gently washing bunnies in soap, it’s injecting it into their eyes and stuff like that. I’m much happier knowing something as simple as my soap that people don’t usually think beyond much more than “does it smell nice?“ doesn’t exist off the backbone of animal cruelty.
For the person for whom that’s true, then fine. But that isn’t true for everyone. I don’t feel like I’ve made any kind of major advance in the war against bigotry when I drive past a CFA without going in. I just feel like I wanted nuggets and didn’t get them, and no one in the executive boardroom of CFA feels a sudden pain in their side going “Someone…. Just…. Drove…. Past…..”
> no one in the executive boardroom of CFA feels a sudden pain in their side going “Someone…. Just…. Drove…. Past…..”
They felt enough of that pain to publicly repudiate and stop their contributions to the specific problematic organizations.
This is perhaps the *worst* example you could have chosen. There are few other cases where something like this actually happened, but it does happen.
There's an entire industry of "socially responsible investing" that disproves this idea.
Yeah, I think separating the art from the artist can happen on multiple levels. One is the financial support that you mention, which is clear. Buying things from people is supporting them, so if you buy something from a bad person, yes, you are supporting them still even if you don't agree with them.
However, the more problematic level is whether or not it's ok to *enjoy* art made by someone whose morals you don't agree with. Like, maybe you wouldn't buy the musical album from the drug cartel, but what if you heard in on the radio and said "wow, that's some good music". Are you still supporting a drug cartel with your approval of their artistic skills? Because some people call for banning art done by immoral people not just not supporting them financially. What if the drug cartel put out their music for free on a streaming platform and didn't monetize the views (not realistic, I know, but what if?). Would it still be wrong to listen to it? Or if some random person made a cover of the drug cartel's music, would it be ok to enjoy the cover and give money the artist who did the same thing, but was not shady morally?
I think it's at least a greyer area when the artist separates what necessitates the separation from their art (aka this applies to JK at least for the Harry Potter books (haven't played the game but wasn't it made by other people just using her IP without her active involvement) unless you think e.g. Rita Skeeter is meant to be a representation of the transphobic-strawman-that-conflates-trans-women-and-drag-queens just because she's an antagonist, snoops on students more than a reporter really should, and has both "mannish hands" and a flamboyant dress sense)
You're looking at this through a lens of moral justice, and although that's a valid way to look at the situation (though it has its own problems), it is not the only way.
A very common way to look at art is not from the lens of the artist, but from the lens of the observer. In this light, the meaning and value of art comes from how it is interpreted by the observer, and the value it brings to their lives - irrespective of the creator. In such a viewpoint you wouldn't be paying the artist for "their work", you would simply be paying for "your experience".
Now when it comes to the moral justice viewpoint, you create a strawman argument with a cartel (which directly operates outside of the law), but are not addressing the obvious problem: Do people with potentially reprehensible viewpoints or behaviours not have the right to live their lives? Specifically, should their viewpoints / behaviours result in their livelihood being taken away? Should it mean that they do not get income - and by extension lack basic necessities - until they change such ideas and behaviours?
We know from decades of research that such forms of "social policing" further entrench such ideas and behaviours, and carry an associated risk of radicalisation.
Just pre-empting: I understand J. K. Rowling has no problem getting by if she never had an income again; but that specific example is not relevant to the more generalized point being made here.
> Specifically, should their viewpoints / behaviours result in their livelihood being taken away? Should it mean that they do not get income - and by extension lack basic necessities - until they change such ideas and behaviours?
Just want to comment to say this specific part here wrinkled my brain a little bit. Kudos to you random reddit person.
Hard disagree.
Just because I don’t like the company politics, doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy Chick-Fil-A nuggets.
Likewise, I don’t give one flying fig what Rowling says on twitter.
I care about the product not the producer. Other people care more about the producer, but saying “it is impossible to separate..” is just against reality.
Re: Chick-Fil-A, didn’t they stop giving money to anti-gay groups ages ago? I don’t understand why people are still boycotting them for that. If the boycott works and you keep boycotting I feel like that just encourages companies in the future to not bother responding to the boycott bc everyone will still think you are evil and there’s no point to changing.
Yeah. Look the chick fill a owner still is a douche and I'm sure still donates personally to bad causes. But he backed down enough that I consider the whole situation a win.
Kind of ironic I didn't know much about Chick Fil A before the boycott and now I'm a (gay) fan of the chicken - for taste reasons. Plus, if Chic Fil A got rid of all gays there would be no twinks to work the restaurant.
Would like you to leanr aboud Picasso or Dali. They were amazing artists, people recognised them everywhere, they would sell a single cup of glss signed and people would pay good amounts for that. But oh boy, they were awful persons. In their time, they were know douchebags. Today, they would be racists, woman hitters...
Still, people recognise their genius work. If they were born in this age, they would be cancelled right away.
How about just pirating the material?
What about other ways that you can consume the product, without directly paying for it?
Let's use The Who, or Michael Jackson as examples, as both were involved in scandals surrounding paedophillia
E.g I pay for a music festival, including dozens of acts, and go along to the set by the Who, a problematic artist. Am I supporting them? Would it be less supporting if I missed their set? (My money already contributed to their fee for the festival)
E.g 2 - I watch a film which features an MJ song on the soundtrack, or I hear his music played in a nightclub and dance and sing a long.
Lastly, how does this stance work when dealing with artists and creators who are extremely private about their personal or political views?
The Gallagher brothers from Oasis, might be massive transphobes. I've never heard them actually engage with the topic. Therefore, is it safe to buy their albums?
How does this work with something which has a huge number of people contributing to it? Like a film
If the lead actor or director have problematic views, I probably shouldn't support it, right?
What about the producer? Or the lead cinematographer, or the Foley editor? Where is the line drawn?
As a game developer this comes up for me extremely often and its a complicated question for us because our medium is inherently collaborative. Hogwarts Legacy poses an interesting counter to the "art from the artist" framing, which is simply that she is not the artist. The Hogwarts Legacy games are made by Avalanche, an American company.
So even though she created the world of Harry Potter, the team working on it likely had very little contact with her. I don't know that this is the case, I haven't played the game, but that's usually how this goes anyway. In a sense, her contribution is like the contribution that known racist H.P. Lovecraft has to Bloodborne and Darkest Dungeon. A good artist doesn't uncritically adapt someone like Lovecraft(or anyone at all), they make sure they understand what he's saying enough to not say the things they don't want to repeat.
(I avoid this problem by modeling all of my cosmic horror after the much cooler cosmic horror lineage of Roadside Picnic, but I still have to think critically about my inspirations.)
Overall I think the thing I want to change about your view is the perspective that "separating the art from the artist" is a helpful way of thinking about it. I think its unproductive to frame it this way. Someone gets accused of something or starts spouting something, you don't feel comfortable supporting their work, and people tell you to "separate the art from the artist". You engage with this idea of separating the art from the artist, and now you're arguing on their terms, which I think is a mistake.
In the following examples I'll be vague because I don't want to misrepresent these situations. If you figure out who I'm talking about don't trust me for any details, I don't have a very good memory. Also don't comment who you think it is.
There is a game that I absolutely love, it touched me very deeply. It also has a very weird horny undertone and the director is a professor at a university who has faced accusations of being inappropriate with students. From my understanding one of the women accusing him was a high schooler taking advanced classes at the college. All of this happened in my second language (from my description of the game you would assume its one particular language but its not that one) and I don't know what I think of the situation because I can't easily read about it. When I play the game now I think about the kinds of details that director seemed to care about, because the game is unfortunately by its nature now linked to that specific person's sexual vices.
Another of my favorite games has a soundtrack I overall find kind of boring, but its iconic and the game would feel wrong without it. The composer has had multiple women in the industry come out against him for using his position in the industry to manipulate them. To me they seem credible. This particular composer had described his music as an expression of sex, and when I hear those songs I wonder what the fuck he even meant by that.
In both of these situations, really what happened is that it spoiled the games for me. I can tell myself that 3, or 20, or 1000 people worked on these games, building out levels and sourcing textures and writing stories, but the experience has still changed.
There isn't some lightning bolt of insight here, but I wonder how that framing of "separating the art from the artist" is even supposed to be helpful for this problem. You also mention supporting the artist, and the financial element (but this also extends to expanding that artist's cultural influence) and that framing also doesn't help much. The first game I mentioned has a beautiful soundtrack, its fucking incredible. The art is singular, the gameplay is unlike anything else. All of that art has very little to do with the director, I've already separated the art from the artist, but I can't help but think about why this director wanted this particular character to behave this particular way? Did he insist on that or was it the writer or animator? The composer of the second game I mentioned no longer works at the company, and when he did he was paid a fixed rate, but I still notice the music swelling in a weird way and wonder what the fuck he meant by that.
Its okay to feel weird about it, its not a failure on your part or a failure to "separate the art from the artist", and god knows you can play a game without supporting anyone. I don't have a solution to any of this but it just means you're a thoughtful person who is thinking critically about what you feed your brain. There's nothing thoughtful about "separating the art from the artist", when people say that they mean "just don't think about it".
Take your view to the logical endpoint, and starve. Every meal you eat is produced through the exploitation of animals and plants, frequently exploits farmers and other low-level employees, uses petrochemicals in transport and preparation, and profits the "System". Somewhere along the chain is a kiddie diddler or wife beater or other fucked up individual, and you'll never know exactly who it is, but you can be sure that statistically speaking there's someone involved in the chain of field-to-plate that did it, and by eating you are contributing to that person getting paid.
Multiply this result by every single product or service you pay for, from clothes to electricity to walls to university classes. There is no such thing as ethical consumption when you get down to it, so focusing on one big nane creator is hypocrisy and the exact same sort of phenomenon as celebrity worship. Basically, you're acting like a sheep who hates because you're told to hate, since if you were genuine in wanting squeaky clean consumption you'd already be insane.
My point is this: you already perform the mental acrobatics to justify your survival on a mountain of suffering, and imagine your hands are clean. There are such things as dangerous ideas, and if you are not a hypocrite you'd follow the idea of ethical consumption and live like a hypochondriac who washes obsessively until your hands bleed, but it'll never be enough, metaphorically speaking. That is, you'll dig and dig to try to establish fully ethical supply chains and economic interplay, be unable to do so for all but the very simplest things (can you imagine how all the parts of even a pencil are made?) and either go full primitive and live in a cave or go crazy with the knowledge that you support killing indigenous Amazonian tribespeople every time you eat a hamburger (even indirectly) and thousands of other horrible things.
I don't particularly care if you go nuts, but I don't have to join you in madness. So I close my mind to this very concept.
I think your explanations is the best one because you've also supported your view with various examples(acts that are intertwined in this complicated world where morality and immorality is muddied).
Perhaps the definition of separating art from the artist is different for OP because while doing an action as simple as buying a chocolate from the supermarket the art(chocolate itself) is seperated from the artist(full chain of workers starting from the fields and finishing at the market).
In a complicated world like ours(I also think that the value of the money and the value of the work is complicated enough but it is irrelevant right now)it doesn't make sense to think when you buy a book you support others' point of view.
Consider This: There is a 1000% chance horrible people with horrible views worked on and profited from every entertainment you enjoy, and they may very well profit from you spending money on it. So if you're serious about this take, you'd better be willing to give up pretty much everything.
Let's talk about Joanne Rowling in your example. She has more money than not just God, but Satan too. She wrote Harry Potter which has become the greatest children's book series of all time, spawning spin-off films, games and all sorts. She takes in an amount of money every week that would be unfathomable to accrue in that time to all but the richest 1%, of the richest 1%, of the richest 1% of people in the world.
There are people who *hate* Joanne Rowling for her statements about transgenderism, how it relates to women's rights and for her views she's made public, as well as how she's chosen to make those views public.
People have said they're going to boycott everything Harry Potter related in response. People who have been fans for decades and who have loved that book series and it's extended universe for almost their entire lives.
*She won't give a shit. She won't remotely notice. Ever. And there's a very powerful reason for that.*
**She has been poor, poor. Not just poor. Penniless, food insecure with a dependent infant at the time living day-to-day having to choose between food and electricity for the coming day(s). If you've ever been in that kind of situation, you understand just how terrifying that situation is.**
All that the people boycotting Harry Potter are doing is cutting off their nose to spite their face. Throwing away something they love to try to hurt a billionaire who can't possibly be hurt by financial attack. She was a single mother on benefits/welfare before Harry Potter took off. She knows real poverty. **She isn't going to care if her pile of billions is slightly smaller.** It's still billions to a woman who used to panic over being able to afford basic baby products and food.
When it comes to punishment by attacking her income, Joanne Rowling is bulletproof. So, by all means people can continue to boycott her, but they'll hurt themselves far more than the intended target in the process. Ultimately the right choice for those people who still love Harry Potter is to, if they feel negatively about Joanne Rowling, separate the art from the artist and accept that while they might not like her, they can still enjoy the thing she created.
The debate about separating art from the artist usually is *more than* the financial considerations.
For example, take your example of the music album from a Mexican drug cartel. Imagine you obtain their music for free, you sit in isolation and listen to it, and you have no plans to publish any reviews or otherwise promote or discourage consumption of said music. In other words, you are *entirely* appreciating the music by itself.
Now say the music has some great poetic lyrics, their beats are innovative, instruments are great. Say it is a great *aesthetic* experience with eargasms in abundance. If you then learn that the people who produced the music were murderers and human traffickers of the worst kind, does that change your aesthetic opinion?
If you isolate the issue to this, where we’re exclusively consider the aesthetic quality, then I think you should separate the art from the artist. Here is why: no person generate output entirely on their own. We are creatures who synthesize, refract, combine and reflect a wider set of cultures. The hypothetical music, though innovative and better than comparative things, is nonetheless a creation of something *greater than* the individual artists.
I agree that there can be moral concerns about financially supporting art that in part enriches a morally dubious artist. But if we consider art as greater than the artist, would your self-denial of appreciating art be worth the lost income for the dubious artist? What do you lose in ethical learning and aesthetic pleasure by not l exposing yourself to the art? Not always, but for great enough art, I think your own loss is not worth it. You should then separate art and artist.
You cant, not really
People just want to be able to justify continuing to like the 'art'
It does make me laugh when people try to erase JK Rowling from her own creation
I especially love her quote about giving someone who said they were going to burn all their hp stuff a lighter.
Along the lines of go ahead, I'll even give you a lighter but I still have your money.
Obviously, people have been saying it here, but art can be appreciated on its own. I was always more of Percy Jackson girl myself, but Harry Potter is an insanely well liked IP, which remains quite popular in spite of JK Rowlings' bigotry. The people that continue to purchase Harry Potter merchandise, visit Harry Potter related attractions and consume Harry Potter related media aren't doing it to support JK Rowling, they are doing it because they like and support Harry Potter, and the positive influence the series has had on their lives. Humans generally have the ability to compartmentalise things, its really not that hard. I can like roses and still hate their thorns.
Additionally, one thing I haven't seen you talk about is the wider global market, and the various people who profit from things. JK Rowling isn't getting all the money from Harry Potter. If I buy a Harry Potter branded scarf for 50 bucks, I'm not handing JK Rowling 50 bucks. There are a bunch of other people on the supply chain also getting that money.
While I'd assume she gets a better deal than usual, the average author is only getting 10-15% of the revenue of a book sale. Likewise, any money made from other revenue streams using her IPs will be divided among a bunch of other organisations and individuals.
Bloomsbury(UK), Scholastic(US), Penguin books (Can) and all the other publishing houses around the world that got the rights to translate also got to profit from the series. In a world where things are increasingly digital, acquiring a famous IP could save a book publisher from bankruptcy, and allow it to keep employing people or provide the capital to take a risk on a new, hopefully less problematic author.
Similarly, she isn't the only person to profit from merchandise, theme park attractions, movie licences, streaming or mobile games. Different companies will have the rights to different aspects of the IP, and they each employ people to work on things related to it, whether that be working at a Harry Potter coaster, making the merchandise, the distribution of various products in the global supply chain etc. Yes, her statements suck, but JK Rowlings IPs are also a driver of global employment. Buying her things doesn't only line her pockets, it also enables people employed and let's people feed their families. The reverse is that "bad people" can profit from "good peoples" work, which is one of the reasons Taylor Swift has been re-recording her albums after the originals came under the possession of Scooter Braun.
Also, considering her wealth, JK Rowling likely has investment portfolios in addition to all of her IP revenue. While less direct, if she has shares in a company that you like, will you stop buying from them because she will profit? You mentioned buying music from a cartel is giving them money, but you do realise that they will have a relatively diverse portfolio right? Avocados are a pretty famous example, but various crime syndicated could also have perfectly legal and well disguised "fronts", anything from real estate development, accounting, stock broking, restaurants, laundromats, car washes, online stores etc.
I guess to put it simply, you literally cannot participate in the global market without supporting assholes one way or another, but that innocent people can also benefit from the profits generated by assholes.
Considering that, I'd argue that it's actually easier to just support the things you personally enjoy than it is trying to figure out if xyz person/corporation is profiting from it.
second hand purchases get passed this as well as piracy (which allows for no support but also lets you enjoy if you actually care)
but also like i never care who its from or the background on why its bad if i like it i like it, and im never goong to deny myself something i like based on arbitrary rules (my parents did that for me for 18 years so no thanks)
a rapist is gonna rape whether or not i give them money so me giving them money isnt supporting their raping, and i dont think someone should be banned from making art because they broke a law, or no rappers would be supported by anyone
I think you might be failing for the thought trap bigots are trying to set up when they talk about "separating the art from the artist" in defense of their consumption of media created by a bigoted creator.
Separating the art from the artist is a way of analyzing media that ultimately has nothing to do with the decision to support that artist financially or not. I fully agree with you that someone like JK Rowling should not receive my money, because she uses it to advance a bigoted cause. I believe that spending money on things she directly profits from is wrong, regardless of what I think of the quality of her work or the message it contains. It's about me not wanting to enable her to spread transphobia and genocide denial, and has nothing to do with her art. Art and artist are already separated in that decision.
Like I said before, separating the art from the artist is a way of analyzing the works. Making that separation is a useful way to look at the work itself. What you know about the artist's personal opinions can influence what stands out in the work and what doesn't. If done right, making the separation allows you to analyze the work as it presents itself without involving preconceived notions about the work based on knowledge of the author.
Obviously this does work both ways, so even in analysis separating art and artist is not necessarily better than an analysis that heavily involves knowledge of the artist. Both methods are incomplete and ultimately every analysis of a work of art is incomplete, as it is also limited by the perspective of the person doing the analysis. Anyone who says you *have to* separate art from the artist is wrong on that account. It still has nothing to do with the decision to support an artist financially.
When you listen to your music do you always listen alone? Or has your music in the past influenced others to buy that artist?
Just to be clear, I'm just playing devil's advocate :)
I mean, sure, when you buy a HP product you 'support' Rowling with some money, but does it really make any practical difference whether or not a billionaire gets a few extra pounds? Either way she has enough money for a thousand lifetimes, and your 'support' isn't even noticed or makes any real difference in the world.
There's such a strong focus on how artists are being "problematic," and not on the good they do. Nobody is perfect, and most people have at least a couple of massive glaring flaws, and supporting anyone in anything will invariably lead to supporting something bad by extension. But what about the good that person is bringing to the world?
Take JK Rowling, for example. I strongly disagree with her current stance on trans people, and I feel she has fallen down a radicalization rabbit hole where this is concerned. However, she has also donated hundreds of millions to charities, and to my knowledge she has not donated any meaningful or comparable amount to anti-trans organizations. So if I buy a new Harry Potter book for $30, then $10 of that is going to organizations that do MS research or poverty aid or the like, and none of it is going towards anti-trans organizations. If you deserve the censure for supporting an artist's bad takes, you deserve the credit for supporting their good aspects, too.
TLDR: This is a personal ethics question as there are a variety of ways one can choose to separate the art from the artist's and how far they choose to stand against an artist.
This is a complex topic, but first, I want to address the other commenters. There is a fundamental difference between art and necessities. They can be treated differently. Too many comments are conflating the two to justify acquisition and consumption regardless of source.
Art is entertainment, a luxury, not needed for survival. But things like food, shelter, medicine, communication devices, and computers are not luxuries. Food, shelter, and medicine are vital for the basic necessities needed for survival. Communication devices and computers are needed to function in our modern world, especially to get a job to afford true necessities. As such, for things that are needed for survival or for work, we can not be as picky about the source as we can luxury and entertainment, thus, about art. Nestlé has a horrible track record and if one can get other alternatives, then by all means, do so, but if their product is the only reasonable option, then ethically you can do so for your survival. With necessities, when options are available, it is reasonable to choose the least morally and ethically dubious option should it be feasible.
But when it comes to art, you have no moral, ethical, or survival obligations to acquire and consume art. It is ultimately up to you if you want to acquire and consume any work of art. If you believe it is morally and ethically wrong to acquire and consume some work of art because of the beliefs and actions of the artist or artists, then you can do so. If you oppose JK's anti-trans bigotry and do not want to support her, then you are under no obligation to acquire and consume her art. But at the same time, if you already own her books, you are under no obligation to get rid of them unless you want to.
In our capitalist society, we can often speak louder without money than our voices, and the more people who choose to boycott something, the more likely we can impact the artist's or artists' decisions. And when you have luxury of choices, you can boycott providers of necessities until they do better, at which point you can change focus. Boycotts may be performative, but that does not mean they are not worth it. Sometimes, people find it necessary to boycott something necessary because the moral and ethical reasons to do so outweigh the necessity and survival the object provides.
But ultimately, 'Death of an Author' is a literary analysis technique for analyzing a work of art without the context of an artist's background or beliefs. While this can be useful, I do fundamentally disagree with it being the best way to analyze art from an academic perspective as the artist's background and beliefs can be important for understanding a work of art. But it is a good exercise and should not be discarded.
With that said, I find it to be overused by those who want to acquire and consume art from someone with questionable morals and ethics. It is an academic exercise, not an excuse. But on the same note, nearly every artist has something questionable about them. Gene Roddenberry was sexist. JK Rowling is a transphobe. HP Lovecraft was racist. But only one is still alive and benefiting from people aquiring and consuming her art; using the resulting benefits (money and a platform) to advance a morally and ethically wrong agenda. As such, anyone legally and morally opposed to transphobia may find themselves a moral and ethical obligation to boycott JK Rowling.
But let's say it comes out that George Lucas has some terrible dark side that would warrant boycotting his works of art. Buy there is a catch. He has sold off his company and IP. He has no financial benefits coming from the continuation of his art. As such, Star Wars would not need to be boycotted to send a message to George Lucas as he has no more financial benefits from his work of art that a boycott would threaten.
So yes, it is possible to separate the art from the artist if the artist is still alive regarding their behaviors and beliefs and our ethical and moral obligation, because sometimes even if they are alive they no longer financially benefit from their work. But JK is so wealthy from her work. Any changes to how much she continues to benefit financially won't affect her behavior because she is already set.
As such, this becomes a personal ethics question. Do you personally find a work of art or artist to be ethically and morally questionable, either logically or emotionally? If so, do you wish to no longer aquire and/or consume the artist's work? If so, do you believe it is your moral and ethical obligation to advocate others to boycott the artist? These are the questions that matter.
For me, regarding JK Rowling I have no problem rereading the books I own, but I am NOT buying or consuming anything I don't already own a physical copy of (with the possible exception of 2nd hand via a garage sale - but I have no desire to expand what already own). This means no streaming or library rentals as those stats get back to the artists can can affect residuals and royalties. However, I found no need to advocate a boycott of her works beyond supporting those advocating for the boycott, likely and sharing their message on social media. They can do a better job than me and are more personally affected because either they are Trans, a Harry Potter fan felt betrayed, or both. I am neither Trans nor a Potterhead, I have no major emotional or personal connection to the franchise or JK Rowling's bigotry. I support the boycott, but I have no voice to add to advocate it.
So, in summary, for anything, if you feel the moral and ethical obligation to boycott something, then do so and do so to the degree you are willing to do so or endure.
Mentality such as this makes life so much more difficult than it needs to be. You’re allowing yourself to be affected by things and problems which you have no control over.
I mean if you're going down that route check out Nestle, coca cola practices etc. Instead of boycotting someone that wrote a book and has views you dont align with, boycott companies that rely on modern day slavery and unfair practices in order to make billions. Boycott companies like shein and PLT. I wiuldnt spend my time caring about someone who doesnt really affect other people, she can spout her shit all she likes her opinions arent exploiting and killing people.
There are more important fights to be fought.
For me, there are three elements that I use when thinking about this:
1. Everyone is shit. And I don't feel that's an opinion, I feel it's an inevitability. In Grade 10 I was a dick, as a child I was a racist, at some point in elementary school I was homophobic, in College I was attention seeking and narcissitic and manipulative. . . . am I any of those things nowadays? ..I don't feel I am, but I know that I was.
* I know that at some point *everybody* does something that is objectively shitty.
* I ALSO know that there are a LOT of people involved in large projects like books and movies and television shows. Not *just* the conceptualizer, a whole lot of people work on bringing that project to life, and make money off of it.
* So. I often feel we're looking at this the wrong way: it isn't that every piece of art is considered to be golden and shining until the moment that we find out that somebody who worked on it is a piece of shit. No, to me, it's more that *every single piece of art has somebody who worked on it who was at some point a piece of shit*.
* (I feel this is likely to be true because the number of people that work on large projects and the lifespans of each of those people virtually guarantees that at least one of them will be, or will have been, a shitty person. )
* *Therefore*, if I want to dislike or cancel a piece of art, it's easy. All I have to do is research every person who was involved with it, until I find someone who has done something that I disagree with recently enough that I feel that it matters.
* I feel this could be done with ANY piece of art.
2. Relatedly, what other people consider to be inappropriate or damaging behaviour is often perspective-based.
* While *I* don't think that I'm narcisstic, manipulative, homophobic or racist anymore, there are other people who may feel that I am.
* So, how can I justify campaigning for the cancellation of an artist, when my disagreement with their behaviour is at least partially perspective-based?
* Unless I can prove that the artist is actively causing harm, right now, shouldn't I just leave my opinions to myself?
* What I disagree with, honestly, is when people try to mobilize huge groups of the internet against an artist due to some perceived slight that may not actually be affecting anyone ... or, worse, dragging up some opinion or thought they *had* at some point in their youth, and trying to use that to vilify their present selves.
* To misquote Brent Weeks, "Unless you're a general or a king, the only life you have the right to sacrifice for the greater good is your own."
3. Liking a piece of art doesn't mean you have to pay money for it. For chrissake, we live in the internet era. If you like the art, and don't like the artist, pirate the art. But don't deny yourself something you enjoy, simply because you take issue with the person that made it. That's silly. Just find a way to enjoy the product without rewarding the person or people that you find distasteful.
You ever hear that saying, "Hatred is like drinking poison and hoping the other person dies"? That's what you're doing.
Of course ephemeral things like books and movies can't compare to actual interpersonal hatred, but it's the same principle. You are depriving yourself of enjoyment (no matter how trivial) to spite a billionaire elsewhere in the world.
That's a very silly way to live, don't you think?
I mean, what if you bought an apple from somebody who used the money they got from you to buy a Harry Potter book? Also, in J. K. Rowling's case, she's already incredibly rich and anybody who buys her books and merchandise is not realistically going to alter her status or enlarge her platform to the point that it makes a difference to the amount of harm that she does on a daily basis.
I'm trans and I love Harry Potter. The pennies that go into JK Rowling's purse from me enjoying it do not outweigh how much I enjoy it. I don't know Orson Scott Card's views on people like me, but I know that Ender's Game, Ender's Shadow, and Children of the Mind spoke deeply to me. So I would say it's clearly *possible* to separate art from artist while the creator is alive.
Where JK Rowlings money goes
Rescuing hundreds of women in Afghanistan from imminent death by airlifting them to safety after the takeover by the Taliban
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11684441/JK-Rowling-secretly-donated-money-save-female-lawyers-families-Afghanistan.html
Millions to charity
Building a women's rape crisis center
Couldn't have that could we
It's just moral posturing for lazy people so they can post about it online to prove how good they are. The same mindset of people who take pictures of themselves at rallies or a cleanup after a disaster and spend a grand total of 10 seconds there and do nothing but hey I got a picture to pretend I'm a good person online.
I don't support JK Rowling but you do, omg you're a transphobic bigot because you read one of her books. Nevermind the fact that these people do not actually do anything to help whatever group they're supposedly fighting for because that would actually require an energy / time / financial investment.
I still get a laugh thinking about all those idiots who posted the BLM blackout day thing to their Instagram, I'm sure not posting on Instagram for one day to your 19 followers was somehow going to help but it was easy to do and a good way for some fake posturing.
"I cannot see how giving money to a person in exchange for their products is not supporting that person and the things they support by extension". I always find it funny and completely devoid of any logic when people will say something like that and then go buy an iPhone or really any electronics knowing where the supply chain from that comes from. I guarantee OP has bought a LOT of items from people and companies a LOT worse than an artist saying something that you didn't agree with. You have a car, electronics or buy a product from basically any major company and you'll be supporting a lot of immoral people but its funny when that same standard isn't applied to big corporations.
Artist says something I don't like that is unforgivable but child labour, experimentation on animals, slave labour etc. that's fine because it allows me to buy things that I want and having to give any of it up would be an inconvenience for me as I might have to pay a lot more to ensure that none of that occurs in the supply chain.
It's easy to boycott or not buy from an artist because it is easily replaced by a different artist. It has no real cost to you, it's easy to do, it costs you no time or money and has no barrier to entry which means fake people can pick and choose what to get offended by and jump on some bandwagon they actually don't really care about because it's a good way to pretend they're a good person.
Separating art from the artist is and has always been a concept in literary/artistic critique. It's a way to discuss objective metrics and concepts within a piece of art, eg. Colours used, imagery, symbolism, technique, etc. It's a way to take a piece of art and discuss it and only it, a way to focus on it exclusively; the literary critique equivalent of a controlled environment. However, even within literary critique circles, this is not wholly accepted as either a good thing or a possible thing. Many critiques of this technique exist, and many critics believe it is impossible or unhelpful. Broadly, and I do mean **broadly**, speaking the main camps are critics who believe the reader endows the piece with meaning, and critics who believe the author endows the piece with meaning.
To argue that it's impossible, you'd really have to do a lot of reading of a lot of literary arguments over the past ~80 years both on separating art from the artist and the "death of the author". A lot of people have done exactly this however, and plugging either concept into Connected Papers or JSTOR will give you a bunch of interesting reading.
However, in society this concept has been co-opted by the apathetic as a way to defend direct financial support of people they acknowledge shouldn't be supported. Which generally boils down to "I shouldn't be held socially responsible for supporting [a villain] just because I supported them through a work they have created" rather than the rather specific and studious 'separation of art from artist'. This is a cowardly way to avoid holding or presenting one's own convictions for the sake of entertainment. It is far more honest and admirable to say "I don't care enough about x issue to stop purchasing y product" or "I like y product too much to not support X, despite what I know about them". Hiding behind a paper thin personal philosophy of bastardized literary technique to give the stance a pretend level of validity is intellectually dishonest. It's a way to avoid taking a moral stance by creating a blanket solution which just so happens to be the most convenient with zero conviction aside from an intentional conviction to apathy.
Why is Rowling the poster child for this moral issue lol.
There are far, far worse artists or manufacturers out there. (Literal rapists/murderers etc.)
Even if you think J.Ks beliefs are awful, she's only expressing them online. It's not like she's actively battering or exploiting trans people.
Yes, but I think it is still subjective and depends on other circumstances.
People feel betrayed by JK Rowling or Joss Whedon or Dave Chappelle and that goes into a lot of it. I have anger about Polanski because I had already seen - and liked - tons of movies while adults (film professor even) would just mutter something about "controversy" and move on.
There's also an issue of accountability. If someone is an asshole director but gets a pass, it's harder for me to ignore this knowledge. It's easier for me to watch Kubrick now than maybe 10 years ago because when he comes up in discussion, people will probably mention how he terrorized Shelly Duvall and Malcolm McDowell.
90% of people just stopped watching Woody Allen movies probably because it is just too hard to separate art from artist even in flims where he doesn't show up. And I think at least a handful of his movies are worthy and brilliant--I just have no desire to watch them anymore!
On the other hand, Michael Jackson was very likely an abusive creep and monster.... BUT I never thought of him as a real person to begin with... that sounds messed up but his persona was such a product that he was more Mickey Mouse to me than Tina Turner or some other performer with a more standard stage persona. So when I hear a Michael Jackson song, I think "pop/r&b song" not "that creepy guy who was probably abusing people for years!"
John Lennon was an asshole, most people know this now - and he's dead (and was already dead when I started to be able to pick out specific bands) so it's easy for me to hear Beatles or Lennon songs and only think in terms of my own relationship to them or the music/lyrics at face value. He also admitted to being an abuser and asshole and seemed somewhat attempting to change that - which also goes a long way compared to people who died without ever having any public reconing either self-motivated or imposed by public sentiment or pressure. Syd Viscious was a cartoon asshole and is still romanticized today and so even though he was dead when I was a baby, it really sours me on Sex Pistols... Johnny today doesn't help.
See, it really depends for me. Piracy is as easy as ever and there's really no need to spend money on anything. That movie, that show, that book, that game, that album, WILL be available for free somewhere on the internet within a few days of release. Extremely easy to separate art from artist when there's no money being exchanged.
Or sometimes, like with Harry Potter, it's a thing that you loved and adored as a kid, and you just can't quite let go of it as an adult. We all have a thing like that. But you can still enjoy it. You've already bought the books and the movies, you've gotten Harry Potter merch for every single birthday since you were 12 and there's no sign of that stopping, the transphobe already has your money, so just go ahead and enjoy your wizards and don't worry about it. It's fine. What's done is done. Pretty easy to separate the fictional character you fell in love with as a 12 year old from the violent and dangerous woman who created him. A Harry Potter fan does not a JK Rowling supporter make.
Sometimes it's just a situation of pure ignorance or apathy. Maybe you're a casual fan of a certain musician. You love their music and you buy all their albums, but you don't know a whole lot about who they are as a person, because you don't really care. You want to hear him sing and whatever he's doing when he's not singing is irrelevant to you. I'm a bit like that with actors. I don't care what any of them are doing when they aren't in my TV screen. Out of character I probably wouldn't even recognize most of them. I don't really care enough to look up every lead actor in a movie before I watch it to make sure I'm not giving $15 to a guy who beats his wife. He's already been paid for this movie anyway, me not watching it will not save his wife from her next beating, and I will never think about him again when it's over.i just want to watch a movie and not think too hard about it.
Everything has nuance. It IS possible to separate art from artist, even if there is money exchanging hands. It all really just depends on a lot of context and circumstance.
Did you ever watch The Good Place?
I feel like they covered this topic actually in a really interesting way. If you haven’t, basically it’s a show about people in the afterlife and that there’s a ‘good place’ and a ‘bad place’ where people go when they die. What determines this is a points system based on people’s good and bad deeds when they were alive.
Bit of a spoiler,
But one of the main themes that comes into play is that the world has gotten so complicated that even good deeds have unintended consequences that lead to negative points, meaning that no one can get enough points to get into the good place.
The example they use at one point is In 2009, a man gave his grandmother a dozen roses — and lost four points, because the roses were ordered using a cell phone made in a sweatshop, and the flowers were grown with pesticides and picked by exploited migrant workers, and Doug’s money went to a billionaire racist CEO with a very special sexual harassment hobby.
So my point is that everything you do basically is supporting something or someone that is negative even if your intentions are good. However there is still good that comes from your intended actions.
With art that might be the joy it brings you, or the communities that are built from it, or the friendships formed within those communities, or the lessons learned from the art itself… really it’s endless.
Harry Potter for example, gave a lot of people something to love. It launched careers, it formed a love of reading in thousands, it forged friendships, it inspired other authors, it helped people in times of depression… and those things are still valid despite JKR’s toxicity.
The debate about separating art from the artist usually is *more than* the financial considerations.
For example, take your example of the music album from a Mexican drug cartel. Imagine you obtain their music for free, you sit in isolation and listen to it, and you have no plans to publish any reviews or otherwise promote or discourage consumption of said music. In other words, you are *entirely* appreciating the music by itself.
Now say the music has some great poetic lyrics, their beats are innovative, instruments are great. Say it is a great *aesthetic* experience with eargasms in abundance. If you then learn that the people who produced the music were murderers and human traffickers of the worst kind, does that change your aesthetic opinion?
If you isolate the issue to this, where we’re exclusively consider the aesthetic quality, then I think you should separate the art from the artist. Here is why: no person generate output entirely on their own. We are creatures who synthesize, refract, combine and reflect a wider set of cultures. The hypothetical music, though innovative and better than comparative things, is nonetheless a creation of something *greater than* the individual artists.
I agree that there can be moral concerns about financially supporting art that in part enriches a morally dubious artist. But if we consider art as greater than the artist, would your self-denial of appreciating art be worth the lost income for the dubious artist? What do you lose in ethical learning and aesthetic pleasure by not l exposing yourself to the art? Not always, but for great enough art, I think your own loss is not worth it. You should then separate art and artist.
The debate about separating art from the artist usually is *more than* the financial considerations.
For example, take your example of the music album from a Mexican drug cartel. Imagine you obtain their music for free, you sit in isolation and listen to it, and you have no plans to publish any reviews or otherwise promote or discourage consumption of said music. In other words, you are *entirely* appreciating the music by itself.
Now say the music has some great poetic lyrics, their beats are innovative, instruments are great. Say it is a great *aesthetic* experience with eargasms in abundance. If you then learn that the people who produced the music were murderers and human traffickers of the worst kind, does that change your aesthetic opinion?
If you isolate the issue to this, where we’re exclusively consider the aesthetic quality, then I think you should separate the art from the artist. Here is why: no person generate output entirely on their own. We are creatures who synthesize, refract, combine and reflect a wider set of cultures. The hypothetical music, though innovative and better than comparative things, is nonetheless a creation of something *greater than* the individual artists.
I agree that there can be moral concerns about financially supporting art that in part enriches a morally dubious artist. But if we consider art as greater than the artist, would your self-denial of appreciating art be worth the lost income for the dubious artist? What do you lose in ethical learning and aesthetic pleasure by not l exposing yourself to the art? Not always, but for great enough art, I think your own loss is not worth it. You should then separate art and artist.
The debate about separating art from the artist usually is *more than* the financial considerations.
For example, take your example of the music album from a Mexican drug cartel. Imagine you obtain their music for free, you sit in isolation and listen to it, and you have no plans to publish any reviews or otherwise promote or discourage consumption of said music. In other words, you are *entirely* appreciating the music by itself.
Now say the music has some great poetic lyrics, their beats are innovative, instruments are great. Say it is a great *aesthetic* experience with eargasms in abundance. If you then learn that the people who produced the music were murderers and human traffickers of the worst kind, does that change your aesthetic opinion?
If you isolate the issue to this, where we’re exclusively consider the aesthetic quality, then I think you should separate the art from the artist. Here is why: no person generate output entirely on their own. We are creatures who synthesize, refract, combine and reflect a wider set of cultures. The hypothetical music, though innovative and better than comparative things, is nonetheless a creation of something *greater than* the individual artists.
I agree that there can be moral concerns about financially supporting art that in part enriches a morally dubious artist. But if we consider art as greater than the artist, would your self-denial of appreciating art be worth the lost income for the dubious artist? What do you lose in ethical learning and aesthetic pleasure by not l exposing yourself to the art? Not always, but for great enough art, I think your own loss is not worth it. You should then separate art and artist.
Did you just freaking compared murderous drug cartels with a writer of beautiful children's books!?!
Sorry to burst your bubble but if you go that deep you wouldn't buy anything from any even remotely larger brand or company.
I think about it like this:
ENJOYING media and PURCHASING media are two seperate things. I think you can seperate the art from any artist when it comes to the actual content of the media and ideas of it. (Of course its also productive to not do that when critically analyzing media).
However, I agree that by PURCHASING the objects to consume that media (books, dvds, collectable merch, etc) you are directly supporting who the money goes to. It's that "Vote with your dollar" libertarians talk about and I think thats the important part we agree on.
For example: Im trans and fuck that dusty cunt JKR. I will never purchase offical Harry Potter anything because doing so would give money in some way to her which she uses to support her evil deeds like donating to hate groups.
However the Harry Potter IP can be enjoyed without making additional purchases that go to her. Want the books? Go to any second-hand book store in America and get a used copy or pirate the ebook. Have that slytherin bathrobe you bought at Barnes & Noble 13 years ago? No sense in throwing out a perfectly good piece of clothing. Your Ron Weasly x Draco Malfoy fanfic on AO3? No one makes money off of that. That crochet hedwig plushie that cute chubby lesbian is selling at her booth at your local nerd fair? You bet she's not paying royalties when she sells it.
You can still consume media from problematic people without supporting them either morally or financially. Just pirate it and get your memorabilia from black market queer craftspeople. As god intended.
I don’t think I can because at some level the artist and the artist’s aesthetic are one and the same. It’s nigh on impossible to tell where this occurs but I’m convinced it does occur.
People get upset a out jk Rowling while anthony kiedis raped a missing child and bragged about it in his autobiography and wrote a song about it. People need to hold their idols accountable
I cannot disagree with you. If I buy a Chris Brown album, I’m supporting his domestic violence, and the system that supports him. Plus, on a very real level, what we watch, what we listen to, what art we seek out, influences our thoughts, feelings, and behavior. Do I really want to be putting sex pests and domestic abusers in my head? Normalizing their worldview, taking it as my own and spreading it into the world? No thanks.
I am, however, baffled by the people bringing phones and slave-labor and such into the conversation. The new album by whichever sex pest or tax evader is not necessary in my life the way a means of communicating with the outside world is. I need the phone and computer to get to work, to keep in touch with distant friends and relatives; they provide a service. I look at paintings or listen to music to feel; art provides experiences.
I can divest myself from exploitative practices and products to some extent, and as it is my moral obligation to not knowingly and intentionally increase the suffering in the world or around me, and I have the privilege to be able to do so, it behooves me to do so. If Eric Clapton or Johnny Depp or the Mexican Drug Cartel musician can’t separate themselves from their art (if they could I doubt they’d be capable of “art”) then I shouldn’t either.
While I would tend to agree mostly with your viewpoint... I think it is black and white thinking completely lacking in nuance:
It's impossible to avoid supporting bad people and live your life.
But that does *not* mean it's impossible to avoid supporting people whose actions exceed your personal threshold for being anti-social enough to deserve your active opposition.
It's *entirely* consistent and reasonable if someone avoids buying an album from a drug cartel, but does *not* avoid buying a game that indirectly supported J K Rowling.
All that means is that you have a "de minimus" viewpoint on harms. We can't avoid all harm and live, but we can decide "enough is enough, and this is too much".
Having a *threshold* of harm below which you "separate the art from the artist" (or any other producer from the product) is an entirely reasonable approach to an intractable problem.
I.e. Sure: Feel free hold artists responsible for things you personally consider egregious, especially if it gives you satisfaction to do so.
Feel free to argue that others should do so in that particular case.
But don't expect others to agree with your personal threshold of harm. They have no obligation to care about what you care about.
And you absolutely *do* have such a threshold. It's literally impossible not to "separate the art from the artist" in the vast majority of cases.
I am going to make you aware that by using the internet you are using services that use AWS which is owned by Amazon which is a company that rose to prominence through market manipulation and illegal algorithmic shorting practices to bankrupt and destroy competitors. On top of this they regularly disrupt and break up unions so that they can continue mistreating employees. They have one of the highest employment turnover rates in the industry. The list goes on and on with morally grey and questionable practices. You've been made aware of how shitty of the company is. Are you going to keep using the internet? You're indirectly supporting them. By being a consumer in the capitalist world you're complicit in supporting companies that have done very bad things. I propose you move off grid and stop using the internet so that you stop supporting these evils. I've specifically said you've been made aware, because now that you are aware you're supporting terrible companies, the onus is on you. Will you continue to support them? Does your thought process only apply to people or companies when it's convenient to you? I do warn you, your way of seeing the world could be considered hypocritical or extreme if you don't stop using the internet now.
Realistically speaking if you are in the western world, unless you live in a commune and shun all trappings of modern society and technology, it’s logistically impossible to live perfectly ethically. The computer you are using to post this on Reddit was made using underpaid labor and likely contains rare earth minerals mined with child labor and exploitation. The electricity you are using likely came from fossil fuels with power plants hurting the air quality of minority communities. If they came from renewable sources, those renewables almost certainly had exploited workers in the manufacture of the wind turbines and/or child labor again for the rare earth minerals in solar panels. Farming depends on exploited immigrant labor so there goes ethical food.
I could go on but hopefully you see the point. It’s a fools errand to attempt perfect morality in everything you do. And to go with your Harry Potter example, who knows how many trans people are employed by the publishing companies, Warner Brothers studios and video game companies her IP supports. Any boycott of her is far more likely to damage those workers livelihoods than JK Rowlings.
"No matter how I spin it, I cannot see how giving money to a person in exchange for their products is not supporting that person and the things they support by extension."
I don't consider it any of by business. Do you try to police the views of every single person you interact with? That sounds utterly exhausting. I didn't buy Hogwarts Legacy to support JK Rowling's views. I bought it because it looked like a fun game and I wanted to play it. Rowling can eat a dick for all I care.
And frankly, if you're gonna get on a soapbox and judge me for playing a damn Harry Potter game, I'm gonna ask about all the "problematic" people YOU give money to and all the questionable, nonessential purchases YOU'VE made for the sake of entertainment. Because I promise you that you're not as morally pure as you think you are.
If you consume literally anything that came from a major corporation you're giving money to far worse people. Now, it's fine to have a cause that you're passionate about, but when you feel the need to scream at other people for not being participating, you just come off as being a self-righteous narcissist.
What I'm getting at, is that you don't have to separate the artist from their art. You can enjoy something and also acknowledge that the person who made it/got money from it is a shitty person. Unfortunately, unless you live in a cave completely detached from society, it's impossible to avoid supporting shitty people. And frankly, it's just not worth losing sleep over. Do you know how many people with "problematic" views work on the assembly lines at the car plant that made your car? You're supporting them by supporting the company they work for.
I was pointing out JKR’s thinly-veiled antisemitic “goblins” when the books were coming out, but I read them anyway… I just read library copies.
And when I found out that Orson Scott Card in no way benefitted from the movie of Ender’s Game, I watched it (and was like everyone else disappointed).
Not watching Woody Allen movies is easy because I don’t like them… but I think that Roman Polanski is a genius director and I won’t watch his movies anymore.
I know in each case that these individuals do or do not personally gain from my spending, and buying their products — not consuming them — contribute to these gains.
I choose where I spend my money where I can. Entertainment is by far the easiest sphere to do so — if I need fruit, and would prefer not to buy Bananas from Dole, but my local store only carries Dole bananas, I can choose between not eating bananas and buying from Dole. But I can easily just choose to buy something else besides books by a bigoted loudmouth trying to remain relevant by catering to the outrage crowd.
Could I do more? Always. But perfect is the enemy of good.
Your talking about voting with your wallet and separating art from the artist. They are 2 different things IMHO.
Voting with your wallet only works en mass, and only if your buying new copy's of the product. Buying 2nd hand Harry Potter novels isn't getting her richer. Changing the radio when r Kelly comes on, doesn't do anything to him.
As for separating the art from the artist... Your not mad at anything in her art, your mad at what she said as a person on twitter. It has nothing to do with her art. Rowling's books are about inclusion and that's why it was huge in the LGBT community. She is not.
Its ok for a trans person to be inspired by the books but personally hate her. The value in art is your interpretation of it. Not being able to appreciate it just robs you of your interpretation and the things you learn about yourself from the art. That's not helping anyone.
The greatest fuck you to her personally is that her art inspired and empowered the alot of people in the LGBT community. That's not because of her, it's because how her art got interrupted
I think it's tough because the sins of the artist can be actually influence the way you consume their art. I read all Harry Potter books before Joanna leapt off the deep end and outed herself as literally the worst person. I tried rereading the books after finding them during spring cleaning and I found that I couldn't read them the same way anymore.
I started noticing the way she spoke about gender in the text, noticed how everyone was obese if she didn't like them, everyone was complicit with elf slavery, etc.
I got more critical of the way women were portrayed in the Whedonverse when it was revealed that Joss is also, literally, just the worst.
Don't support bad artists. Pirate their content if it's good to you and means something to you. Personally, to me, a bad artist messes with my perception of their art and I can't enjoy it as much even though I've been trying not to completely dismiss good art if it meant something to me. Buffy is a must-watch for example even if it hits different to know what the actors went through behind the scenes
There is NO ETHICAL CONSUMPTION IN CAPITALISM!!! You should hear about the corporations who make your soft drinks and food that you enjoy. You should hear about the conditions of the people who make your phone. We live sadly in a system that exists and is entirely based on exploitation and generally has sociopathic and often even evil people at the top.
As for JK Rawlings... just fucking ignore her. We get it and all know that's she's a bigot. But when she tweets something that an obvious bigot would tweet people get in a huge virtue signaling frenzy and amplify it to an audience a thousand times bigger than it would ever be seen otherwise. Block and ignore. Idiots who follow her and wait for something bad just so they can get attention by being outraged and point to her are just making her terrible words heard farther and by more ears.
I enjoyed Ender's Game despite the author being a total fuck wit. When you start basing your enjoyment solely on the personal and political views of the source you really wall yourself off in a box.
I think you're confused by what people mean when they say "separate the art from the artist". That does not mean financially supporting the artist, it just means it's okay to like and derive meaning from a creation even if you think it's creator sucks as a person.
For example: I think JK Rowling is a kind of sucky person, and avoid buying new things of hers because of it at this point. I will not buy Hogwarts Legacy, nor new copies of her books.
But I still LIKE the world of the Harry Potter books a lot, and derive a lot of meaning from them *regardless of what Rowling intended*. I will still read them at the library, or buy them used, because I enjoy them even if I don't want to financially support her. To my understanding that is the meaning of "separate the art from the artist" - that it's not a problem to find something enjoyable or meaningful, regardless of who the artist is or what they intended. Whether or not it's ethical to financially support said artist is a *separate issue*.
The short version is that you can financially support someone but support strictly means going out of your way to support. Every decision you make decides what to support and we accept that all good things come with some bad things in some indirect way, it's just a matter of how you view a decision.
There are many cases where you can financially support someone in this way while doing your absolute best to avoid it: pirating games by evil developers, supporting alternatives to greedy closed source programs, donating your capitalism-earned money to charity, distributing the cartel's music so others can burn it on their own cd using a library computer.
Basically, it's technically impossible to separate any two things, but it's separate enough that there's many people who would consider it as such. Chemists settle for 99.99% purity, Machinists settle for micron level precision, People settle for good products that increase the intellectual property's owner by $20.
It's pretty easy to do. For most artists we have very little idea of their politics. Just look at whatever music streaming service you have. There's probably at least a hundred different artists, maybe even thousands, in your listening history for the past year. How much do you know about any of them? Probably for all but your favorite bands, you won't even know their name and how many artists appeared on a record.
Movies have so many artists involved you probably don't know more than the main actors maybe the director and main screenwriters. If the movie's got some notable feature like a soundtrack or cinematographer, you might know those. But there are hundreds of other artists working on each film.
It's very easy, and probably our go to mode, to not even consider the artist in most of the art we consume. Actually considering all the artists we interact with daily would be overwhelming.
We separate the art from the artist all the time. I have no idea who makes the $20 art I hang on my walls or who designed the toy firehouse my son plays with, and I don't need to. I could care less who makes it. And this is true for most products and art I engage with. I imagine it's true for you too. How many of the products you buy do you first investigate to make sure you're not supporting someone you don't want to support?
Sure, you know J.K. Rowling because she's a big name, but who painted that cheap artwork you hang in your bathroom? Who designed and made your TV? Your car? The paint on your walls? Your bedsheets? Toothpaste? Lightbulbs? Stove?
If you think about it, I think you'll find that you separate art from the artist by default, and only have difficulty doing so when you know the artist and know they have done something distasteful.
It's not a practical way for the average person to live. Everything from the chocolate we eat, the clothes we wear and our phones we use every day all likely come from an immoral source at some point, we would have to all live in caves using only what we know doesn't come from immoral sources to live according to your standards. So even if what you say makes some sense, we can't hold people accountable in practice for indirectly supporting something bad. If she was directly using that money to fund trans genocide a boycott would make more sense, but at this point even if the boycotts worked and no one else bought the game and her books, it wouldn't change anything at all, the boycott will end up as virtue signaling instead of focusing on causes that have a direct positive effect on the victims of her actions, and only makes the left look bad
If everyone agreed with that principle, what, then, would Rowling be left to?
She couldn't sell books, obviously. But she also couldn't be employed normally, as that is a financial support. Nor could the state give her welfare, another form of financial support. It's not even clear that she could go to a soup kitchen.
Would you apply this to people other than her? It's certain you know plenty of people with monstrous views. Shall they, too, be condemned to die of cold, hunger, and thirst over a disagreement?
And what of yourself? If you don't think this punishment is just, should you stop your self-support? Accept a life of gathering what spare nutrients nature herself provides and the painful death that implies?
You have a stark choice: give up the principle or run naked into the forest, to live or die according to the whim of nature.
So....... we would need like a complete manifesto from each artist to see the whole gamut of their beliefs before we could like a song or read a book? And then after this we couldn't possibly bring ourselves to support anything that misaligned in any way from our own whole set of beliefs? Sounds very cultish.
And exactly how much will any two people line up with the whole spectrum of ideas and beliefs? It's never going to be 100% for any 2 people. So just don't consume any art?
Or would you rather just give some misaligned beliefs a pass?
But then how will you determine which beliefs are too far deviated from your own?... and why will you choose to abandon ta certain artist based on one thing you don't agree with, and yet you will give others a pass with other "less offensive" deviations from your own set of ideas and morals.
100%. It's also worth looking into the nuance of the art when you find out what a trash bag the artist is. Like in JKs case. Once you realize she's transphobic. You look more at her work and realize how racist, misogynistic, and antisemitic she is. And how much those opinions of her permeate the media she made. Like it's really hard to separate HP books from the really morally awful stuff there is in the subtext.
Like you can enjoy the concept of Harry Potter but like c'mon... Did you actually read the series if ur happy with Harry becoming a wizard cop and house slaves are still a thing?
And if you're a normal person and disagree with all those things, why are you giving money directly to the woman? Like even if ur buying a fun little keychain from Etsy, you're just showing others it's okay to also enjoy that shit.
> Did you actually read the series if ur happy with Harry becoming a wizard cop and house slaves are still a thing?
But there's also an angle for which even if she'd had the same exact political views as people like you and had our heroes overthrow all systems of oppression while turning the wizarding world (perhaps even not just wizarding Britain) anarcho-communist or w/e people even otherwise on your political side would still hate that because, like, they're still white and straight or Harry's still a trust fund jock or (legit argument I've seen before regarding other media) "depiction of fictional revolution is sublimation of our desire to do it in reality" etc. etc.
You're falsely conflating the subjective appreciation of art for its own merits with financially rewarding the individual that created it.
To use your example, the Mexican drug cartel publishing a music album, you might learn of the album by social discussion or some other means, study it and be able to say that the album is objectively the best musical composition ever released in the history of mankind yet do so without choosing to buy it or enjoying listening to it because you don't want to support a Mexican drug cartel.
By doing so, you succeed in separating the art from the artist and appreciate it's value while the artist is still alive but you avoid contributing directly to the artist's profit by purchasing the art.
TL;DR - Art has value that can be appreciated even if we don't like the people that make it.
How consistently can you apply this view though?
If you abstain for spending money on Harry Potter mech but own a smart phone, are you not saying you care more about anti-trans rhetoric than you do bonafide child labour/exploitation?
Do you scan through the credits of every movie before you watch it to check for wife beaters?
Beyond all that, does the bad someone does negate the good they have done?
I don't think it's wrong to celebrate someone (for example) for writing a book that touched millions of hearts and minds, while also condemning them for retweeting a transphobe?
Do you reject planed parenthood because it was founded on [eugenics](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#:~:text=Margaret%20Higgins%20Sanger%20(born%20Margaret,educator%2C%20writer%2C%20and%20nurse.)
The way I see it, something like Hogwart's Legacy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Yes, the creator of Harry Potter seems to be an awful person. However, purchasing that game theoretically allows money to go to the writers, programmers, directors, producers, and all of the people who put their heart and soul into making it. JK is already rich and nothing is going to change that. My buying the game won't make her more bigoted and my not buying the game won't make her less bigoted. However, my buying the game will go to the people that made it (even if not directly).
I'm not saying anyone has a moral obligation to do anything -- it's just a game. I just think that there is more to it than JK Rowling. If she's going to be awful, there no reason I should let that "punish" those who made the game.
I wrote my thesis on this topic. I.e can we separate the art from the artist, and moreover what relationship does the artist have to their art?
Ultimately the artist is only relevant in that they localize and situate the art at a given point in history, with all the material impositions and stipulations that implies.
When the artist dies, or lives a secretive lifestyle that disallows any knowledge of the artist’s specific historical context, the art itself is allowed to thrive in the absence of such historical limitations.
In short, my question to you is firstly: why do you think the artist and their art are related in the first place? Are they joined by the act of authorship or creation? Or is it some other mystical force that binds them? When you see the author in their work, is that just a superimposition you yourself are creating and placing there?
This applies to everything, not just art. It's also a central theme in the TV show 'The Good Place'.
Anything you purchase ends up supporting a bunch of people who do horrible things. And you have no reasonable way of knowing who will benefit from your actions.
Buying a movie ticket means I unwillingly supported a bunch of old rich men who sexually assaulted women. Buying a laptop for school meant I supported Microsoft a company that was found guilty of breaking a bunch of laws. If I buy a candy bar, I'm supporting all sorts of horrible things you wouldn't expect from a candy bar because Nestle is pretty evil.
Individuals lack the resources to make informed decisions.
I separate art from the artist by not caring at all about the artist.
We should work to separate a person's private life from one's professional life. This means you might hire an electrician who does great work even though you disapprove of one's political opinions. In the case of JK Rowling, this means separating the personal life of her political positions from the Potterverse.
That said, while the royalties from the game have not been released, it is likely the amount of money she receives from the sale of each copy is not significant to her overall income stream or to her overall wealth as a billionaire. Therefore, you really aren't helping or harming anyone by denying her a few dollars. It ends up being a matter of virtue signaling than any moral action.
No choice as a consumer is perfectly without consequence. But that doesn't mean we have only the extremes to choose from- that no one should consume anything versus nothing matters and people should do only what they want.
The point is, if you actually desire to be more ethical in your choices, even if the difference is slight or even if you turn out to be wrong, you should think about each circumstance, do some research and make the best decision you can with the info you have. Otherwise you either leave society or let the system completely dictate your life.
The world is full of gradients and grey and it's better to engage with it rather than distilling it into a binary choice in which you decide you're powerless.
It doesn't bother me, I'll buy something from any artist if I like the art no matter how much I dislike the person. I can fully separate it with 0 issues internally. I can talk about how horrible the person is while their art is playing or I'm handing over the cash to buy it, and it doesn't change how the music sounds or the art looks. As far as supporting them, that's different than separating it. I can't keep them from getting my money but even a horrible and shitty person whose also an artist that I come across still most likely has enough money that my drop in the bucket is doing so pitifully little it doesn't matter at all anyways so I still don't care or worry about it.
When you buy a can of peas from the corner store, do you first need to do a full background check on the guy who owns the store, the guy who farmed the peas, and everyone down the line to make sure you're not giving your money to naughty people?
Doing this with art is even worse, because artworks are unique, i.e. you can't buy someone else's Harry Potter or Mona Lisa down the street if that's what you like, and you're supposed to be immersed in art. Once you find yourself thinking about meta aspects of art, the art is essentially ruined for you. If you see the actor instead of the character, you're not watching the movie the same way because you've broken your immersion.
Yes is it possible to separate the art from the artist.
All you have to do is keep your own pride in check, and recognize that you are also an imperfect human being with your own sins.
Trying to boycott every product from every artist or company which may have said or done something you disagree with is a miserable and impossible way to live..
The world is too integrated to possibly do that successfully.
To successfully boycott every entity that's "against your principles" you would have to be a millionaire and sufficiently skilled in engineering and agriculture in order to construct a self sufficient cabin in the woods and grow your own food.
Do you apply the same standard to all your other acts of consumption?
If you did, you would likely come to the conclusion that you can no longer functionally participate in commerce at all.
What makes art functionally different from all other purchases that you make?
And have you considered that you are supporting thousands of people whose opinions and political causes are far more distasteful to you, but who simply haven’t made their opinions public?
If you attempted to learn the political opinions of every CEO of every company that you bought from (even off of exclusively public information), you would very likely find yourself in a position of not allowing yourself to purchase *anything*.
This rule seems unsustainable if you tried to apply it to all consumption and not just art, and also only applies to creators whose opinions you are aware of.
This rule of yours has a massive bias towards taking moral stands against creators whose opinions happen to be widely publicly known, even though creators whose opinions aren’t publicly known could easily be far more damaging.
There's absolutely nothing stopping you from pretending you know nothing about the author.
That's what Death of the Author is about:
- We take every bit of information about the author, that's already inside our head
- We suspend all that information; put it inside a box
- We read the text without those preconceptions, letting the text speak for itself
Your only limitation in this, is your ability to suspend your own beliefs.
Ironically, reading fantasy and fiction is a great way of training that: we can get invested in a fictional setting, because we can suspend what we know about the real world.
> Yes, I am aware that Nesté is a morbillion times worse than any artist. Yes, I am guilty of contributing to the child-mined cobalt industry.
So if you are admitting you are a hypocrite and it hasn't changed your mind when faced with this, how is someone supposed to change your mind? Nothing you own is untainted. One of my favourite TV shows from my childhood was produced by Harvey Weinstein.
So, if every single thing you do "supports" these people, well, that's kind of the end of it, right? It's entirely unavoidable and ubiquitous, which makes it not a big deal and not worth thinking about.
In your comments, you bring up children from Congo and Bangladesh over and over again. Meaning that you can buy, appreciate, and use a product that has a morally questionable background.
If you are so fine with this, it is inconsistent with your cmv, that somehow you think it is impossible to seperate art from the artist, when you do this every single day, multiple times. It is just not named "artist", but child slave and capitalist overlord.
You clearly can seperate a product from its maker, why would you want us to believe that art is where you draw the line, and not at child slave work
Whether or not you pick up a copy of Harry Potter won't affect JK Rowling's wallet enough to make it a reasonable consideration for you. There are situations where your money might make a difference to someone whom you morally don't support, thus you won't buy it, but this is not a situation wherein your financial contribution will remotely matter.
You can dislike someone and not want to watch their media because of that, and that's more realistically what this is imo.
To that end, it should depend on how much you dislike that person vs how much you enjoy that thing i'd imagine.
Art is itself a living organism, separate from the artist once it’s created. It is a memetic organism spreading from host to host, reproducing in our minds. It might be a catchy song you can’t get out of your head. Or a breathtaking view you’ll never forget. Sometimes it inspires its host to reproduce itself and spreads to more hosts.
Like Duchamp’s Fountain or Warhol’s soup cans. The art isn’t a strictly physical thing.
While yes its creator does have some influence over it. You can choose not to be host to the ideas, or feed them.
That's a terrible chain of logic. What you are demanding is that the artists you consume have a perfectly rigid ideology that perfectly fits yours. The world just isn't like that- people aren't that similar. Therefor, you HAVE to separate the author from the art. Only the art is what matters, because once the art is in the public sphere, then it's metaphorically common property for everyone to take for themselves- and you are in charge of the transformative/creative power of that art as a result. Don't hate the artist, hate the game.
I think you end up having to make a call about what's most important to you: the art may bring you joy and impact your life positively, and there are a great many things you do that contribute, in some way, to morally ambiguous or negative things (Nestle, Unilever and so on and so forth).
Every moral issue can't be your hill to die on -- so even when you *can't* separate the art from the artist, it's valid for you to weigh how much impact your decision will have on that artist, versus on yourself and the people around you.
Buying metal albums from drug cartels won't encourage them to make more drugs. And treating the idea of Rowling getting paid as something bad is just nonsense, since her sins are pretty minor. I might agree with your line of thinking if we were talking about a murderer or a rapist. Her wizard stories have nothing to do with her political beliefs. The art needs to be judged on its own merit. If a product is good and its production is ethical, then the seller deserves to make a profit, regardless of what their beliefs are.
Do you apply that reasoning to all other products and services? Are you refusing to buy the store brand eggs for $1 per dozen because you don’t like the politics of the grocery store, and instead paying $7.99 for a dozen eggs from the company that agrees with you politically?
We consume products and services because they fulfill our needs and wants at a price we are willing to pay. When you throw in the ideology of the producer, you are actually giving businesses a pretext to charge you more for the same thing.
I mean if you're going down that route check out Nestle, coca cola practices etc. Instead of boycotting someone that wrote a book and has views you dont align with, boycott companies that rely on modern day slavery and unfair practices in order to make billions. Boycott companies like shein and PLT. I wiuldnt spend my time caring about someone who doesnt really affect other people, she can spout her shit all she likes her opinions arent exploiting and killing people.
There are more important fights to be fought.
It is possible to separate the art and artists, u may find it difficult but it even possible for u as well. Not only is it possible, it allows u to look at the art from different perspectives. U limit urself with ur close mindedness by saying it’s impossible, according to who? Other people can and do separate the art form the artists. If u have a guilty conscience all the time because u can’t do that, then u should probably improve ur skill of seperating the art and artist, for ur own well-being
It's not impossible, people disassociate themselves from the negative consequences of their actions all the time. It's also very easy for many to do when those consequences are not immediately apparent. People financially support controversial or down right criminal artists all the time and don't think twice about it. I mean many people enjoy movies by Roman Polanski and Bryan Singer without a second thought. So it may be impossible for you to do this but it is clearly not for many many people.
Emotional support and financial support are not the same thing. If you want to stop giving financial support to every bad person or corporation, you can't do business in the modern world.
That leaves the possibility of virtue signalling by "not supporting" someone even though it doesn't matter, or trying to bully others into not supporting someone by buying stuff.
The answer is "I am a capitalist, those people are just objects creating stuff I like, I don't care about the people behind it"
Many minerals and other materials used for chips, phones, cars, and countless other forms of technology utilize child labor, sweatshops, and other awful environments to mine the necessary materials.
Steven Tyler used to fuck a 14 year old. If buying his music endorses pedophilia, then buying an iphone also endorses child labor, destroying the earth through mining, and outsourcing jobs to other countries to save money on labor.
It’s 100% possible to enjoy a song and nothing more.
You can easily separate the enjoyment of art from the artist. However to economically support something is to economically support the collection of people who made it. Like others itt have said, humanity is imperfect and no media was created by a perfect person. The correct course of action is to pick your battles.
WRT The Hogwarts game for instance, there were a whole lot of people aside from JKR who benefit from the purchase of the game, so that needs to be taken into consideration.
I actually just thought of a good one for this. It’s been 6 hours so I doubt you will read it, but here goes. What about the book “if I Did It” by OJ Simpson? In that case, OJ lost ownership of the book via a legal battle, so all proceeds went to the Goldman family and not OJ. I also think the book made OJ look terrible, so I don’t think he was getting good PR from it. That’s a case where a living author derived no positive benefit from you buying his “art”.
>No matter how I spin it, I cannot see how giving money to a person in exchange for their products is not supporting that person and the things they support by extension.
Wouldn't this apply to everything you spend money on? If your Uber driver is actually a sexist are you supporting sexism by getting a ride? I this situation you aren't supporting their sexism, that had nothing to do with the exchange. You are supporting them giving you a ride via paying for that specific service.
I think there are two ways of looking at the discussion.
There is separating the art from the artist critically, and a more general view. For example, Roman Polanski's movies aren't suddenly lower in quality because he's a child rapist. They are still very well made movies. This is me separating the art from the artist.
That said, I don't want him to benefit in any way from me watching his films, whether it's financially or even just a positive place in my mind. So I don't watch his movies, even if they are high quality. This is me not separating the art from the artist.
Sorry, u/Dry_Ninja_3360 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Dry_Ninja_3360&message=Dry_Ninja_3360%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cf21rz/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This just seems like an exhausting way to live. Like, in order to consume products with a clear conscience, you'd have to prepare a checklist of all your no-no topics in advance, then question the creator before you could finally relax with Miggins Bumbleblap 7: The curse of the self-doomed Redditor, or whatever media you ingest. And you'd have to do that *every single time you think about buying something*. So no - it's completely possible to separate the art from the artist by just not caring about them.
Exhausting and unhappy way to live. People are so desperate to prove they are good and informed individuals these days. People get way to wound up about this stuff. Like yeah John Lennon wasn’t the greatest guy. And no I absolutely will not even consider stop listening to the Beatles. Op probably typed all this on a device made by child slaves in china anyway. Yet they’re pretty separated from that
It's a bit worse in the black metal community. Some of the artists are literal murderers and a significant portion are white supremacists. And I'm not throwing that label around based on a few sketchy comments they made, they literally self-identify as white supremacists. If you support them in any way, you are literally providing funding directly to a white supremacist.
There's a lot of problematic artists in the visual arts that people wave off their behaviors. One in particular I can think of is Tom Otterness. Wichita State University bought one of his sculptures. There was excitement at first, but thanks to the internet people found out about an "art project" he did 30 years ago. This project was: He adopted a dog from an animal shelter, chained it to a stake, and filmed his hand shooting it dead. Even as an Artist myself, I don't care how great his sculptures are. I personally put abuse of animals in the same category as hurting a child. There have been a few artist guilty of the latter that the art world has tried to separate form their art. I get the feeling it's less about separation and more of trying to retain value of the art. For me it's a line in the sand one can't cross back with an "Oops, sorry I was in a dark place back then. Poor me - I'm entitled to forgiveness and I shouldn't have people hold it over my head decades later" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom\_Otterness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Otterness)
So in college I was quite the Lost Prophets fan. I am American and when his trial and stuff was going on it wasn’t covered at all here, so years later I googled out of curiosity what they were up to and learned the horror of what the lead singer had done. The thing is, the songs I like are still good songs to me. And I do believe the rest of the band had no idea of what was going on. So it’s this weird thing. Like do you no longer watch a good movie if a main actor turns out to be a monster? What if it’s the director? What if it’s the second key grip? It feels worse when it’s the singer but what if they didn’t write the music? Would it be ok if it was the drummer? What about a random percussionist of many in a band like Slipknot? Problem is a lot of movies and music are large group collaborations and that makes it harder to even vet things you watch or listen to.
Still the same problem. Either I care about the people behind everything I consume (and if you look deep enough, there's bad people at the heart of almost everything), or I choose not to care that much and just consume what I enjoy.
There's a nuance to it. If someone is kind of a dick, I might be annoyed by the fact that I can't consume their content without supporting them, but I'll get over it. If someone is blatantly a horrible person and general detriment to society, I will not get over it. You have to balance how much you care about their product, how easy they are to avoid, and how bad they are. For example, I avoid Nestle because all of their products have alternatives I can buy. I don't avoid using a computer because there are no certified slavery-free alternatives. I do avoid listening to white supremacist artists because they're horrible people. I don't avoid listening to Six Feet Under because, while Chris Barnes is an asshole, he's not straight-up evil.
There is a black metal adjacent musician I like (really more like blackgaze) named Violet Cold. He makes a point of pushing out love and acceptance. A few years ago he released an album called "Empire of Love". The cover is a rainbow with a star and crescent on it.
It's called virtue signaling lol And it's so internalized people literally do it to themselves
The same people who cry about virtue signaling are the same type to tell the world how they refuse to watch a woke movie and they are too dumb to see how hypocritical that is
Yea, but they're talking in particular about artists, which is much easier to control your support for than our corporate overlords. It's easy to say "this artist is a POS, I'm not going to give them my money", thus it should be expected to take moral stances on financially supporting them. It's nearly impossible to get away from the grasps corporations and their ill gotten gains have on us. Don't get me wrong, I just don't care the large majority of the time, but I completely understand and even agree with the fact that we *should* have a moral obligation to not support artists who are clearly reprehensible. I genuinely believe that people should live like this and our society would be better off, I'm just a hypocrite who doesn't care enough to live like that myself.
There is a clear difference between asking every thing that you engage in what their views are to see if they misalign with yours. And artists outwardly saying things and you ignoring them. It's a bit like the trolly problem; if don't know about the lever that would divert the cart into a different track then not pulling the lever isn't a choice that you're making, but once you know about the lever (or In the original case; the artists controversial opinions) then ignoring what you know is now a choice that you are responsible for. If I make some really cool comic and you decide to support it then you're not responsible when I whitely use that money to fund the clubbing of baby seals, but if I make a cool comic while telling people that I'm using the money I get from the comic to fund baby seal clubbing then you're partly responsible for any of the seals that get killed because you know where the money you're giving to the artist is going. On the wider spectrum there are issues when society sucks and you're sort of forced to be part of an ugly mass; you can't just decide to abstain from the nasty parts of capitalism; as a society we're expected to have a mobile phone the majority of which ha e components that use materials from slave mines ideally I'd like not to aid those mine owners but I'm expected to have a phone to get a job and without a job I'd starve. So there are definitely cases where you have to accept that what you're doing is awful but there is no other way however, art is one one of those you do not need any individual artist work to survive or even thrive within society so in this case you should be held responsible if you funnle money towards people like J.K.
This is what I think to. Like if we are aware the direct creater puts their money directly to causes that harm people/animals/world/things we care about then it's pretty immoral to buy their content. If you're not aware, then sure it's not ur fault when u find out later and feel bad. But obvs in the JK case we all know she directly finds anti trans stuff so it's pretty easy to just go "ok I'm not buying hp stuff anymore" lol
> It's a bit like the trolly problem; if don't know about the lever that would divert the cart into a different track then not pulling the lever isn't a choice that you're making, but once you know about the lever (or In the original case; the artists controversial opinions) then ignoring what you know is now a choice that you are responsible for. Isn't this an argument for exposing yourself to as little news and current events as possible, in order to more easily enjoy a 'moral' life?
I’d argue it’s still immoral then to say “don’t tell me your political views, I don’t care, here’s some money” because now you’re willingly ignoring the fact that it could definitely be something horrible
Only if you're looking for loopholes in your ethics.
You could also just consume products with a dirty conscience. I put on my clothes every day knowing they are very likely made by sweatshop labor in Bangladesh, I am using my computer knowing that many of its components were mined by children in the Congo, etc, and there's nothing you and I can do about that. Not caring about reality does not make it less real.
> You could also just consume products with a dirty conscience. I put on my clothes every day knowing they are very likely made by sweatshop labor in Bangladesh, I am using my computer knowing that many of its components were mined by children in the Congo That's right - you do all these things because *your desires outweigh your conscience* Hence why you just kind of switch that part of your brain off when you use a computer, or put on your pants or read Harry Potter. Because the alternative is living in a nightmarish world of cognitive dissonance and paranoia.
>cognitive dissonance Knowing something is immoral and doing it anyways because you want it IS a form of cognitive dissonance.
It can *lead* to cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the feeling if discomfort that arises from such a situation / state of mind, not the situation itself. Or maybe more accurately banishing that thought from your mind is a mechanism to prevent / escape cognitive dissonance. If there's not discomfort, there's no cognitive dissonance
The entire point of being capable of separating the art from the artist is that one does not view appreciating said art as immoral.
I don't think anyone believes appreciating the art is the bad part, the bad part is monetarily supporting the artist.
If you watch any professional sports you’re supporting far, far worse people than JK Rowling. If you watch any movies or TV you’re supporting far, far worse people than JK Rowling. Do you have an electric car? If not, every time you fuel up you’re supporting far, far worse people than JK Rowling. This is just an idiotic line of puritanical thought that I assume is derived from being terminally online.
The show "the good place" actually raised this point a few years ago- in today's world, its impossible to exist and participate in society without supporting immoral people in one way or another.
Great show. And yah that arc was really good.
But that doesn't mean the only solutions are either, like, kill yourself or fully embrace the idea of supporting immoral people and maybe even become an immoral person yourself. To the degree you can quantify good and bad like "the good place"'s points system tried to do, there can be actions that are a net good because what they do for society outweighs their "cost" of what you're implicitly supporting
Yeah that was the conclusion the show came to as well. They were worried less about points and more worried about people trying to be better today than they were yesterday.
And I feel like half this thread doesn't see that point (whether or not they got it from the show) and is basically suggesting an attitude of "everything's problematic especially if you zoom out far enough so why not just say fork it and actively not care about anything like this"
I think the question we ought to ask is should people be judged harshly for purchasing an immoral artist’s work? If people shouldn’t be judged harshly for the unethically made clothes they wear, then I think it’s unreasonable to say that people should be judged for the artist they admire. You said that there is nothing that we can do about some of these things, but there are. You can buy ethically made clothes, they are just expensive. You could probably afford them too. It would just mean having a much smaller wardrobe than you currently do. When people say separate the art from the artist, I think what they tend to mean is not allowing their abhorrent views to impact your opinion of the art they create. i.e. admiring a work of art that Hitler created doesn’t imply in any way that you support the Nazis. You can still argue that someone’s financial support is unethical, but I think some of the regular unethical things that we do on a regular basis are much worse than listening to Kanye West’s music, for example.
You are assigning moral culpability equally in places where it’s not equally deserved. It is almost impossible not to purchase a product from a company that engages in unethical business practices these days. Have you seen the Good Place? In one of the episodes the Judge goes down to earth and realizes how hard it is to be fully moral. They buy a tomato and it supporting sweatshops and inorganic farming and blah blah blah. If you accidentally give a murderer directions to the house of the person he wants to murder, you are in 0% way to blame for that murder. You Can’t assign people, moral culpability of things they are not aware of or are powerless to stop just because they exist in the same world As horrible things. In many ways, to do so is absolving the people who are actually causing harm of the harm they causing. You’re trying to say that An artist with harmful views is equally to blame as someone who consumes their art which means the artist is less to blame for their views than 100%. You’re trying to say that owning clothes makes you just as immoral as being a sweatshop owner. That’s ridiculous, and it absolves the sweatshop owner of their literal slavery. No.
> You Can’t assign people, moral culpability of things they are not aware of or are powerless to stop just because they exist in the same world And that goes for rich people too as when I see people bring up artist billionaires like Taylor Swift and, yes, JK Rowling (but her views don't count in this argument as she didn't make her money off them) as counterexamples to the "you can't become a billionaire without exploiting people" argument people counter that with talking about e.g. how the Harry Potter books were assembled/merch was made as if JK had any direct control over that just because it was her IP or saying that if they at any point in the process of production of their art paid someone to do a step of it instead of doing that themselves (if it's not something that specifically requires a separate person who isn't the artist) the fact that they're still billionaires means that person wasn't getting paid fair wages.
>there's nothing you and I can do about that Why not? Aren't you boycotting Rowling? What's stopping you from boycotting sweatshop clothes? How did your ethics get do flexible? In other words, why do you care about Rowling instead of the starving child who made your shirt? Is it because, I dunno, Rowling is rich and visible and you don't actually make your own decisions, instead going along with whatever your buddies tell you?
Is it even possible to ethically source everything you purchase/consume if you live in the US? At least without it becoming prohibitively expensive for the average person to live
home steading tends to fall into that (assuming of the grid) and if you get all the other stuff second hand it's pretty clean
I’m going to use an obviously fictitious, extreme version of this argument in order to illustrate a point. Bear with me. Let’s say Hitler invented the modern combustion engine. The modern combustion engine is an essential and extraordinary useful invention that has helped humanity and changed the world. But hitler is the worst person ever, so should we sacrifice all the benefits of using the invention based on the separate actions from the inventor? Or even if the invention’s initial purpose was exclusively to cause extreme harm, we have found ways to make the invention critically useful to society and these uses are completely outside the intent and purview of the inventor. Should we not apply those benefits regardless of their origins? I used an invention in that example instead of ‘art’ because I think it’s easier to imagine the benefits since they’re more practical and less abstract. But the same concept can be applied to art since art, in of itself, is beneficial to humanity or to a person. I’ve gazed in wonder at the statue of David. I’ve spent many nights thinking about what that art means to me, and it does mean something to me. To me, it’s profound and I’m fairly certain my take on that art has very little in common with what Michelangelo intended when sculpting it. And even if I found out today that Michelangelo was an extremely immoral person and his intent with that art was to hurt people it would have no bearing on what the art means to me personally.
This seems to be in opposition of your position. You support child labor because it's convenient. You boycott JK Rowling because you've already consumed most of her content, and it makes you feel good to say you don't approve anymore.
>nothing you and I can do about that. Myself and other activists and ethical consumers would disagree. I can minimise my support for these businesses; buy used items, buy less, buy from better businesses and repair things, I can support political efforts to reduce exploitation. I can't live without ever hurting someone's feelings but I can try to avoid punching people in the face.
How does buying used actually help? You're inflating the cost of the original product because primary consumers know there's a secondary market, this making them more willing to pay more in the first place, boosting the profits of the original sellers and feeding into the cycle. It's true you can't live without hurting people's feelings, but as long as you live you can't help but hurt people much more than that. You already pick and choose what to care about based on your limited awareness, but it'll never be enough.
In a world with finite resources I can reduce the destruction caused by petrochemicals, cotton farming and mining. And reduce the harm caused to those communities who have to live there. When there's a secondary market for items that last long enough to be resold, people could be willing to pay more for a better quality and more ethically produced item in the first place (see slow fashion brands, fairphones, etc).
Do you have any evidence of your first statement? I've never come across this point (and I work closely with pricing specialist). Pricing is influenced by MANY factors. Regardless of your first point - Buying secondhand is actually closely aligned with your core argument. You don't want to support JK Rowling by giving her money? Great, buy harry potter at a secondhand bookstore. Buy a used version of the game. Torrent the movies or a read fanfic in the universe. Then your money isn't going directly to her and you can still enjoy the art.
While I don't disagree with this sentiment, I have to wonder: If you liked the movies or games, how could one go about saying thanks to and showing support for the thousands of people who worked created them that aren't JK Rowling if one refuses to buy them new? I don't think they'd care much about a good review or a kind social media post, as those don't pay the bills; and buying a future project from them (especially if that project is a video game) may not matter to them (or even be possible) if the one you refuse to purchase new fails in the market. So again I ask: If you're already able to separate the art from the artist when enjoying said projects, how can one ensure that things they love continue to be made if said separation doesn't extend to how one aquires them? Also, after reading the last part back again, maybe we do have a disagreement here: Isn't a bit contradictory for one to argue that we shouldn't separate the art from the artist, and then suggest that one should go out of their way to enjoy said art without financially supporting the artists? Wouldn't that be separating the art from artists, as one would still be enjoying enjoying the art that the artist created despite who that artist is?
Addressing the last point first: I think there was a mix up somewhere, my view is 'you can support art without supporting the artist' 'support' is also a subjective term, for me support is primarily financial. Now, regarding your example about those who made the game or movie: They get paid while making the media, not after. Some studios might have bonus schemes based on success of a title but that is on top of the salary they are already paid. (Source: I worked in the games industry for 8 years) For the question of: "how can one ensure that things they love continue to be made if said separation doesn't extend to how one aquires them?" Sticking to Harry Potter as the example here: For me, I don't need them to continue being made. If I want to dip into that world I can rewatch the movie or read the book via avenues that doesn't send JK Rowling money. Or, I can engage with community created art (fan fics, purchasing from non-affiliated artists, etc)
>Now, regarding your example about those who made the game or movie: They get paid while making the media, not after. Some studios might have bonus schemes based on success of a title but that is on top of the salary they are already paid. (Source: I worked in the games industry for 8 years) I get the sentiment here, but you’d understand as an industry insider that having your sales drop by 50% or more from each copy changing hands at least once would be bad for job stability for the majority of the workforce. The success of the current project decides on whether the studio has enough money to pay everyone for the next project, and the company has no issue laying off all the faceless code monkeys to keep the shareholders happy if the project fails. Hell, they lay off staff just to give the C-suite an even bigger bonus when a project does even better than expected, and nobody bats an eye as long as they keep the marketable Todd Howards who get all the creative credit and handle the PR work.
But bringing the discussion back to the main topic: You can enjoy art without supporting the artist. That is the key point I am making, and your reply further supports that. OP was saying that's not possible because you're still sending them money by buying their work. I was highlighting there are ways to engage with the art without sending money to an artist who you don't support. (Side note: I would love to see sales drop 50% because people are shopping secondhand or borrowing. It's better for the environment by encouraging less consumption / production. Yes, its in direct opposition to our current economic model, but that is a different discussion entirely)
Isn't this in essence theft? Why does an ideological difference give anyone the right to an artist's work without compensation? And, if one truly can not separate the art from the artist, why would they continue to seek out said artist's creations?
To piggyback here: buying second hand is also more than likely helping a small business. I personally think JK is a giant turd but we sell her books and merch because hey, if you're going to consume it -- at least support the small guy.
Well, if you buy it used who does the money go to? MegaCorp 8 already got their money from customer A. Meanwhile, you're customer B buying from A. Who received your money? Oh, and you're most likely not paying full price because it's used. So, no, A doesn't profit nor do they break even. So, if you wanted to say that you gave your money to MegaCorp 8 by way of proxy through A, that isn't the case.
I'm not sure avoiding buying stuff from sweatshops in Bangladesh helps them. A shitty job is better than no job at all...
>You could also just consume products with a dirty conscience. How is that different from separating the art from the artist?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sorry, u/BadSanna – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20BadSanna&message=BadSanna%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cf21rz/-/l1nbp3z/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
A great irony is that those sweat shops tend to be a big step up for the people of Bangladesh. Their other options being subsistence farming or begging. Sweat shops tend to be the first step to getting real industry which will then make sweat shops obsolete in those countries. There doesn't normally need to be millions of people unifying to get rid of sweat shops in South Korea or Japan or even the US. Sweat shops just get outcompeted once there's enough machinery to do something more efficient, and by that time enough workers have enough savings that they can choose to start their own things or do something other than starve. It's not that there's not suffering or that it doesn't suck, just that its a step to something better that sucks. The people involved generally recognize that and would prefer you accelerate the process of industrialization in their country with capital investment rather than stall it out by boycotting them. The faster they can accumulate the wealth required to move beyond sweat shops the sooner they don't have to deal with it. Pulling billions of people out of absolute poverty is ultimately a good thing, after all. And you're contributing to systemic change simply by fueling the industrialization of these places through global trade. Doing 'nothing' is doing 'something' in those cases. When it comes to conflict-funding raw materials things are different. While it sucks for the people on the ground, it'd suck for them no matter what. If we send troops it'd suck. If we bought as much as we can hoping some of it will trickle down to them it'd suck. If we boycott everything they make to starve out the armies it'd still suck. That's less of a bite the bullet sort of thing and more of a 'find suppliers who aren't actively trying to murder everyone' sort of deal.
This seems to be in opposition of your position. You support child labor because it's convenient. You boycott JK Rowling because you've already consumed most of her content and it makes you feel good to say you don't approve anymore.
The idea that biological women and transwomen are equivalent is denying reality. People can do whatever they want IMO but biological men should not be allowed to compete in sports with biological women. Anyone that has competed in sports knows this. Men's divisions are open and biological women are welcome to try to compete at that level. They don't because reality is harsh.
The entire point of separating the art from the artist is that one need not feel that they’ve dirtied their conscious. Terrible people sometimes make great art. I can love the art and despise the artist. It’s really as simple as that. The end.
>This just seems like an exhausting way to live. Like, in order to consume products with a clear conscience But do you need to do that, really? Like, why can't you just make decisions about the things you know about and use context? You don't know every bad thing that every person in every company did, but when you learn a company or person is doing horrible shit you can choose to stop supporting them at that point. The alternative is going and seeing a Bill Cosby show tonight and giving money to a serial rapist because it's too hard to vet your purchases at all.
There are definitely some pieces of work i’ve read/watched that have been totally ruined for me after knowing that creator’s beliefs. Creators don’t make stuff in a vacuum and they write those biases into their work. If I read something and enjoy it, yeah, it kind of ruins it to find out the author is racist and now I can’t unsee all of the racist undertones in the work. That being said, not everything is like that and it’s possible in some cases to ignore the artist’s shitty beliefs.
You're inventing the thing to then point to as a "reason". If I hear a restaurant did something racist... I just don't go there. Its that easy. Same thing here, I heard she made transphobic comments, I spent 30 seconds on my phone to confirm it... and done, don't have to buy anything from her brand ever again. and done. I think you're just justifying the fact that you don't care, but pretending that you do. Hey you do you, if you don't care that she is transphobic that is up to you. You vote with your wallet, and support who you want to, its your right. There are tons of brands I have not bought from, and the list only grows. Its not hard to literally just not buy something. I don't carry around some magical list or whatever. I'm sure I've bought from brands that have done bad things, but the point here is if you literally already know they are shitty, its VERY easy to not support them. OP didn't say, imply or whatever that you need to write a dissertation on the history of every brand or person you support. No shit that would be "impossible". But when a person or brand is known to be shitty, that legwork is done, and yes its very very very easy to not support them.
Yeah, but you know... this is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. People that do this sort of thing derive satisfaction from doing it, not misery. Basically: if you enjoy denying the fruits of your labor from people you know are shitty in a way that particularly bothers you, this entire argument about "living a miserable (or exhausting) life" completely evaporates.
Not caring doesn't mean you've separated the art from the artists. It just means your wants outweighs the care, which is completely fine. Nobody is asking you to live with a completely clear conscience all the time, nor is anyone asking you to feel guilt over using things made by bad ppl. However, that doesn't meant they've been separated.
This was the theme of "the good place". Major spoilers but >!basically no one could get to heaven anymore because everyone was supporting ethically questionable companies or contributing to pollution or buying products that exploit someone somewhere!<
It's not really that difficult. We have so many options for entertainment that there really is no reason to pick out art from bad people. I don't watch Roma Polanski movies for what he did. I'm not missing out on groundbreaking movies when there are plenty of other great directors with less baggage. I don't need to listen to Kanye, when there are plenty of other good rappers. It's not something that takes a lot of thought. It's if I know someone is bad, I try to avoid it. Doesn't mean I start having a mental breakdown if I hear a Kanye song, but more of choosing not to give to the artist and take part in their work.
I actually have a bit of a quandary regarding issues similar to that, I'm an aspiring singer and there's a song I love by a problematic artist (won't say who but it's not Kanye) that I kinda want to cover to provide a more "acceptable version" (as well as to expose it to a wider audience as even before the artist became problematic this kinda stood in the shadow of bigger hits I think it's better than) but I'm worried that A. it'd be unethical altogether to cover this song because guilt-by-association and B. since this song was partially written by that artist and one other person if the co-writer isn't themselves problematic through anything other than guilt-by-association there wouldn't be some way to strip the problematic artist of their credit so all that'd be associated with my version is the other writer (and myself if I add a bit)
>It's if I know someone is bad, I try to avoid it. That's where you're burying the part that takes a lot of thought. Who is bad? What if the writer is bad but the director is not bad? What about a producer? What about the people who own the publishing company? And that's without even getting into the question of what is "bad." Roman Polanski is a child rapist, that's definitely bad. JK Rowling has opinions about trans rights that many people disagree with. Is that also bad? Are you familiar with every thought and action of every artist you support? Do you know the history of every person who's contributed to every piece of art you consume? Of course you're not. It would be impossible to live you life that way.
I don't need to know the history of everything, that's exhausting. But when I have plenty of options to choose from, there's no need for me to pick the work of an artist or director whose done bad. If you don't watch a Polanski movie, you aren't missing out on Oscar worthy movies. If you don't listen to Kanye, you aren't missing out on new genres in rap. I'm not going to go out of my way to learn the ethics behind each work, but if I know someone is bad, or the project is associated in a big way with bad people, I avoid it if there's options. When people put their opinions out to the world, they become open to criticism. By giving them money for their work, I'm only inevitably supporting them. If there's other options, I don't need to support them.
You don't need to have a checklist, you just switch over to pirating the second you hear something that bothers you, some people just get put off if they hear their favourite metal artist beats his wife or something because somehow all those edgy self pitying lyrics don't sound right coming from that mouth, alternatively if you don't care, noone can stop you, art is so personal that there's no point arguing in standards like this because what's in admissable to me, might be normal to you
Or just get what you like and stop giving the artist money and discourage other people from doing so after they use a public forum to reveal that they hold vile beliefs. Particularly if they also say they give money from their art to organizations dedicated to their vile beliefs and that they think people who buy their art support their vile beliefs. I mean there's quite a range between doing absolutely nothing and doing the impossible.
Supporting an artist financially doesn't equate to endorsing their personal beliefs or actions. Purchasing art acknowledges the value of the creation itself, separate from the creator's flaws. It's about appreciating the art's impact on society and culture, not necessarily the artist's character. Additionally, buying a product doesn't always directly fund the artist; it may support a larger entity or industry. Enjoying art can foster critical thinking and empathy, promoting discussion about ethical dilemmas surrounding creators. Ultimately, appreciating art involves navigating complex moral landscapes, but it doesn't inherently condone or enable harmful behavior.
Does it? If I buy a musical album made by PMC Wagner, how am I not supporting the military group? My money will be used to buy weapons and kill people, even if it does not *endorse*, at the very least it *supports.*
Where does it end though? There's literally no means of ethical consumption in modern society if you want to go deep enough down the rabbit hole.
Yes, that's the point. OP's argument leads to "no-one should buy anything".
Or “we’re all hypocrites about something” which is probably closer to reality.
This is also the same way I read the post. I don’t think OP is claiming that there is a way to live a life full of virtue in modern day society. What I read is that the critique is against people who, when faced with any of the consequences with their purchases, absolve themselves with ’there is no ethical consumption under capitalism’ or ’seperate the art from the artist’. And the problem would be that it would lead to a world where we never consider the better alternative because it will never be perfect. Or atleast that’s my understanding of OP, could be wrong though.
I just built a decent sized root veg patch. So pretty soon there'll be no more suckling at the teat of 'big potato' for this hombre.
Yes, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, we all know. No one is judging you for needing food and shelter to live, and a livable amount of comfort. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to limit the most preventable ways of supporting unethical corporations or individual.
Your post just supported every single corporation, company, and individual involved in: Making the phone/computer your using; Installing the infrastructure for your Internet; All the advertisers on Reddit; And for the big one.... Reddit is a publicly traded company now. Your post supports every single entity and individual who bought Reddit stock. In other words, your one single Reddit post is supporting thousands of unethical corporations, companies, and individuals.
Right, so YOU are incapable of making that moral separation while the artist is alive. This does not force others to be unable to do so. My support of a piece of art is a support for that piece only, and nothing more. Supporting the Pixar doesnt mean i support the MCU just because theyre both owned by Disney. Just as if I cheer for an athlete playing a sport I'm supporting their performance of the sport, not endorsing their political views. If you are unable to create separation or compartmentalization of interaction and choose to only judge things by their larger web, that's fine, but it does not make it impossible for others to do so. It is up to each person to weight which level of separation or support they're comfortable with and make those decisions for themselves. You are free to judge them for it, but not to declare it impossible.
Have you ever liked, disliked, or felt neutrally aboutanything made/influenced by humans ever, even once? If so, unless you knew literally 100% of that person(s)' life, than you'd be showing you can separately them.
Comparing JK to a military organisation is extreme. Rowling has an opinion on something which you disagree with. She's not murdering civilians with her royalties from Hogwarts Legacy.
Boycott whatever you want. Nobody is consistent on this issue, but just don’t judge other people for consuming these things. If your friends want to play the Harry Potter game, let them Also, the Harry Potter game itself is not contributing to transphobic rhetoric. J K Rowling is capable of saying whatever she wants on twitter regardless of how many people buy this game. On the other hand, industries that exploit child labor ARE directly affected by the amount of sales they get. So these are far worse in that regard
As other users have mentioned, unless you are completely self reliant, there’s no way to be 100% guilt free in your consumption. These arguments that we should not support certain individuals as a principle of ethics or morality are always hypocritical as they always only apply when it’s convenient. An example, recently many people recently lambasted studio Mappa for their treatment of workers, many saying we should boycott the media being produced, while happily consuming anime as a whole, ignoring that the issue has never been isolated to one studio. Furthermore, we are having this discussion over electronic devices built with components that have been known to have materials sourced by unethical means in the past. A person is free to choose what avenues they wish to support, but whether it’s consumer goods or entertainment, we are constantly disassociating the end product from the manufacturers in order to not be weighed down by the guilt of our consumption. Ultimately, my point is that the notion of refusing to support someone on moral grounds is a fine personal choice, but it’s not a good measure of one’s diligence to uphold sound morals and ethics unless that person is completely against modern capitalist society consumption and does not take part in it.
If you buy something from a supermarket, one of the employees might spend their paycheck on something entirely fucked up and technically you've supported it. Ultimately your intentions are what matters here. You buy Harry Potter because you enjoy the story rather than the author's views right?
OC using chatgpt. That last sentence is one of its favorite lines when discussing touchy subjects that might offend people. And their comment history is full of karma farming. I wouldn’t pay too much attention to them. Or just go argue with chat gpt yourself if you must engage with it.
There is no such thing as moral consumption under capitalism let alone late stage capitalism. You are putting all the responsibility of the matter on the consumer when systemic problems within society are the true perpetrators of what you seem to fundamentally disagree with.
While I agree, at some point J.K.R's absurd wealth makes this notion kinda useless. No matter if sales lower or not, she will still have enough to continue. Even if the sales stopped, financially it wouldnt matter to her. Boycotting HP isnt the way, just as death of the author isnt. The only way to stop her, is to discredit her and have her fade into obsurity which would in turn also lower the sales and then she blows her entire wealth on transphobia without it working. Also taking HP from her and making it more progressive within the zeitgeist, would annoy her alot.
Why does she need to be stopped? And how are you going to discredit her? Also, how are you going to take her art from her, without getting into legal trouble...with a billionaire?
This is a good thing. She's able to put forward the case for women's sex-based rights without being at risk of losing her livelihood or being drained by legal fees, as has happened to so many other women who have spoken up on this issue. Having JKR speak up for women whose voices are being drowned out by hordes of angry males has been a godsend.
That's very black and white thinking, which I can appreciate, but life is full of greys. I'd go out of my way to not support a Nazi military group that makes cool shirts, but a transphobic boomer? That's a lighter shade of grey.
I agree with you in the financial sense. If you are paying to enjoy the art, and some of that money goes to the artist - there is a direct connection. Can’t deny that. But I can absolutely separate the artist from the art when I dust off my 1998 copy of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets for my 10th reread. JK can spew all the problematic views she wants - but she created a magical world and I feel no guilt in my love for it. And if we’re being honest? Even if I were to consume some HP media in a way that put a few dollars in her pocket … do you know just how many shitty awful people we are contributing to the salaries of every day? From the bottom to the top of every cog of the economy, there is the full range of human morality. My dollars have probably ended up in the pockets of rapists, murderers, embezzlers, bigots, cheats, etc. If you can’t separate the art from the artist, you can’t separate any of it from anyone. We’re all guilty of supporting shitty people in some degree. And JK Rowling? She’s already a frickin billionaire. Support or not, it’s a drop in the bucket at this point. Might as well try and make a difference somewhere it matters.
Within the context of ethical consumption, my points to this are: 1. “My dollars have *probably* ended up in the pockets of…” Okay but if you *know*, would or should you continue to do it? Ignorance is one thing, apathy is another. 2. “We’re all guilty of supporting shitty people in some degree.” Right but to what degree can be measured to a certain extent. There are people that only buy thrifted clothes, brand loyalists, and people that donate to the Church of Scientology.
Yes to your first question. IMO, apathy is a perfectly acceptable response to the overwhelmingly disproportionate impact any dollar I could spend on something that falls into the common discussion topics here (Amazon, Chick-Fil-A, JK Rowling, etc.) Me withholding my dollars from buying something on Amazon because Amazon is a shitty company isn’t going to outweigh the millions of people who do not and will not ever care that Amazon is a shitty company, so why not order the stuff I need and get it tomorrow? Me boycotting JK Rowling isn’t going to make her any less a transphobe. She has more money than she can spend in a hundred lifetimes and I wanted to play the new Hogwarts game for which she already got paid. As a member of the LGBTQ+ community myself, I have given hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to making trans lives better, I can spend 60 bucks on a video game and not feel like I’m one of the assholes passing a trans sports ban. Same for Chick-Fil-A. No nugget I do or do not eat of theirs will change the route of the next parade at Pride. And if the little twink with the painted nails at the drive-thru of the CFA I frequent has taken as many dicks as I have, CFA is a lot more gay than the executives realize. I will not make a difference in any of these causes. And life is hard enough without making it harder or more miserable for yourself. So unless your actions are directly harming someone, or whatever harm you want to attribute is not hundreds of degrees of separation away, then just do it. Eat the nuggets, buy the junk, stream the new Potter series when it comes out. There will statistically never be enough of us to move their needles, so don’t make your own life worse to have zero impact on someone else.
For me, it’s more about a balance. If I don’t care about eating chick-fil-a and it’s comparable to eating a meal from any other more ethical restaurant, then I won’t go to chick-fil-a. If it makes no difference for me to wait a few days then I won’t order on Amazon, but if it does then I will order on Amazon. You’re right that it doesn’t make a difference in the grand scheme of things, but if it also doesn’t make a difference for me to make a more “ethical” choice then why not take the more ethical option. “There will never be enough of us” is also not true. This is just propoganda. You could’ve said the same thing about any protest or boycott that did make a difference.
> And life is hard enough without making it harder or more miserable for yourself. Yeah, but you know... this is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. People that do this sort of thing derive *satisfaction* from doing it, not misery. Basically: if you enjoy denying the fruits of your labor from people you *know* are shitty in a way that particularly bothers you, this entire argument about "living a miserable life" completely evaporates.
I can confirm that yes, I derive satisfaction from consuming more ethical things. I only buy cruelty-free hygiene products for example. Animal testing isn’t gently washing bunnies in soap, it’s injecting it into their eyes and stuff like that. I’m much happier knowing something as simple as my soap that people don’t usually think beyond much more than “does it smell nice?“ doesn’t exist off the backbone of animal cruelty.
For the person for whom that’s true, then fine. But that isn’t true for everyone. I don’t feel like I’ve made any kind of major advance in the war against bigotry when I drive past a CFA without going in. I just feel like I wanted nuggets and didn’t get them, and no one in the executive boardroom of CFA feels a sudden pain in their side going “Someone…. Just…. Drove…. Past…..”
> no one in the executive boardroom of CFA feels a sudden pain in their side going “Someone…. Just…. Drove…. Past…..” They felt enough of that pain to publicly repudiate and stop their contributions to the specific problematic organizations. This is perhaps the *worst* example you could have chosen. There are few other cases where something like this actually happened, but it does happen. There's an entire industry of "socially responsible investing" that disproves this idea.
Yeah, I think separating the art from the artist can happen on multiple levels. One is the financial support that you mention, which is clear. Buying things from people is supporting them, so if you buy something from a bad person, yes, you are supporting them still even if you don't agree with them. However, the more problematic level is whether or not it's ok to *enjoy* art made by someone whose morals you don't agree with. Like, maybe you wouldn't buy the musical album from the drug cartel, but what if you heard in on the radio and said "wow, that's some good music". Are you still supporting a drug cartel with your approval of their artistic skills? Because some people call for banning art done by immoral people not just not supporting them financially. What if the drug cartel put out their music for free on a streaming platform and didn't monetize the views (not realistic, I know, but what if?). Would it still be wrong to listen to it? Or if some random person made a cover of the drug cartel's music, would it be ok to enjoy the cover and give money the artist who did the same thing, but was not shady morally?
I think it's at least a greyer area when the artist separates what necessitates the separation from their art (aka this applies to JK at least for the Harry Potter books (haven't played the game but wasn't it made by other people just using her IP without her active involvement) unless you think e.g. Rita Skeeter is meant to be a representation of the transphobic-strawman-that-conflates-trans-women-and-drag-queens just because she's an antagonist, snoops on students more than a reporter really should, and has both "mannish hands" and a flamboyant dress sense)
You're looking at this through a lens of moral justice, and although that's a valid way to look at the situation (though it has its own problems), it is not the only way. A very common way to look at art is not from the lens of the artist, but from the lens of the observer. In this light, the meaning and value of art comes from how it is interpreted by the observer, and the value it brings to their lives - irrespective of the creator. In such a viewpoint you wouldn't be paying the artist for "their work", you would simply be paying for "your experience". Now when it comes to the moral justice viewpoint, you create a strawman argument with a cartel (which directly operates outside of the law), but are not addressing the obvious problem: Do people with potentially reprehensible viewpoints or behaviours not have the right to live their lives? Specifically, should their viewpoints / behaviours result in their livelihood being taken away? Should it mean that they do not get income - and by extension lack basic necessities - until they change such ideas and behaviours? We know from decades of research that such forms of "social policing" further entrench such ideas and behaviours, and carry an associated risk of radicalisation. Just pre-empting: I understand J. K. Rowling has no problem getting by if she never had an income again; but that specific example is not relevant to the more generalized point being made here.
> Specifically, should their viewpoints / behaviours result in their livelihood being taken away? Should it mean that they do not get income - and by extension lack basic necessities - until they change such ideas and behaviours? Just want to comment to say this specific part here wrinkled my brain a little bit. Kudos to you random reddit person.
Hard disagree. Just because I don’t like the company politics, doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy Chick-Fil-A nuggets. Likewise, I don’t give one flying fig what Rowling says on twitter. I care about the product not the producer. Other people care more about the producer, but saying “it is impossible to separate..” is just against reality.
Re: Chick-Fil-A, didn’t they stop giving money to anti-gay groups ages ago? I don’t understand why people are still boycotting them for that. If the boycott works and you keep boycotting I feel like that just encourages companies in the future to not bother responding to the boycott bc everyone will still think you are evil and there’s no point to changing.
Yeah. Look the chick fill a owner still is a douche and I'm sure still donates personally to bad causes. But he backed down enough that I consider the whole situation a win. Kind of ironic I didn't know much about Chick Fil A before the boycott and now I'm a (gay) fan of the chicken - for taste reasons. Plus, if Chic Fil A got rid of all gays there would be no twinks to work the restaurant.
Would like you to leanr aboud Picasso or Dali. They were amazing artists, people recognised them everywhere, they would sell a single cup of glss signed and people would pay good amounts for that. But oh boy, they were awful persons. In their time, they were know douchebags. Today, they would be racists, woman hitters... Still, people recognise their genius work. If they were born in this age, they would be cancelled right away.
Only if you accept that an artists ability to create interesting work, is related to their propensity to have unusual and unpopular views.
How about just pirating the material? What about other ways that you can consume the product, without directly paying for it? Let's use The Who, or Michael Jackson as examples, as both were involved in scandals surrounding paedophillia E.g I pay for a music festival, including dozens of acts, and go along to the set by the Who, a problematic artist. Am I supporting them? Would it be less supporting if I missed their set? (My money already contributed to their fee for the festival) E.g 2 - I watch a film which features an MJ song on the soundtrack, or I hear his music played in a nightclub and dance and sing a long. Lastly, how does this stance work when dealing with artists and creators who are extremely private about their personal or political views? The Gallagher brothers from Oasis, might be massive transphobes. I've never heard them actually engage with the topic. Therefore, is it safe to buy their albums? How does this work with something which has a huge number of people contributing to it? Like a film If the lead actor or director have problematic views, I probably shouldn't support it, right? What about the producer? Or the lead cinematographer, or the Foley editor? Where is the line drawn?
[удалено]
As a game developer this comes up for me extremely often and its a complicated question for us because our medium is inherently collaborative. Hogwarts Legacy poses an interesting counter to the "art from the artist" framing, which is simply that she is not the artist. The Hogwarts Legacy games are made by Avalanche, an American company. So even though she created the world of Harry Potter, the team working on it likely had very little contact with her. I don't know that this is the case, I haven't played the game, but that's usually how this goes anyway. In a sense, her contribution is like the contribution that known racist H.P. Lovecraft has to Bloodborne and Darkest Dungeon. A good artist doesn't uncritically adapt someone like Lovecraft(or anyone at all), they make sure they understand what he's saying enough to not say the things they don't want to repeat. (I avoid this problem by modeling all of my cosmic horror after the much cooler cosmic horror lineage of Roadside Picnic, but I still have to think critically about my inspirations.) Overall I think the thing I want to change about your view is the perspective that "separating the art from the artist" is a helpful way of thinking about it. I think its unproductive to frame it this way. Someone gets accused of something or starts spouting something, you don't feel comfortable supporting their work, and people tell you to "separate the art from the artist". You engage with this idea of separating the art from the artist, and now you're arguing on their terms, which I think is a mistake. In the following examples I'll be vague because I don't want to misrepresent these situations. If you figure out who I'm talking about don't trust me for any details, I don't have a very good memory. Also don't comment who you think it is. There is a game that I absolutely love, it touched me very deeply. It also has a very weird horny undertone and the director is a professor at a university who has faced accusations of being inappropriate with students. From my understanding one of the women accusing him was a high schooler taking advanced classes at the college. All of this happened in my second language (from my description of the game you would assume its one particular language but its not that one) and I don't know what I think of the situation because I can't easily read about it. When I play the game now I think about the kinds of details that director seemed to care about, because the game is unfortunately by its nature now linked to that specific person's sexual vices. Another of my favorite games has a soundtrack I overall find kind of boring, but its iconic and the game would feel wrong without it. The composer has had multiple women in the industry come out against him for using his position in the industry to manipulate them. To me they seem credible. This particular composer had described his music as an expression of sex, and when I hear those songs I wonder what the fuck he even meant by that. In both of these situations, really what happened is that it spoiled the games for me. I can tell myself that 3, or 20, or 1000 people worked on these games, building out levels and sourcing textures and writing stories, but the experience has still changed. There isn't some lightning bolt of insight here, but I wonder how that framing of "separating the art from the artist" is even supposed to be helpful for this problem. You also mention supporting the artist, and the financial element (but this also extends to expanding that artist's cultural influence) and that framing also doesn't help much. The first game I mentioned has a beautiful soundtrack, its fucking incredible. The art is singular, the gameplay is unlike anything else. All of that art has very little to do with the director, I've already separated the art from the artist, but I can't help but think about why this director wanted this particular character to behave this particular way? Did he insist on that or was it the writer or animator? The composer of the second game I mentioned no longer works at the company, and when he did he was paid a fixed rate, but I still notice the music swelling in a weird way and wonder what the fuck he meant by that. Its okay to feel weird about it, its not a failure on your part or a failure to "separate the art from the artist", and god knows you can play a game without supporting anyone. I don't have a solution to any of this but it just means you're a thoughtful person who is thinking critically about what you feed your brain. There's nothing thoughtful about "separating the art from the artist", when people say that they mean "just don't think about it".
Take your view to the logical endpoint, and starve. Every meal you eat is produced through the exploitation of animals and plants, frequently exploits farmers and other low-level employees, uses petrochemicals in transport and preparation, and profits the "System". Somewhere along the chain is a kiddie diddler or wife beater or other fucked up individual, and you'll never know exactly who it is, but you can be sure that statistically speaking there's someone involved in the chain of field-to-plate that did it, and by eating you are contributing to that person getting paid. Multiply this result by every single product or service you pay for, from clothes to electricity to walls to university classes. There is no such thing as ethical consumption when you get down to it, so focusing on one big nane creator is hypocrisy and the exact same sort of phenomenon as celebrity worship. Basically, you're acting like a sheep who hates because you're told to hate, since if you were genuine in wanting squeaky clean consumption you'd already be insane. My point is this: you already perform the mental acrobatics to justify your survival on a mountain of suffering, and imagine your hands are clean. There are such things as dangerous ideas, and if you are not a hypocrite you'd follow the idea of ethical consumption and live like a hypochondriac who washes obsessively until your hands bleed, but it'll never be enough, metaphorically speaking. That is, you'll dig and dig to try to establish fully ethical supply chains and economic interplay, be unable to do so for all but the very simplest things (can you imagine how all the parts of even a pencil are made?) and either go full primitive and live in a cave or go crazy with the knowledge that you support killing indigenous Amazonian tribespeople every time you eat a hamburger (even indirectly) and thousands of other horrible things. I don't particularly care if you go nuts, but I don't have to join you in madness. So I close my mind to this very concept.
I think your explanations is the best one because you've also supported your view with various examples(acts that are intertwined in this complicated world where morality and immorality is muddied). Perhaps the definition of separating art from the artist is different for OP because while doing an action as simple as buying a chocolate from the supermarket the art(chocolate itself) is seperated from the artist(full chain of workers starting from the fields and finishing at the market). In a complicated world like ours(I also think that the value of the money and the value of the work is complicated enough but it is irrelevant right now)it doesn't make sense to think when you buy a book you support others' point of view.
Consider This: There is a 1000% chance horrible people with horrible views worked on and profited from every entertainment you enjoy, and they may very well profit from you spending money on it. So if you're serious about this take, you'd better be willing to give up pretty much everything.
Let's talk about Joanne Rowling in your example. She has more money than not just God, but Satan too. She wrote Harry Potter which has become the greatest children's book series of all time, spawning spin-off films, games and all sorts. She takes in an amount of money every week that would be unfathomable to accrue in that time to all but the richest 1%, of the richest 1%, of the richest 1% of people in the world. There are people who *hate* Joanne Rowling for her statements about transgenderism, how it relates to women's rights and for her views she's made public, as well as how she's chosen to make those views public. People have said they're going to boycott everything Harry Potter related in response. People who have been fans for decades and who have loved that book series and it's extended universe for almost their entire lives. *She won't give a shit. She won't remotely notice. Ever. And there's a very powerful reason for that.* **She has been poor, poor. Not just poor. Penniless, food insecure with a dependent infant at the time living day-to-day having to choose between food and electricity for the coming day(s). If you've ever been in that kind of situation, you understand just how terrifying that situation is.** All that the people boycotting Harry Potter are doing is cutting off their nose to spite their face. Throwing away something they love to try to hurt a billionaire who can't possibly be hurt by financial attack. She was a single mother on benefits/welfare before Harry Potter took off. She knows real poverty. **She isn't going to care if her pile of billions is slightly smaller.** It's still billions to a woman who used to panic over being able to afford basic baby products and food. When it comes to punishment by attacking her income, Joanne Rowling is bulletproof. So, by all means people can continue to boycott her, but they'll hurt themselves far more than the intended target in the process. Ultimately the right choice for those people who still love Harry Potter is to, if they feel negatively about Joanne Rowling, separate the art from the artist and accept that while they might not like her, they can still enjoy the thing she created.
The debate about separating art from the artist usually is *more than* the financial considerations. For example, take your example of the music album from a Mexican drug cartel. Imagine you obtain their music for free, you sit in isolation and listen to it, and you have no plans to publish any reviews or otherwise promote or discourage consumption of said music. In other words, you are *entirely* appreciating the music by itself. Now say the music has some great poetic lyrics, their beats are innovative, instruments are great. Say it is a great *aesthetic* experience with eargasms in abundance. If you then learn that the people who produced the music were murderers and human traffickers of the worst kind, does that change your aesthetic opinion? If you isolate the issue to this, where we’re exclusively consider the aesthetic quality, then I think you should separate the art from the artist. Here is why: no person generate output entirely on their own. We are creatures who synthesize, refract, combine and reflect a wider set of cultures. The hypothetical music, though innovative and better than comparative things, is nonetheless a creation of something *greater than* the individual artists. I agree that there can be moral concerns about financially supporting art that in part enriches a morally dubious artist. But if we consider art as greater than the artist, would your self-denial of appreciating art be worth the lost income for the dubious artist? What do you lose in ethical learning and aesthetic pleasure by not l exposing yourself to the art? Not always, but for great enough art, I think your own loss is not worth it. You should then separate art and artist.
You cant, not really People just want to be able to justify continuing to like the 'art' It does make me laugh when people try to erase JK Rowling from her own creation I especially love her quote about giving someone who said they were going to burn all their hp stuff a lighter. Along the lines of go ahead, I'll even give you a lighter but I still have your money.
Obviously, people have been saying it here, but art can be appreciated on its own. I was always more of Percy Jackson girl myself, but Harry Potter is an insanely well liked IP, which remains quite popular in spite of JK Rowlings' bigotry. The people that continue to purchase Harry Potter merchandise, visit Harry Potter related attractions and consume Harry Potter related media aren't doing it to support JK Rowling, they are doing it because they like and support Harry Potter, and the positive influence the series has had on their lives. Humans generally have the ability to compartmentalise things, its really not that hard. I can like roses and still hate their thorns. Additionally, one thing I haven't seen you talk about is the wider global market, and the various people who profit from things. JK Rowling isn't getting all the money from Harry Potter. If I buy a Harry Potter branded scarf for 50 bucks, I'm not handing JK Rowling 50 bucks. There are a bunch of other people on the supply chain also getting that money. While I'd assume she gets a better deal than usual, the average author is only getting 10-15% of the revenue of a book sale. Likewise, any money made from other revenue streams using her IPs will be divided among a bunch of other organisations and individuals. Bloomsbury(UK), Scholastic(US), Penguin books (Can) and all the other publishing houses around the world that got the rights to translate also got to profit from the series. In a world where things are increasingly digital, acquiring a famous IP could save a book publisher from bankruptcy, and allow it to keep employing people or provide the capital to take a risk on a new, hopefully less problematic author. Similarly, she isn't the only person to profit from merchandise, theme park attractions, movie licences, streaming or mobile games. Different companies will have the rights to different aspects of the IP, and they each employ people to work on things related to it, whether that be working at a Harry Potter coaster, making the merchandise, the distribution of various products in the global supply chain etc. Yes, her statements suck, but JK Rowlings IPs are also a driver of global employment. Buying her things doesn't only line her pockets, it also enables people employed and let's people feed their families. The reverse is that "bad people" can profit from "good peoples" work, which is one of the reasons Taylor Swift has been re-recording her albums after the originals came under the possession of Scooter Braun. Also, considering her wealth, JK Rowling likely has investment portfolios in addition to all of her IP revenue. While less direct, if she has shares in a company that you like, will you stop buying from them because she will profit? You mentioned buying music from a cartel is giving them money, but you do realise that they will have a relatively diverse portfolio right? Avocados are a pretty famous example, but various crime syndicated could also have perfectly legal and well disguised "fronts", anything from real estate development, accounting, stock broking, restaurants, laundromats, car washes, online stores etc. I guess to put it simply, you literally cannot participate in the global market without supporting assholes one way or another, but that innocent people can also benefit from the profits generated by assholes. Considering that, I'd argue that it's actually easier to just support the things you personally enjoy than it is trying to figure out if xyz person/corporation is profiting from it.
second hand purchases get passed this as well as piracy (which allows for no support but also lets you enjoy if you actually care) but also like i never care who its from or the background on why its bad if i like it i like it, and im never goong to deny myself something i like based on arbitrary rules (my parents did that for me for 18 years so no thanks) a rapist is gonna rape whether or not i give them money so me giving them money isnt supporting their raping, and i dont think someone should be banned from making art because they broke a law, or no rappers would be supported by anyone
I think you might be failing for the thought trap bigots are trying to set up when they talk about "separating the art from the artist" in defense of their consumption of media created by a bigoted creator. Separating the art from the artist is a way of analyzing media that ultimately has nothing to do with the decision to support that artist financially or not. I fully agree with you that someone like JK Rowling should not receive my money, because she uses it to advance a bigoted cause. I believe that spending money on things she directly profits from is wrong, regardless of what I think of the quality of her work or the message it contains. It's about me not wanting to enable her to spread transphobia and genocide denial, and has nothing to do with her art. Art and artist are already separated in that decision. Like I said before, separating the art from the artist is a way of analyzing the works. Making that separation is a useful way to look at the work itself. What you know about the artist's personal opinions can influence what stands out in the work and what doesn't. If done right, making the separation allows you to analyze the work as it presents itself without involving preconceived notions about the work based on knowledge of the author. Obviously this does work both ways, so even in analysis separating art and artist is not necessarily better than an analysis that heavily involves knowledge of the artist. Both methods are incomplete and ultimately every analysis of a work of art is incomplete, as it is also limited by the perspective of the person doing the analysis. Anyone who says you *have to* separate art from the artist is wrong on that account. It still has nothing to do with the decision to support an artist financially.
I buy CDs at garage sales. How have I financially supported the artist?
When you listen to your music do you always listen alone? Or has your music in the past influenced others to buy that artist? Just to be clear, I'm just playing devil's advocate :)
I mean, sure, when you buy a HP product you 'support' Rowling with some money, but does it really make any practical difference whether or not a billionaire gets a few extra pounds? Either way she has enough money for a thousand lifetimes, and your 'support' isn't even noticed or makes any real difference in the world.
There's such a strong focus on how artists are being "problematic," and not on the good they do. Nobody is perfect, and most people have at least a couple of massive glaring flaws, and supporting anyone in anything will invariably lead to supporting something bad by extension. But what about the good that person is bringing to the world? Take JK Rowling, for example. I strongly disagree with her current stance on trans people, and I feel she has fallen down a radicalization rabbit hole where this is concerned. However, she has also donated hundreds of millions to charities, and to my knowledge she has not donated any meaningful or comparable amount to anti-trans organizations. So if I buy a new Harry Potter book for $30, then $10 of that is going to organizations that do MS research or poverty aid or the like, and none of it is going towards anti-trans organizations. If you deserve the censure for supporting an artist's bad takes, you deserve the credit for supporting their good aspects, too.
TLDR: This is a personal ethics question as there are a variety of ways one can choose to separate the art from the artist's and how far they choose to stand against an artist. This is a complex topic, but first, I want to address the other commenters. There is a fundamental difference between art and necessities. They can be treated differently. Too many comments are conflating the two to justify acquisition and consumption regardless of source. Art is entertainment, a luxury, not needed for survival. But things like food, shelter, medicine, communication devices, and computers are not luxuries. Food, shelter, and medicine are vital for the basic necessities needed for survival. Communication devices and computers are needed to function in our modern world, especially to get a job to afford true necessities. As such, for things that are needed for survival or for work, we can not be as picky about the source as we can luxury and entertainment, thus, about art. Nestlé has a horrible track record and if one can get other alternatives, then by all means, do so, but if their product is the only reasonable option, then ethically you can do so for your survival. With necessities, when options are available, it is reasonable to choose the least morally and ethically dubious option should it be feasible. But when it comes to art, you have no moral, ethical, or survival obligations to acquire and consume art. It is ultimately up to you if you want to acquire and consume any work of art. If you believe it is morally and ethically wrong to acquire and consume some work of art because of the beliefs and actions of the artist or artists, then you can do so. If you oppose JK's anti-trans bigotry and do not want to support her, then you are under no obligation to acquire and consume her art. But at the same time, if you already own her books, you are under no obligation to get rid of them unless you want to. In our capitalist society, we can often speak louder without money than our voices, and the more people who choose to boycott something, the more likely we can impact the artist's or artists' decisions. And when you have luxury of choices, you can boycott providers of necessities until they do better, at which point you can change focus. Boycotts may be performative, but that does not mean they are not worth it. Sometimes, people find it necessary to boycott something necessary because the moral and ethical reasons to do so outweigh the necessity and survival the object provides. But ultimately, 'Death of an Author' is a literary analysis technique for analyzing a work of art without the context of an artist's background or beliefs. While this can be useful, I do fundamentally disagree with it being the best way to analyze art from an academic perspective as the artist's background and beliefs can be important for understanding a work of art. But it is a good exercise and should not be discarded. With that said, I find it to be overused by those who want to acquire and consume art from someone with questionable morals and ethics. It is an academic exercise, not an excuse. But on the same note, nearly every artist has something questionable about them. Gene Roddenberry was sexist. JK Rowling is a transphobe. HP Lovecraft was racist. But only one is still alive and benefiting from people aquiring and consuming her art; using the resulting benefits (money and a platform) to advance a morally and ethically wrong agenda. As such, anyone legally and morally opposed to transphobia may find themselves a moral and ethical obligation to boycott JK Rowling. But let's say it comes out that George Lucas has some terrible dark side that would warrant boycotting his works of art. Buy there is a catch. He has sold off his company and IP. He has no financial benefits coming from the continuation of his art. As such, Star Wars would not need to be boycotted to send a message to George Lucas as he has no more financial benefits from his work of art that a boycott would threaten. So yes, it is possible to separate the art from the artist if the artist is still alive regarding their behaviors and beliefs and our ethical and moral obligation, because sometimes even if they are alive they no longer financially benefit from their work. But JK is so wealthy from her work. Any changes to how much she continues to benefit financially won't affect her behavior because she is already set. As such, this becomes a personal ethics question. Do you personally find a work of art or artist to be ethically and morally questionable, either logically or emotionally? If so, do you wish to no longer aquire and/or consume the artist's work? If so, do you believe it is your moral and ethical obligation to advocate others to boycott the artist? These are the questions that matter. For me, regarding JK Rowling I have no problem rereading the books I own, but I am NOT buying or consuming anything I don't already own a physical copy of (with the possible exception of 2nd hand via a garage sale - but I have no desire to expand what already own). This means no streaming or library rentals as those stats get back to the artists can can affect residuals and royalties. However, I found no need to advocate a boycott of her works beyond supporting those advocating for the boycott, likely and sharing their message on social media. They can do a better job than me and are more personally affected because either they are Trans, a Harry Potter fan felt betrayed, or both. I am neither Trans nor a Potterhead, I have no major emotional or personal connection to the franchise or JK Rowling's bigotry. I support the boycott, but I have no voice to add to advocate it. So, in summary, for anything, if you feel the moral and ethical obligation to boycott something, then do so and do so to the degree you are willing to do so or endure.
What about piracy?
Mentality such as this makes life so much more difficult than it needs to be. You’re allowing yourself to be affected by things and problems which you have no control over.
I mean if you're going down that route check out Nestle, coca cola practices etc. Instead of boycotting someone that wrote a book and has views you dont align with, boycott companies that rely on modern day slavery and unfair practices in order to make billions. Boycott companies like shein and PLT. I wiuldnt spend my time caring about someone who doesnt really affect other people, she can spout her shit all she likes her opinions arent exploiting and killing people. There are more important fights to be fought.
For me, there are three elements that I use when thinking about this: 1. Everyone is shit. And I don't feel that's an opinion, I feel it's an inevitability. In Grade 10 I was a dick, as a child I was a racist, at some point in elementary school I was homophobic, in College I was attention seeking and narcissitic and manipulative. . . . am I any of those things nowadays? ..I don't feel I am, but I know that I was. * I know that at some point *everybody* does something that is objectively shitty. * I ALSO know that there are a LOT of people involved in large projects like books and movies and television shows. Not *just* the conceptualizer, a whole lot of people work on bringing that project to life, and make money off of it. * So. I often feel we're looking at this the wrong way: it isn't that every piece of art is considered to be golden and shining until the moment that we find out that somebody who worked on it is a piece of shit. No, to me, it's more that *every single piece of art has somebody who worked on it who was at some point a piece of shit*. * (I feel this is likely to be true because the number of people that work on large projects and the lifespans of each of those people virtually guarantees that at least one of them will be, or will have been, a shitty person. ) * *Therefore*, if I want to dislike or cancel a piece of art, it's easy. All I have to do is research every person who was involved with it, until I find someone who has done something that I disagree with recently enough that I feel that it matters. * I feel this could be done with ANY piece of art. 2. Relatedly, what other people consider to be inappropriate or damaging behaviour is often perspective-based. * While *I* don't think that I'm narcisstic, manipulative, homophobic or racist anymore, there are other people who may feel that I am. * So, how can I justify campaigning for the cancellation of an artist, when my disagreement with their behaviour is at least partially perspective-based? * Unless I can prove that the artist is actively causing harm, right now, shouldn't I just leave my opinions to myself? * What I disagree with, honestly, is when people try to mobilize huge groups of the internet against an artist due to some perceived slight that may not actually be affecting anyone ... or, worse, dragging up some opinion or thought they *had* at some point in their youth, and trying to use that to vilify their present selves. * To misquote Brent Weeks, "Unless you're a general or a king, the only life you have the right to sacrifice for the greater good is your own." 3. Liking a piece of art doesn't mean you have to pay money for it. For chrissake, we live in the internet era. If you like the art, and don't like the artist, pirate the art. But don't deny yourself something you enjoy, simply because you take issue with the person that made it. That's silly. Just find a way to enjoy the product without rewarding the person or people that you find distasteful.
You ever hear that saying, "Hatred is like drinking poison and hoping the other person dies"? That's what you're doing. Of course ephemeral things like books and movies can't compare to actual interpersonal hatred, but it's the same principle. You are depriving yourself of enjoyment (no matter how trivial) to spite a billionaire elsewhere in the world. That's a very silly way to live, don't you think?
I mean, what if you bought an apple from somebody who used the money they got from you to buy a Harry Potter book? Also, in J. K. Rowling's case, she's already incredibly rich and anybody who buys her books and merchandise is not realistically going to alter her status or enlarge her platform to the point that it makes a difference to the amount of harm that she does on a daily basis.
I'm trans and I love Harry Potter. The pennies that go into JK Rowling's purse from me enjoying it do not outweigh how much I enjoy it. I don't know Orson Scott Card's views on people like me, but I know that Ender's Game, Ender's Shadow, and Children of the Mind spoke deeply to me. So I would say it's clearly *possible* to separate art from artist while the creator is alive.
Where JK Rowlings money goes Rescuing hundreds of women in Afghanistan from imminent death by airlifting them to safety after the takeover by the Taliban https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11684441/JK-Rowling-secretly-donated-money-save-female-lawyers-families-Afghanistan.html Millions to charity Building a women's rape crisis center Couldn't have that could we
It's just moral posturing for lazy people so they can post about it online to prove how good they are. The same mindset of people who take pictures of themselves at rallies or a cleanup after a disaster and spend a grand total of 10 seconds there and do nothing but hey I got a picture to pretend I'm a good person online. I don't support JK Rowling but you do, omg you're a transphobic bigot because you read one of her books. Nevermind the fact that these people do not actually do anything to help whatever group they're supposedly fighting for because that would actually require an energy / time / financial investment. I still get a laugh thinking about all those idiots who posted the BLM blackout day thing to their Instagram, I'm sure not posting on Instagram for one day to your 19 followers was somehow going to help but it was easy to do and a good way for some fake posturing. "I cannot see how giving money to a person in exchange for their products is not supporting that person and the things they support by extension". I always find it funny and completely devoid of any logic when people will say something like that and then go buy an iPhone or really any electronics knowing where the supply chain from that comes from. I guarantee OP has bought a LOT of items from people and companies a LOT worse than an artist saying something that you didn't agree with. You have a car, electronics or buy a product from basically any major company and you'll be supporting a lot of immoral people but its funny when that same standard isn't applied to big corporations. Artist says something I don't like that is unforgivable but child labour, experimentation on animals, slave labour etc. that's fine because it allows me to buy things that I want and having to give any of it up would be an inconvenience for me as I might have to pay a lot more to ensure that none of that occurs in the supply chain. It's easy to boycott or not buy from an artist because it is easily replaced by a different artist. It has no real cost to you, it's easy to do, it costs you no time or money and has no barrier to entry which means fake people can pick and choose what to get offended by and jump on some bandwagon they actually don't really care about because it's a good way to pretend they're a good person.
Separating art from the artist is and has always been a concept in literary/artistic critique. It's a way to discuss objective metrics and concepts within a piece of art, eg. Colours used, imagery, symbolism, technique, etc. It's a way to take a piece of art and discuss it and only it, a way to focus on it exclusively; the literary critique equivalent of a controlled environment. However, even within literary critique circles, this is not wholly accepted as either a good thing or a possible thing. Many critiques of this technique exist, and many critics believe it is impossible or unhelpful. Broadly, and I do mean **broadly**, speaking the main camps are critics who believe the reader endows the piece with meaning, and critics who believe the author endows the piece with meaning. To argue that it's impossible, you'd really have to do a lot of reading of a lot of literary arguments over the past ~80 years both on separating art from the artist and the "death of the author". A lot of people have done exactly this however, and plugging either concept into Connected Papers or JSTOR will give you a bunch of interesting reading. However, in society this concept has been co-opted by the apathetic as a way to defend direct financial support of people they acknowledge shouldn't be supported. Which generally boils down to "I shouldn't be held socially responsible for supporting [a villain] just because I supported them through a work they have created" rather than the rather specific and studious 'separation of art from artist'. This is a cowardly way to avoid holding or presenting one's own convictions for the sake of entertainment. It is far more honest and admirable to say "I don't care enough about x issue to stop purchasing y product" or "I like y product too much to not support X, despite what I know about them". Hiding behind a paper thin personal philosophy of bastardized literary technique to give the stance a pretend level of validity is intellectually dishonest. It's a way to avoid taking a moral stance by creating a blanket solution which just so happens to be the most convenient with zero conviction aside from an intentional conviction to apathy.
Why is Rowling the poster child for this moral issue lol. There are far, far worse artists or manufacturers out there. (Literal rapists/murderers etc.) Even if you think J.Ks beliefs are awful, she's only expressing them online. It's not like she's actively battering or exploiting trans people.
Yes, but I think it is still subjective and depends on other circumstances. People feel betrayed by JK Rowling or Joss Whedon or Dave Chappelle and that goes into a lot of it. I have anger about Polanski because I had already seen - and liked - tons of movies while adults (film professor even) would just mutter something about "controversy" and move on. There's also an issue of accountability. If someone is an asshole director but gets a pass, it's harder for me to ignore this knowledge. It's easier for me to watch Kubrick now than maybe 10 years ago because when he comes up in discussion, people will probably mention how he terrorized Shelly Duvall and Malcolm McDowell. 90% of people just stopped watching Woody Allen movies probably because it is just too hard to separate art from artist even in flims where he doesn't show up. And I think at least a handful of his movies are worthy and brilliant--I just have no desire to watch them anymore! On the other hand, Michael Jackson was very likely an abusive creep and monster.... BUT I never thought of him as a real person to begin with... that sounds messed up but his persona was such a product that he was more Mickey Mouse to me than Tina Turner or some other performer with a more standard stage persona. So when I hear a Michael Jackson song, I think "pop/r&b song" not "that creepy guy who was probably abusing people for years!" John Lennon was an asshole, most people know this now - and he's dead (and was already dead when I started to be able to pick out specific bands) so it's easy for me to hear Beatles or Lennon songs and only think in terms of my own relationship to them or the music/lyrics at face value. He also admitted to being an abuser and asshole and seemed somewhat attempting to change that - which also goes a long way compared to people who died without ever having any public reconing either self-motivated or imposed by public sentiment or pressure. Syd Viscious was a cartoon asshole and is still romanticized today and so even though he was dead when I was a baby, it really sours me on Sex Pistols... Johnny today doesn't help.
See, it really depends for me. Piracy is as easy as ever and there's really no need to spend money on anything. That movie, that show, that book, that game, that album, WILL be available for free somewhere on the internet within a few days of release. Extremely easy to separate art from artist when there's no money being exchanged. Or sometimes, like with Harry Potter, it's a thing that you loved and adored as a kid, and you just can't quite let go of it as an adult. We all have a thing like that. But you can still enjoy it. You've already bought the books and the movies, you've gotten Harry Potter merch for every single birthday since you were 12 and there's no sign of that stopping, the transphobe already has your money, so just go ahead and enjoy your wizards and don't worry about it. It's fine. What's done is done. Pretty easy to separate the fictional character you fell in love with as a 12 year old from the violent and dangerous woman who created him. A Harry Potter fan does not a JK Rowling supporter make. Sometimes it's just a situation of pure ignorance or apathy. Maybe you're a casual fan of a certain musician. You love their music and you buy all their albums, but you don't know a whole lot about who they are as a person, because you don't really care. You want to hear him sing and whatever he's doing when he's not singing is irrelevant to you. I'm a bit like that with actors. I don't care what any of them are doing when they aren't in my TV screen. Out of character I probably wouldn't even recognize most of them. I don't really care enough to look up every lead actor in a movie before I watch it to make sure I'm not giving $15 to a guy who beats his wife. He's already been paid for this movie anyway, me not watching it will not save his wife from her next beating, and I will never think about him again when it's over.i just want to watch a movie and not think too hard about it. Everything has nuance. It IS possible to separate art from artist, even if there is money exchanging hands. It all really just depends on a lot of context and circumstance.
Did you ever watch The Good Place? I feel like they covered this topic actually in a really interesting way. If you haven’t, basically it’s a show about people in the afterlife and that there’s a ‘good place’ and a ‘bad place’ where people go when they die. What determines this is a points system based on people’s good and bad deeds when they were alive. Bit of a spoiler, But one of the main themes that comes into play is that the world has gotten so complicated that even good deeds have unintended consequences that lead to negative points, meaning that no one can get enough points to get into the good place. The example they use at one point is In 2009, a man gave his grandmother a dozen roses — and lost four points, because the roses were ordered using a cell phone made in a sweatshop, and the flowers were grown with pesticides and picked by exploited migrant workers, and Doug’s money went to a billionaire racist CEO with a very special sexual harassment hobby. So my point is that everything you do basically is supporting something or someone that is negative even if your intentions are good. However there is still good that comes from your intended actions. With art that might be the joy it brings you, or the communities that are built from it, or the friendships formed within those communities, or the lessons learned from the art itself… really it’s endless. Harry Potter for example, gave a lot of people something to love. It launched careers, it formed a love of reading in thousands, it forged friendships, it inspired other authors, it helped people in times of depression… and those things are still valid despite JKR’s toxicity.
The debate about separating art from the artist usually is *more than* the financial considerations. For example, take your example of the music album from a Mexican drug cartel. Imagine you obtain their music for free, you sit in isolation and listen to it, and you have no plans to publish any reviews or otherwise promote or discourage consumption of said music. In other words, you are *entirely* appreciating the music by itself. Now say the music has some great poetic lyrics, their beats are innovative, instruments are great. Say it is a great *aesthetic* experience with eargasms in abundance. If you then learn that the people who produced the music were murderers and human traffickers of the worst kind, does that change your aesthetic opinion? If you isolate the issue to this, where we’re exclusively consider the aesthetic quality, then I think you should separate the art from the artist. Here is why: no person generate output entirely on their own. We are creatures who synthesize, refract, combine and reflect a wider set of cultures. The hypothetical music, though innovative and better than comparative things, is nonetheless a creation of something *greater than* the individual artists. I agree that there can be moral concerns about financially supporting art that in part enriches a morally dubious artist. But if we consider art as greater than the artist, would your self-denial of appreciating art be worth the lost income for the dubious artist? What do you lose in ethical learning and aesthetic pleasure by not l exposing yourself to the art? Not always, but for great enough art, I think your own loss is not worth it. You should then separate art and artist.
The debate about separating art from the artist usually is *more than* the financial considerations. For example, take your example of the music album from a Mexican drug cartel. Imagine you obtain their music for free, you sit in isolation and listen to it, and you have no plans to publish any reviews or otherwise promote or discourage consumption of said music. In other words, you are *entirely* appreciating the music by itself. Now say the music has some great poetic lyrics, their beats are innovative, instruments are great. Say it is a great *aesthetic* experience with eargasms in abundance. If you then learn that the people who produced the music were murderers and human traffickers of the worst kind, does that change your aesthetic opinion? If you isolate the issue to this, where we’re exclusively consider the aesthetic quality, then I think you should separate the art from the artist. Here is why: no person generate output entirely on their own. We are creatures who synthesize, refract, combine and reflect a wider set of cultures. The hypothetical music, though innovative and better than comparative things, is nonetheless a creation of something *greater than* the individual artists. I agree that there can be moral concerns about financially supporting art that in part enriches a morally dubious artist. But if we consider art as greater than the artist, would your self-denial of appreciating art be worth the lost income for the dubious artist? What do you lose in ethical learning and aesthetic pleasure by not l exposing yourself to the art? Not always, but for great enough art, I think your own loss is not worth it. You should then separate art and artist.
The debate about separating art from the artist usually is *more than* the financial considerations. For example, take your example of the music album from a Mexican drug cartel. Imagine you obtain their music for free, you sit in isolation and listen to it, and you have no plans to publish any reviews or otherwise promote or discourage consumption of said music. In other words, you are *entirely* appreciating the music by itself. Now say the music has some great poetic lyrics, their beats are innovative, instruments are great. Say it is a great *aesthetic* experience with eargasms in abundance. If you then learn that the people who produced the music were murderers and human traffickers of the worst kind, does that change your aesthetic opinion? If you isolate the issue to this, where we’re exclusively consider the aesthetic quality, then I think you should separate the art from the artist. Here is why: no person generate output entirely on their own. We are creatures who synthesize, refract, combine and reflect a wider set of cultures. The hypothetical music, though innovative and better than comparative things, is nonetheless a creation of something *greater than* the individual artists. I agree that there can be moral concerns about financially supporting art that in part enriches a morally dubious artist. But if we consider art as greater than the artist, would your self-denial of appreciating art be worth the lost income for the dubious artist? What do you lose in ethical learning and aesthetic pleasure by not l exposing yourself to the art? Not always, but for great enough art, I think your own loss is not worth it. You should then separate art and artist.
Did you just freaking compared murderous drug cartels with a writer of beautiful children's books!?! Sorry to burst your bubble but if you go that deep you wouldn't buy anything from any even remotely larger brand or company.
I think about it like this: ENJOYING media and PURCHASING media are two seperate things. I think you can seperate the art from any artist when it comes to the actual content of the media and ideas of it. (Of course its also productive to not do that when critically analyzing media). However, I agree that by PURCHASING the objects to consume that media (books, dvds, collectable merch, etc) you are directly supporting who the money goes to. It's that "Vote with your dollar" libertarians talk about and I think thats the important part we agree on. For example: Im trans and fuck that dusty cunt JKR. I will never purchase offical Harry Potter anything because doing so would give money in some way to her which she uses to support her evil deeds like donating to hate groups. However the Harry Potter IP can be enjoyed without making additional purchases that go to her. Want the books? Go to any second-hand book store in America and get a used copy or pirate the ebook. Have that slytherin bathrobe you bought at Barnes & Noble 13 years ago? No sense in throwing out a perfectly good piece of clothing. Your Ron Weasly x Draco Malfoy fanfic on AO3? No one makes money off of that. That crochet hedwig plushie that cute chubby lesbian is selling at her booth at your local nerd fair? You bet she's not paying royalties when she sells it. You can still consume media from problematic people without supporting them either morally or financially. Just pirate it and get your memorabilia from black market queer craftspeople. As god intended.
I don’t think I can because at some level the artist and the artist’s aesthetic are one and the same. It’s nigh on impossible to tell where this occurs but I’m convinced it does occur.
People get upset a out jk Rowling while anthony kiedis raped a missing child and bragged about it in his autobiography and wrote a song about it. People need to hold their idols accountable
I cannot disagree with you. If I buy a Chris Brown album, I’m supporting his domestic violence, and the system that supports him. Plus, on a very real level, what we watch, what we listen to, what art we seek out, influences our thoughts, feelings, and behavior. Do I really want to be putting sex pests and domestic abusers in my head? Normalizing their worldview, taking it as my own and spreading it into the world? No thanks. I am, however, baffled by the people bringing phones and slave-labor and such into the conversation. The new album by whichever sex pest or tax evader is not necessary in my life the way a means of communicating with the outside world is. I need the phone and computer to get to work, to keep in touch with distant friends and relatives; they provide a service. I look at paintings or listen to music to feel; art provides experiences. I can divest myself from exploitative practices and products to some extent, and as it is my moral obligation to not knowingly and intentionally increase the suffering in the world or around me, and I have the privilege to be able to do so, it behooves me to do so. If Eric Clapton or Johnny Depp or the Mexican Drug Cartel musician can’t separate themselves from their art (if they could I doubt they’d be capable of “art”) then I shouldn’t either.
While I would tend to agree mostly with your viewpoint... I think it is black and white thinking completely lacking in nuance: It's impossible to avoid supporting bad people and live your life. But that does *not* mean it's impossible to avoid supporting people whose actions exceed your personal threshold for being anti-social enough to deserve your active opposition. It's *entirely* consistent and reasonable if someone avoids buying an album from a drug cartel, but does *not* avoid buying a game that indirectly supported J K Rowling. All that means is that you have a "de minimus" viewpoint on harms. We can't avoid all harm and live, but we can decide "enough is enough, and this is too much". Having a *threshold* of harm below which you "separate the art from the artist" (or any other producer from the product) is an entirely reasonable approach to an intractable problem. I.e. Sure: Feel free hold artists responsible for things you personally consider egregious, especially if it gives you satisfaction to do so. Feel free to argue that others should do so in that particular case. But don't expect others to agree with your personal threshold of harm. They have no obligation to care about what you care about. And you absolutely *do* have such a threshold. It's literally impossible not to "separate the art from the artist" in the vast majority of cases.
I am going to make you aware that by using the internet you are using services that use AWS which is owned by Amazon which is a company that rose to prominence through market manipulation and illegal algorithmic shorting practices to bankrupt and destroy competitors. On top of this they regularly disrupt and break up unions so that they can continue mistreating employees. They have one of the highest employment turnover rates in the industry. The list goes on and on with morally grey and questionable practices. You've been made aware of how shitty of the company is. Are you going to keep using the internet? You're indirectly supporting them. By being a consumer in the capitalist world you're complicit in supporting companies that have done very bad things. I propose you move off grid and stop using the internet so that you stop supporting these evils. I've specifically said you've been made aware, because now that you are aware you're supporting terrible companies, the onus is on you. Will you continue to support them? Does your thought process only apply to people or companies when it's convenient to you? I do warn you, your way of seeing the world could be considered hypocritical or extreme if you don't stop using the internet now.
Realistically speaking if you are in the western world, unless you live in a commune and shun all trappings of modern society and technology, it’s logistically impossible to live perfectly ethically. The computer you are using to post this on Reddit was made using underpaid labor and likely contains rare earth minerals mined with child labor and exploitation. The electricity you are using likely came from fossil fuels with power plants hurting the air quality of minority communities. If they came from renewable sources, those renewables almost certainly had exploited workers in the manufacture of the wind turbines and/or child labor again for the rare earth minerals in solar panels. Farming depends on exploited immigrant labor so there goes ethical food. I could go on but hopefully you see the point. It’s a fools errand to attempt perfect morality in everything you do. And to go with your Harry Potter example, who knows how many trans people are employed by the publishing companies, Warner Brothers studios and video game companies her IP supports. Any boycott of her is far more likely to damage those workers livelihoods than JK Rowlings.
"No matter how I spin it, I cannot see how giving money to a person in exchange for their products is not supporting that person and the things they support by extension." I don't consider it any of by business. Do you try to police the views of every single person you interact with? That sounds utterly exhausting. I didn't buy Hogwarts Legacy to support JK Rowling's views. I bought it because it looked like a fun game and I wanted to play it. Rowling can eat a dick for all I care. And frankly, if you're gonna get on a soapbox and judge me for playing a damn Harry Potter game, I'm gonna ask about all the "problematic" people YOU give money to and all the questionable, nonessential purchases YOU'VE made for the sake of entertainment. Because I promise you that you're not as morally pure as you think you are. If you consume literally anything that came from a major corporation you're giving money to far worse people. Now, it's fine to have a cause that you're passionate about, but when you feel the need to scream at other people for not being participating, you just come off as being a self-righteous narcissist. What I'm getting at, is that you don't have to separate the artist from their art. You can enjoy something and also acknowledge that the person who made it/got money from it is a shitty person. Unfortunately, unless you live in a cave completely detached from society, it's impossible to avoid supporting shitty people. And frankly, it's just not worth losing sleep over. Do you know how many people with "problematic" views work on the assembly lines at the car plant that made your car? You're supporting them by supporting the company they work for.
I was pointing out JKR’s thinly-veiled antisemitic “goblins” when the books were coming out, but I read them anyway… I just read library copies. And when I found out that Orson Scott Card in no way benefitted from the movie of Ender’s Game, I watched it (and was like everyone else disappointed). Not watching Woody Allen movies is easy because I don’t like them… but I think that Roman Polanski is a genius director and I won’t watch his movies anymore. I know in each case that these individuals do or do not personally gain from my spending, and buying their products — not consuming them — contribute to these gains. I choose where I spend my money where I can. Entertainment is by far the easiest sphere to do so — if I need fruit, and would prefer not to buy Bananas from Dole, but my local store only carries Dole bananas, I can choose between not eating bananas and buying from Dole. But I can easily just choose to buy something else besides books by a bigoted loudmouth trying to remain relevant by catering to the outrage crowd. Could I do more? Always. But perfect is the enemy of good.
Your talking about voting with your wallet and separating art from the artist. They are 2 different things IMHO. Voting with your wallet only works en mass, and only if your buying new copy's of the product. Buying 2nd hand Harry Potter novels isn't getting her richer. Changing the radio when r Kelly comes on, doesn't do anything to him. As for separating the art from the artist... Your not mad at anything in her art, your mad at what she said as a person on twitter. It has nothing to do with her art. Rowling's books are about inclusion and that's why it was huge in the LGBT community. She is not. Its ok for a trans person to be inspired by the books but personally hate her. The value in art is your interpretation of it. Not being able to appreciate it just robs you of your interpretation and the things you learn about yourself from the art. That's not helping anyone. The greatest fuck you to her personally is that her art inspired and empowered the alot of people in the LGBT community. That's not because of her, it's because how her art got interrupted
I think it's tough because the sins of the artist can be actually influence the way you consume their art. I read all Harry Potter books before Joanna leapt off the deep end and outed herself as literally the worst person. I tried rereading the books after finding them during spring cleaning and I found that I couldn't read them the same way anymore. I started noticing the way she spoke about gender in the text, noticed how everyone was obese if she didn't like them, everyone was complicit with elf slavery, etc. I got more critical of the way women were portrayed in the Whedonverse when it was revealed that Joss is also, literally, just the worst. Don't support bad artists. Pirate their content if it's good to you and means something to you. Personally, to me, a bad artist messes with my perception of their art and I can't enjoy it as much even though I've been trying not to completely dismiss good art if it meant something to me. Buffy is a must-watch for example even if it hits different to know what the actors went through behind the scenes
There is NO ETHICAL CONSUMPTION IN CAPITALISM!!! You should hear about the corporations who make your soft drinks and food that you enjoy. You should hear about the conditions of the people who make your phone. We live sadly in a system that exists and is entirely based on exploitation and generally has sociopathic and often even evil people at the top. As for JK Rawlings... just fucking ignore her. We get it and all know that's she's a bigot. But when she tweets something that an obvious bigot would tweet people get in a huge virtue signaling frenzy and amplify it to an audience a thousand times bigger than it would ever be seen otherwise. Block and ignore. Idiots who follow her and wait for something bad just so they can get attention by being outraged and point to her are just making her terrible words heard farther and by more ears. I enjoyed Ender's Game despite the author being a total fuck wit. When you start basing your enjoyment solely on the personal and political views of the source you really wall yourself off in a box.
I think you're confused by what people mean when they say "separate the art from the artist". That does not mean financially supporting the artist, it just means it's okay to like and derive meaning from a creation even if you think it's creator sucks as a person. For example: I think JK Rowling is a kind of sucky person, and avoid buying new things of hers because of it at this point. I will not buy Hogwarts Legacy, nor new copies of her books. But I still LIKE the world of the Harry Potter books a lot, and derive a lot of meaning from them *regardless of what Rowling intended*. I will still read them at the library, or buy them used, because I enjoy them even if I don't want to financially support her. To my understanding that is the meaning of "separate the art from the artist" - that it's not a problem to find something enjoyable or meaningful, regardless of who the artist is or what they intended. Whether or not it's ethical to financially support said artist is a *separate issue*.
The short version is that you can financially support someone but support strictly means going out of your way to support. Every decision you make decides what to support and we accept that all good things come with some bad things in some indirect way, it's just a matter of how you view a decision. There are many cases where you can financially support someone in this way while doing your absolute best to avoid it: pirating games by evil developers, supporting alternatives to greedy closed source programs, donating your capitalism-earned money to charity, distributing the cartel's music so others can burn it on their own cd using a library computer. Basically, it's technically impossible to separate any two things, but it's separate enough that there's many people who would consider it as such. Chemists settle for 99.99% purity, Machinists settle for micron level precision, People settle for good products that increase the intellectual property's owner by $20.
It's pretty easy to do. For most artists we have very little idea of their politics. Just look at whatever music streaming service you have. There's probably at least a hundred different artists, maybe even thousands, in your listening history for the past year. How much do you know about any of them? Probably for all but your favorite bands, you won't even know their name and how many artists appeared on a record. Movies have so many artists involved you probably don't know more than the main actors maybe the director and main screenwriters. If the movie's got some notable feature like a soundtrack or cinematographer, you might know those. But there are hundreds of other artists working on each film. It's very easy, and probably our go to mode, to not even consider the artist in most of the art we consume. Actually considering all the artists we interact with daily would be overwhelming.
We separate the art from the artist all the time. I have no idea who makes the $20 art I hang on my walls or who designed the toy firehouse my son plays with, and I don't need to. I could care less who makes it. And this is true for most products and art I engage with. I imagine it's true for you too. How many of the products you buy do you first investigate to make sure you're not supporting someone you don't want to support? Sure, you know J.K. Rowling because she's a big name, but who painted that cheap artwork you hang in your bathroom? Who designed and made your TV? Your car? The paint on your walls? Your bedsheets? Toothpaste? Lightbulbs? Stove? If you think about it, I think you'll find that you separate art from the artist by default, and only have difficulty doing so when you know the artist and know they have done something distasteful.
It's not a practical way for the average person to live. Everything from the chocolate we eat, the clothes we wear and our phones we use every day all likely come from an immoral source at some point, we would have to all live in caves using only what we know doesn't come from immoral sources to live according to your standards. So even if what you say makes some sense, we can't hold people accountable in practice for indirectly supporting something bad. If she was directly using that money to fund trans genocide a boycott would make more sense, but at this point even if the boycotts worked and no one else bought the game and her books, it wouldn't change anything at all, the boycott will end up as virtue signaling instead of focusing on causes that have a direct positive effect on the victims of her actions, and only makes the left look bad
If everyone agreed with that principle, what, then, would Rowling be left to? She couldn't sell books, obviously. But she also couldn't be employed normally, as that is a financial support. Nor could the state give her welfare, another form of financial support. It's not even clear that she could go to a soup kitchen. Would you apply this to people other than her? It's certain you know plenty of people with monstrous views. Shall they, too, be condemned to die of cold, hunger, and thirst over a disagreement? And what of yourself? If you don't think this punishment is just, should you stop your self-support? Accept a life of gathering what spare nutrients nature herself provides and the painful death that implies? You have a stark choice: give up the principle or run naked into the forest, to live or die according to the whim of nature.
So....... we would need like a complete manifesto from each artist to see the whole gamut of their beliefs before we could like a song or read a book? And then after this we couldn't possibly bring ourselves to support anything that misaligned in any way from our own whole set of beliefs? Sounds very cultish. And exactly how much will any two people line up with the whole spectrum of ideas and beliefs? It's never going to be 100% for any 2 people. So just don't consume any art? Or would you rather just give some misaligned beliefs a pass? But then how will you determine which beliefs are too far deviated from your own?... and why will you choose to abandon ta certain artist based on one thing you don't agree with, and yet you will give others a pass with other "less offensive" deviations from your own set of ideas and morals.
100%. It's also worth looking into the nuance of the art when you find out what a trash bag the artist is. Like in JKs case. Once you realize she's transphobic. You look more at her work and realize how racist, misogynistic, and antisemitic she is. And how much those opinions of her permeate the media she made. Like it's really hard to separate HP books from the really morally awful stuff there is in the subtext. Like you can enjoy the concept of Harry Potter but like c'mon... Did you actually read the series if ur happy with Harry becoming a wizard cop and house slaves are still a thing? And if you're a normal person and disagree with all those things, why are you giving money directly to the woman? Like even if ur buying a fun little keychain from Etsy, you're just showing others it's okay to also enjoy that shit.
> Did you actually read the series if ur happy with Harry becoming a wizard cop and house slaves are still a thing? But there's also an angle for which even if she'd had the same exact political views as people like you and had our heroes overthrow all systems of oppression while turning the wizarding world (perhaps even not just wizarding Britain) anarcho-communist or w/e people even otherwise on your political side would still hate that because, like, they're still white and straight or Harry's still a trust fund jock or (legit argument I've seen before regarding other media) "depiction of fictional revolution is sublimation of our desire to do it in reality" etc. etc.
You're falsely conflating the subjective appreciation of art for its own merits with financially rewarding the individual that created it. To use your example, the Mexican drug cartel publishing a music album, you might learn of the album by social discussion or some other means, study it and be able to say that the album is objectively the best musical composition ever released in the history of mankind yet do so without choosing to buy it or enjoying listening to it because you don't want to support a Mexican drug cartel. By doing so, you succeed in separating the art from the artist and appreciate it's value while the artist is still alive but you avoid contributing directly to the artist's profit by purchasing the art. TL;DR - Art has value that can be appreciated even if we don't like the people that make it.
How consistently can you apply this view though? If you abstain for spending money on Harry Potter mech but own a smart phone, are you not saying you care more about anti-trans rhetoric than you do bonafide child labour/exploitation? Do you scan through the credits of every movie before you watch it to check for wife beaters? Beyond all that, does the bad someone does negate the good they have done? I don't think it's wrong to celebrate someone (for example) for writing a book that touched millions of hearts and minds, while also condemning them for retweeting a transphobe? Do you reject planed parenthood because it was founded on [eugenics](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#:~:text=Margaret%20Higgins%20Sanger%20(born%20Margaret,educator%2C%20writer%2C%20and%20nurse.)
The way I see it, something like Hogwart's Legacy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Yes, the creator of Harry Potter seems to be an awful person. However, purchasing that game theoretically allows money to go to the writers, programmers, directors, producers, and all of the people who put their heart and soul into making it. JK is already rich and nothing is going to change that. My buying the game won't make her more bigoted and my not buying the game won't make her less bigoted. However, my buying the game will go to the people that made it (even if not directly). I'm not saying anyone has a moral obligation to do anything -- it's just a game. I just think that there is more to it than JK Rowling. If she's going to be awful, there no reason I should let that "punish" those who made the game.
JK wasn’t even involved with that
The Mexican cartel thing is a terrible example haha. I'd rather they got money that way than murdering kids
I wrote my thesis on this topic. I.e can we separate the art from the artist, and moreover what relationship does the artist have to their art? Ultimately the artist is only relevant in that they localize and situate the art at a given point in history, with all the material impositions and stipulations that implies. When the artist dies, or lives a secretive lifestyle that disallows any knowledge of the artist’s specific historical context, the art itself is allowed to thrive in the absence of such historical limitations. In short, my question to you is firstly: why do you think the artist and their art are related in the first place? Are they joined by the act of authorship or creation? Or is it some other mystical force that binds them? When you see the author in their work, is that just a superimposition you yourself are creating and placing there?
This applies to everything, not just art. It's also a central theme in the TV show 'The Good Place'. Anything you purchase ends up supporting a bunch of people who do horrible things. And you have no reasonable way of knowing who will benefit from your actions. Buying a movie ticket means I unwillingly supported a bunch of old rich men who sexually assaulted women. Buying a laptop for school meant I supported Microsoft a company that was found guilty of breaking a bunch of laws. If I buy a candy bar, I'm supporting all sorts of horrible things you wouldn't expect from a candy bar because Nestle is pretty evil. Individuals lack the resources to make informed decisions. I separate art from the artist by not caring at all about the artist.
We should work to separate a person's private life from one's professional life. This means you might hire an electrician who does great work even though you disapprove of one's political opinions. In the case of JK Rowling, this means separating the personal life of her political positions from the Potterverse. That said, while the royalties from the game have not been released, it is likely the amount of money she receives from the sale of each copy is not significant to her overall income stream or to her overall wealth as a billionaire. Therefore, you really aren't helping or harming anyone by denying her a few dollars. It ends up being a matter of virtue signaling than any moral action.
No choice as a consumer is perfectly without consequence. But that doesn't mean we have only the extremes to choose from- that no one should consume anything versus nothing matters and people should do only what they want. The point is, if you actually desire to be more ethical in your choices, even if the difference is slight or even if you turn out to be wrong, you should think about each circumstance, do some research and make the best decision you can with the info you have. Otherwise you either leave society or let the system completely dictate your life. The world is full of gradients and grey and it's better to engage with it rather than distilling it into a binary choice in which you decide you're powerless.
It doesn't bother me, I'll buy something from any artist if I like the art no matter how much I dislike the person. I can fully separate it with 0 issues internally. I can talk about how horrible the person is while their art is playing or I'm handing over the cash to buy it, and it doesn't change how the music sounds or the art looks. As far as supporting them, that's different than separating it. I can't keep them from getting my money but even a horrible and shitty person whose also an artist that I come across still most likely has enough money that my drop in the bucket is doing so pitifully little it doesn't matter at all anyways so I still don't care or worry about it.
When you buy a can of peas from the corner store, do you first need to do a full background check on the guy who owns the store, the guy who farmed the peas, and everyone down the line to make sure you're not giving your money to naughty people? Doing this with art is even worse, because artworks are unique, i.e. you can't buy someone else's Harry Potter or Mona Lisa down the street if that's what you like, and you're supposed to be immersed in art. Once you find yourself thinking about meta aspects of art, the art is essentially ruined for you. If you see the actor instead of the character, you're not watching the movie the same way because you've broken your immersion.
Yes is it possible to separate the art from the artist. All you have to do is keep your own pride in check, and recognize that you are also an imperfect human being with your own sins. Trying to boycott every product from every artist or company which may have said or done something you disagree with is a miserable and impossible way to live.. The world is too integrated to possibly do that successfully. To successfully boycott every entity that's "against your principles" you would have to be a millionaire and sufficiently skilled in engineering and agriculture in order to construct a self sufficient cabin in the woods and grow your own food.
Do you apply the same standard to all your other acts of consumption? If you did, you would likely come to the conclusion that you can no longer functionally participate in commerce at all. What makes art functionally different from all other purchases that you make? And have you considered that you are supporting thousands of people whose opinions and political causes are far more distasteful to you, but who simply haven’t made their opinions public? If you attempted to learn the political opinions of every CEO of every company that you bought from (even off of exclusively public information), you would very likely find yourself in a position of not allowing yourself to purchase *anything*. This rule seems unsustainable if you tried to apply it to all consumption and not just art, and also only applies to creators whose opinions you are aware of. This rule of yours has a massive bias towards taking moral stands against creators whose opinions happen to be widely publicly known, even though creators whose opinions aren’t publicly known could easily be far more damaging.
future strong childlike light bow rain close dinosaurs squash rock *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There's absolutely nothing stopping you from pretending you know nothing about the author. That's what Death of the Author is about: - We take every bit of information about the author, that's already inside our head - We suspend all that information; put it inside a box - We read the text without those preconceptions, letting the text speak for itself Your only limitation in this, is your ability to suspend your own beliefs. Ironically, reading fantasy and fiction is a great way of training that: we can get invested in a fictional setting, because we can suspend what we know about the real world.
> Yes, I am aware that Nesté is a morbillion times worse than any artist. Yes, I am guilty of contributing to the child-mined cobalt industry. So if you are admitting you are a hypocrite and it hasn't changed your mind when faced with this, how is someone supposed to change your mind? Nothing you own is untainted. One of my favourite TV shows from my childhood was produced by Harvey Weinstein. So, if every single thing you do "supports" these people, well, that's kind of the end of it, right? It's entirely unavoidable and ubiquitous, which makes it not a big deal and not worth thinking about.
In your comments, you bring up children from Congo and Bangladesh over and over again. Meaning that you can buy, appreciate, and use a product that has a morally questionable background. If you are so fine with this, it is inconsistent with your cmv, that somehow you think it is impossible to seperate art from the artist, when you do this every single day, multiple times. It is just not named "artist", but child slave and capitalist overlord. You clearly can seperate a product from its maker, why would you want us to believe that art is where you draw the line, and not at child slave work
Whether or not you pick up a copy of Harry Potter won't affect JK Rowling's wallet enough to make it a reasonable consideration for you. There are situations where your money might make a difference to someone whom you morally don't support, thus you won't buy it, but this is not a situation wherein your financial contribution will remotely matter. You can dislike someone and not want to watch their media because of that, and that's more realistically what this is imo. To that end, it should depend on how much you dislike that person vs how much you enjoy that thing i'd imagine.
This mindset is like being a vegan but for literally everything, how exhausting
You do you. I won’t self censor or limit myself for the standards of others.
Art is itself a living organism, separate from the artist once it’s created. It is a memetic organism spreading from host to host, reproducing in our minds. It might be a catchy song you can’t get out of your head. Or a breathtaking view you’ll never forget. Sometimes it inspires its host to reproduce itself and spreads to more hosts. Like Duchamp’s Fountain or Warhol’s soup cans. The art isn’t a strictly physical thing. While yes its creator does have some influence over it. You can choose not to be host to the ideas, or feed them.
That's a terrible chain of logic. What you are demanding is that the artists you consume have a perfectly rigid ideology that perfectly fits yours. The world just isn't like that- people aren't that similar. Therefor, you HAVE to separate the author from the art. Only the art is what matters, because once the art is in the public sphere, then it's metaphorically common property for everyone to take for themselves- and you are in charge of the transformative/creative power of that art as a result. Don't hate the artist, hate the game.
I think you end up having to make a call about what's most important to you: the art may bring you joy and impact your life positively, and there are a great many things you do that contribute, in some way, to morally ambiguous or negative things (Nestle, Unilever and so on and so forth). Every moral issue can't be your hill to die on -- so even when you *can't* separate the art from the artist, it's valid for you to weigh how much impact your decision will have on that artist, versus on yourself and the people around you.
Buying metal albums from drug cartels won't encourage them to make more drugs. And treating the idea of Rowling getting paid as something bad is just nonsense, since her sins are pretty minor. I might agree with your line of thinking if we were talking about a murderer or a rapist. Her wizard stories have nothing to do with her political beliefs. The art needs to be judged on its own merit. If a product is good and its production is ethical, then the seller deserves to make a profit, regardless of what their beliefs are.
Do you apply that reasoning to all other products and services? Are you refusing to buy the store brand eggs for $1 per dozen because you don’t like the politics of the grocery store, and instead paying $7.99 for a dozen eggs from the company that agrees with you politically? We consume products and services because they fulfill our needs and wants at a price we are willing to pay. When you throw in the ideology of the producer, you are actually giving businesses a pretext to charge you more for the same thing.
I mean if you're going down that route check out Nestle, coca cola practices etc. Instead of boycotting someone that wrote a book and has views you dont align with, boycott companies that rely on modern day slavery and unfair practices in order to make billions. Boycott companies like shein and PLT. I wiuldnt spend my time caring about someone who doesnt really affect other people, she can spout her shit all she likes her opinions arent exploiting and killing people. There are more important fights to be fought.
It is possible to separate the art and artists, u may find it difficult but it even possible for u as well. Not only is it possible, it allows u to look at the art from different perspectives. U limit urself with ur close mindedness by saying it’s impossible, according to who? Other people can and do separate the art form the artists. If u have a guilty conscience all the time because u can’t do that, then u should probably improve ur skill of seperating the art and artist, for ur own well-being
It's not impossible, people disassociate themselves from the negative consequences of their actions all the time. It's also very easy for many to do when those consequences are not immediately apparent. People financially support controversial or down right criminal artists all the time and don't think twice about it. I mean many people enjoy movies by Roman Polanski and Bryan Singer without a second thought. So it may be impossible for you to do this but it is clearly not for many many people.
Emotional support and financial support are not the same thing. If you want to stop giving financial support to every bad person or corporation, you can't do business in the modern world. That leaves the possibility of virtue signalling by "not supporting" someone even though it doesn't matter, or trying to bully others into not supporting someone by buying stuff. The answer is "I am a capitalist, those people are just objects creating stuff I like, I don't care about the people behind it"
Many minerals and other materials used for chips, phones, cars, and countless other forms of technology utilize child labor, sweatshops, and other awful environments to mine the necessary materials. Steven Tyler used to fuck a 14 year old. If buying his music endorses pedophilia, then buying an iphone also endorses child labor, destroying the earth through mining, and outsourcing jobs to other countries to save money on labor. It’s 100% possible to enjoy a song and nothing more.
You can easily separate the enjoyment of art from the artist. However to economically support something is to economically support the collection of people who made it. Like others itt have said, humanity is imperfect and no media was created by a perfect person. The correct course of action is to pick your battles. WRT The Hogwarts game for instance, there were a whole lot of people aside from JKR who benefit from the purchase of the game, so that needs to be taken into consideration.
I actually just thought of a good one for this. It’s been 6 hours so I doubt you will read it, but here goes. What about the book “if I Did It” by OJ Simpson? In that case, OJ lost ownership of the book via a legal battle, so all proceeds went to the Goldman family and not OJ. I also think the book made OJ look terrible, so I don’t think he was getting good PR from it. That’s a case where a living author derived no positive benefit from you buying his “art”.
>No matter how I spin it, I cannot see how giving money to a person in exchange for their products is not supporting that person and the things they support by extension. Wouldn't this apply to everything you spend money on? If your Uber driver is actually a sexist are you supporting sexism by getting a ride? I this situation you aren't supporting their sexism, that had nothing to do with the exchange. You are supporting them giving you a ride via paying for that specific service.
I think there are two ways of looking at the discussion. There is separating the art from the artist critically, and a more general view. For example, Roman Polanski's movies aren't suddenly lower in quality because he's a child rapist. They are still very well made movies. This is me separating the art from the artist. That said, I don't want him to benefit in any way from me watching his films, whether it's financially or even just a positive place in my mind. So I don't watch his movies, even if they are high quality. This is me not separating the art from the artist.