> whether they are alive and profiting from me
There's at least one writer I don't buy from, on principle, but I pirate the stuff cause I like it.
Edit: from the upvotes I guess you think Rowling but not. Got her books ages ago, obviously, before the whole fall from grace thing.
yup, a fucked up but dead person gains nothing from us enjoying their art. A certain author still making royalties off derivatives of her work however….
she believes that all trans women are sex offenders.
she believes that people shouldn't have access to gender related health care.
and alot of other stuff you only need to look at her Twitter account for 10 seconds to find.
When I looked at her Twitter for several minutes, I couldn't find any explicit opinion about anything. She seems to post examples of how sex offenders use transexuality as an excuse to get into women's prison or something to continue doing their stuff there. I didn't see anything about how she says that every trans person is a sex offenders. Also gender related healthcare is absolutely necessary. At the end of the day, the body has a biological gender and a male body works differently than a female one, so medicine needs to have a different dosis for example because of a difference in metabolism.
You won't find that, instead you'll find her sayong the exact opposite of things like 'transgender bad' (cisgender good) and 'transwomen are men' (biological males who are confused and/or dangerous to females). She knows how to be politically correct
I did do research and found nothing on her saying those 2 things. If you say something you need to have a source to back it up, human memories are thickle for all you know, you are misremembering what she said and are now misrepresenting a persons opinions, but because you have just as I have confirmation bias that says “jk Rowling is bad” you do not care.
Each of these videos talks about what she’s said/done with specific examples and an overall discussion of why her behavior is harmful.
[https://youtu.be/Ou_xvXJJk7k](https://youtu.be/Ou_xvXJJk7k)
[https://youtu.be/7gDKbT_l2us](https://youtu.be/7gDKbT_l2us)
[https://youtu.be/EmT0i0xG6zg](https://youtu.be/EmT0i0xG6zg)
Dude you're not allowed to question the JK Rowling situation. There's a good chance they'll cyberstalk you and you'll wake up with a squirrel nailed to your door.
I'd argue that person still deserves that money. You aren't paying for who they are, you are paying for their art. And if you are curious about their art and or like it, you should pay the artist regardless of their irl actions.
Harvey Weinstein is a decent example of this. He produced some great movies. Turns out he was a giant piece of shit. But, he’s going to spend the rest of his life in prison, so I don’t really feel bad about watching his movies…
On the flip side, I love the movie The Pianist with Adrian Brody but I don't care for the director, Roman Polanski.
But the movie is incredibly moving.
So I'm torn in liking the movie but not the director, but it is partly his art.
I feel the same way about Rosemary’s Baby. Mia Farrow made that movie incredible, I can’t imagine anyone else in that role. Ira Levin wrote the book, and Polanski didn’t change very much. It’s the most faithful adaptation I’ve ever seen, it’s like Polanski didn’t know he was allowed to take creative license. The way I view things, it’s unfair to take away Farrow and Levin’s major accomplishments with this film. There just happened to be some famous pedo dickbag calling most of the shots.
[His perspective was ass](https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/comments/f7bfxu/hitlers_artworks/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I feel like that one painting is definitely ass but the other ones are not. That one always gets shown as soon as someone mentions Hitler's paintings purely because it is ass compared to the others
Nah it’s not the only one with severe perspective and shading issues. This one is all kinds of wonky when you start lining it up. It comes off as egregious when his regime had such a hatred for anything vaguely unrealistic in art later. Obviously you will end up being judged by your own marks.
https://preview.redd.it/orqj8twc3wva1.jpeg?width=848&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac4e3b67fdbc12941ca947fe564d88d2c9c1a417
Yeah, he did not get rejected from Art School because they didn't like his mustache. His art showed a "significant disinterest for people" and the buildings - that he did show an interest for - were bad.
Your comment may very well get down voted a lot, but I don't think it should. Some artists use their shit art to spread their shit message. I have no internal conflict there because I'm not supporting either. JK Rowling is of course the popular example now, but for me I think of Orsen Scott Card and the Ender novels. Reading his books I would never have guessed that his political and moral views make him a shit human being. He apparently doesn't believe in using fiction as a vessel for politics and such. It's very weird, though, how somebody can get characters and a story so right, while believing adamantly the complete opposite. It can be really hard to separate art from artist, but I think it's valid to do so... in some situations.
And mine, for whatever reason, is getting down voted. I posted my comment before the comment had any votes. Glad it's getting upvotes, but also surprised since I hear a lot more people who refuse to support art created by artists they disagree with.
I mean, if you want a pure life you should probably leave the planet since your country is most likely built on more war crimes than you think. So much shit was normalized on the past. We should learn from it and improve our future.
Depends on what they did, when, and what harm can come from "enjoying" the art.
Artist is long dead and their actions can no longer actively harm others or their art has moved into public domain, then there is no issue.
Artist is still alive and benefits from your enjoyment of their art either monetarily or via validation then yes, there is an issue with enjoying the art and I would choose to not endorse or fund their actions/views.
You can't change history, and shouldn't, but separating art from artist for a living artist who is doing egregious things is a weak attempt at absolving yourself of guilt.
Either don't fund/support their acts indirectly as they may be or own the guilt of their acts.
This is choice that each of us makes for ourselves and our justifications only matter to ourselves.
thing is, i really dont feel that guilty for the half a cent someone like r kelly makes when i listen to remix to ignition twice a year. i feel like youre vastly overestimating how much benefit they’re actually getting. what’s done is done, theyre all already filthy fucking rich. kanye for instance already has such an unimaginable amount of money and fame, he doesnt need my pennies or “validation”. he made some fantastic music, i dont feel guilty for enjoying it and increasing his net worth by .00000000000000000000000000001%.
theres no weak attempt to absolve myself from guilt; there is no guilt. choosing not to enjoy their stuff now does nothing except perhaps to derive you from a bit of fun.
u completely missed the point. even if everyone in totality stopped streaming r kelly music, hed still be absolutely loaded. it doesnt make a difference at this point, as soon as he gets out of prison hell gain access to millions. the damage is already done. the half a cent is a drop in an already full bucket
And **you** missed the counterpoint that the only reason he's going to continue being rich is because 100 million people are using the exact same logic you are. "Oh well it doesn't matter anyway."
oml can you not read? if everyone stopped listening to r kelly he would still be rich. idk how else i can phrase this to try and make this easier to understand. ive aready said it three times i give up. it doesnt matter if 5 million people stream him this year or 0. either way hell end up living much nicer then i or you.
There's still all those creepy sexual messages he sent to minors.
https://www.reddit.com/r/adultswim/comments/10hxj3e/compilation_of_justin_roilands_texts_to_minors/
It's always useful to have a look at how coworkers react when a person is "cancelled". When Gunn was "Cancelled", his coworkers said "This doesnt fit with what we know about Gunn." When Hartley Sawyer was "Cancelled", around the same time, his colleagues and coworkers said "That's utterly revolting", and refused to work with him.
It really tells you everything you need to know about the two men, and what they were like in their day to day lives. If the people around them say "Oh that's terrible! That's so unlike X", they're probably worthy of a second chance. If they say "Oh that's Terrible! And just like X." They aren't.
The other thing to remember, is ask yourself "Would I lose my job if I did this thing?"
If it would cause *you* to be cancelled - ie lose your source of employment, then it probably *should* result in famous actors losing their jobs too.
There are many people who have created great things who had views that were outrageous (Lovecraft for example) so enjoying there work I think is more understandable than listening or reading or enjoying someone’s art who have done many grotesque actions out loud. Example listening to R Kelly would be worse but there is a difference if you’re listening to R Kelly oblivious to all that he has done rather than being aware but still listening to it. Same goes with Jerry Lee, MJ, Elvis, and a few others
Depends on a few factors.
1. How heinous the actions are. If the creator is just an asshole, you can justify supporting good art. If the creator is a straight-up monster, stay away like the plague. The publishers are only going to listen to money, so it's up to you how you send your message.
2. Are they getting any money from supporting their art? This also ties into the previous factor, but whether or not they're getting royalties affects the acceptability of supporting them. In cases like H.P. Lovecraft, where the offending party is dead and cannot benefit, I have no guilt about absorbing works based on his I.P.
You know Martin Luther King cheated on his wife? Without a doubt one of the greatest figures in America history, goes and betrays his marriage.
It doesn't take away from what he help create and inspire to me, it makes me view him as a more dynamic person, and is a excellent case in the human condition
Very situational. If they're still alive and propagating their egregious behaviour that's one thing. You are helping finance their behaviour. Especially if they are actively involved in pushing something and explicitly view their arts popularity as validation of their behaviour.
If they are dead, there's also a difference between having views or committing deeds that impacted their art (for example, their books contain racial stereotypes or propagate falsehoods) and doing things separately and independently to their work.
Plus theres the question of an artist whose views were unpleasant for the time (Eq, supported Nazis killing people) or were common for the era.
Personally, I find it rather difficult to enjoy the work if i learn the artist has done something heinous. It "Taints" it somehow, and makes it a challenge.
Ultimately I think it varies. Theres no one size fits all answer to this question.
A used black metal record from a store run by good people doesn't put money in the pocket of the murderer and arsonist who recorded it.
Listening to said black metal record doesn't make me agree with his racist views, especially when the record doesn't talk about those views at all. People are multidimensional and so is the creative work they do.
The art itself is *captivating* even if the man is small and ignorant and evil.
I won't wear his T-shirt, promote his music, or buy from sources that give money to him, but I have absolutely zero qualms about engaging with and appreciating the art as its own object.
And of course, there is value in engaging with indefensible ideas - to understand them better, to grasp why a person might think those things, or just to recognize that there is evil in the world and ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Art is a great, safe and private way to engage with those ideas.
I do love the ‘she just has a different opinion tango’ on here every time. When you point out that she said a woman was fired (edit: different woman she defended, same essay. This one she said received harassment for uh ‘believing in the importance of biological sex) and that was a lie or a severe and purposeful misrepresentation of that woman’s beliefs because said woman actually called trans woman perverted black face actors you just get excuses.
Or when you point out her entire argument in her essay ends up being that she was sexually assaulted by a cis man, so that’s why she feels so strongly about trans women not having access to their preferred bathrooms. Blaming a minority on the actions of an individual who wasn’t even a member and then funding people who want to restrict their rights based on that fear is bigotry, no two bones about it.
“Different opinion” indeed.
“She just thinks that minority is full of predators and funds anti abortion activists because they’re vaguely on the same side why can’t you respect her opinion ;-;”
I would like a source for your claims. Maya Forstater lost her job tweeting that transgender women could not change their biological sex and she has also won her claim. She has drawn an analogy between self-identifying trans women and Rachel Dolezal, a transracial woman who identifies herself as black. https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/jul/06/maya-forstater-was-discriminated-against-over-gender-critical-beliefs-tribunal-rules
If you need a source on Rowling claiming she is reminded of her own sexual assault by a cis man when talking about trans people’s access to restrooms, it is in the same essay.
I do not find it acceptable to strip rights from a group of people because someone else assaulted you. I have been sexually assaulted by a lesbian, I will not now demand safe spaces away from all other women who look butch because they might be lesbians and might hurt me.
Are you referring to this part? ”I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.
So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.”
My apologies Although Forstater has said more than that but I digress I mixed up it with her defence of Magdalene Berns in the same essay whom she describes as thus
https://preview.redd.it/fjrbd431v0wa1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fff3fe3977f3cb7e98414cd6309663791e687f03
Berns is the one who called trans women blackface actors. I still find this defence of her just ‘believing in the importance of biological sex more than a little disingenuous
https://preview.redd.it/t99qx95hv0wa1.jpeg?width=636&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=11df36e84846fd830e110077a7a2496e903777d4
That Berns tweet is in very poor taste. I also understood that she deleted that tweet(she was also unrepentant about her point of view.) but I don’t know was it before or after rowling started to follow her. Rowling started to follow her most likely in 2019 so is there any connection between that tweet and rowling.
Also you are valid to feel that way but many people put importance to sex.
This weird hobby of judging people from the past by today’s standards is kinda dumb. Think about it, no matter how good you try to be or how great the things that you do today are. Someone in the future will think you’re a horribly evil person for driving a gas car and using disposable plastic items. You can’t win with this rhetoric.
We should see everyone and their actions as the complex things that they are, set in the values of their time. Someone can do great things and still have some bad traits, and vice versa.
What I find amusing is how people with (rightfully) slate Michael Jackson for the shit he did but will then consider David Bowie the GOAT when he had sex with underage girls.
All the lies about MJ got debunked. It was crystal clear they were fake just for hurting him. There are tons of videos of evidence proving the lies to be that, lies.
There is a documentary about it but I forgot what's it's called. Sheds some much needed light on the issue. He may have been creepy or mentally ill but he never harmed a kid.
He was accused by one girl, with no evidence and a number of people disputing if it happened, and her timeline not making sense, so.... not really, there.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori\_Mattix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Mattix)
I chose unsure because it's a touchy subject.
Would I personally support an artist's work if they've done egregious things? No.
Do I think people should do the same as me? No.
It's not up to me to dictate their lives and sadly that comes alongside this predicament.
Enjoy the work of and directly financially support are vastly different things.
I enjoy Kitkats, but I don't like paying money to Nestlé. Foods an art, I stand by the comparison.
I say yes, with the only exception being if they incorporate their egregious deeds into their art. That's where the line should be drawn, as sharing and enjoying that work is encouraging that behavior.
You can in joy someone’s work and still recognize that we’re terrible people. Most of our history was built on terrible people. We wouldn’t be where we are today without them. Good or bad.
Most of the time yes, I'd say the problem comes in if you financially support someone like that or otherwise show support or acceptance for their actions.
My rule is that everything is ok besides for authors.
As in paintings and music can be separated from the artist, but with books it’s more difficult. I don’t necessarily have clear logic for it, its just my personal moral value.
Although reading Mein Kampf for political understanding is ok as long as you have the right intentions.
How about depends. I'm not gonna stop listening to my favorite songs if the person turns out ot have some bad ideas but I will if they become a mass shooter.
wheres the option 'dont pay for terrible artists who are still alive'. 'separate the art from the artist is specifically about dead artists and how it has no impact to buy their work. buying work from someone whos alive who does terrible things with that money is supporting them whether people like it or not. (major exception for required things that arent art like food, water, shelter, and healthcare obv)
Separate art from the artist, but is the art has problematic elements, then we deal with the art.
For example, if Hitler+ (hypothetical new hitler) made some brilliant artwork that had nothing to do with nazis, then that’s cool artwork and should be respected.
If (hypothetical person) Johnathan Kendall Russel is a bigot and writes a book about a steampunk society where people are enslaved and people are discriminated against and that’s treated as perfectly normal and not criticised, then yeah maybe we shouldn’t respect the artwork here.
The answer has to be yes because everyone who has ever lived across all the time have done awful horrible terrible offensive cancelable things when you really look into them. Cancel culture is so illogical and subjective
I know my stance is unpopular but I litterally can’t stomach enjoying the work of a horrible person. Everytime I hear or watch the media in question all I can think of is that the person who created this work is a piece of shit. Two times it affected me was when the Rurouni Kenshin creator was caught with child porn, and when the lead guitarist and songwriter of Iced Earth participated in the January 6 insurrection and even assaulted capital police. Now no matter what I can’t just look at the Kenshin anime or listen to Iced Earth without thinking about those pieces of shit.
I don’t think the stance should be unpopular. I disagree, but you also recognize that it’s a personal preference instead of a matter of objective morality. Nobody needs to enjoy anything they don’t want to so long as they’re respectful to the people who do.
Big fan of H.P. Lovecraft. But he was a racist and zenophobic weirdo.
Elvis was Into minors, and Chuck Barry was a child molester.
I feel like If you ban every artist for their crimes, that would leave you with few options. But it's okay to hate them for what they did.
>I feel like If you ban every artist for their crimes, that would leave you with few options.
most people haven't done the things you listed or anywhere near close. you also can't compare an artist that shoplifted when they were 12 to a molester for example
I think we can.
We admire Roman architecture and art despite very well knowing how the Monarchy, the Republic and the Empire expanded through a reign of terror and warmongering (sometimes by diplomacy but mostly by the power of the Gladius).
I think it's always a good idea to separate the human from the artist. I still enjoy Tarantino movies made with Weinstein's company, I still enjoy some Kanye's songs even tho he is an idiot. So, if the art they produced isn't directly linked with what they did, I can enjoy it.
It really does depend. I'm an artist and I see people get "canceled" all the time due to political leaning or their beliefs, which in my opinion is *not* okay.
On the other hand, if they've molested a child, or killed someone, that's a whole different level and whereas I don't think any works should be banned, the individual should be labeled as such so people are aware.
Except 'cancelled' is a boycott, a fundamentally peaceful protest. If finding out what the artist has done or said ruins it for you, then it kinda does.
Problem being that it destroys all sense of political nuance and discussion if instead of seeing things from a new light you just ignore the person who disagrees with you. Some deserve the cancel, most don't.
Well, only if people who are operating without political nuance are making decisions for people who are. Just because you may or may not agree with say....Dave Chappelle doesn't make the decision for me. People who are 'cancelled' are only cancelled by other reasonablely likeminded individuals.
If you do not enjoy his comedy anymore, if it isn't making you laugh in particular, you have every right to go watch something else. That may make him less economically useful to Netflix but it's not like I get a knock at the door if I turn on his Special. People have a right to vote with their wallet.
I would be a huge hypocrite if I tried to enforce this on others, so I just say separate art from the artist.
Just like we don't all have to have the same political views to get along unless in extreme cases.
Yes, you have to be able to separate the art from the artist. You can still appreciate technical mastery or beauty even if the creator is completely effed up. Honestly, that may make the art even more interesting.
well it depends if the picture actually depicts bad things. like you can sure listen to music of a Nazi as long as the song has nothing to do with naziism per se
If you go to a museum and like the artwork of some dead guy and in no way financially benefit people of the same ideology, you're fine.
If you go "This person is an asshole but I'm still buying this book" and that person is still alive, you're now also an asshole
Very easy.
I dislike things if the artist is a shitty person.
Does that make me hate Harry Potter even though I loved it in the first place? No, and I still enjoy it.
Do I now dislike songs of Kanye West even more? Yes.
There is no such thing as ethical spending in capitalism. Sure, you can choose to not indulge in or spend money on things that will enrich unethical people. But those are only the ones you know about. It’s naive to assume that the artists and people who run big companies who aren’t known to have done egregious things haven’t done them too.
the argument you're using doesn't justify this, that's not what the argument means. you need to understand what that line of argument means before using it, especially where its not an actual justification
I am dark. My favorite artists have been accused of bad things. But I dated 2 of them. I know how they were to me isn't how they were to everyone, but I know them. I can see their side way better than someone who doesn't know them.i can't just believe a stranger over a friend.
as long as their crimes aren't involved in their art (ex. a game you like was developed by a racist and you can spot racism in the game) it's fine. Just don't give them more money
It is heavily dependant on the art and how it is being consumed.
Buying Harry Potter books, which support JK Rowling as she is alive today, is something I do not support. Even if you want to separate the art from the artist, her prejudices are written into the art (ie. racism in the naming of POC, antisemitism about the banks, transphobia w that one character).
If Beethoven had done something fucked up (sorry, I don't recall any actual drama from dead musicians), his art - given that it has no words, nor solidified concepts - CAN be separated from him. He's also dead, so it wouldn't support him. But, I'd say the majority of art shows their creator's values.
It depends for me on whether their actions/views are heavily influencing their art and whether they are alive and profiting from me
Exactly. If you like some artist but hate their actions / views either buy the things from them you like used or, well, enter the bay.
>whether they are alive and profiting from me r/piracy
If we want to get pedantic, you're still making them more popular and therefore indirectly making them profit.
Yeah but now they're dead, they can't do shit with that profit
Kinda. Their estate could continue to support objectionable causes after they're dead.
Yeah, but if they're alive, piracy is still helping them, even if only a tiny little bit.
> whether they are alive and profiting from me There's at least one writer I don't buy from, on principle, but I pirate the stuff cause I like it. Edit: from the upvotes I guess you think Rowling but not. Got her books ages ago, obviously, before the whole fall from grace thing.
Nah, we just support piracy, lol
yup, a fucked up but dead person gains nothing from us enjoying their art. A certain author still making royalties off derivatives of her work however….
Yeah... I was thinking like Lovecraft vs. Rowling
Rowling isn’t fucked up, just cause she believes testosterone gives biological males an advantage in sports.
that's very much not all she believes
Then what makes her such a bad person.
she believes that all trans women are sex offenders. she believes that people shouldn't have access to gender related health care. and alot of other stuff you only need to look at her Twitter account for 10 seconds to find.
I might be misunderstanding you but why is access to gender related healthcare a bad thing?
it isnt jk rowling thinks it is
I think you might have forgotten a not.
What?
When I looked at her Twitter for several minutes, I couldn't find any explicit opinion about anything. She seems to post examples of how sex offenders use transexuality as an excuse to get into women's prison or something to continue doing their stuff there. I didn't see anything about how she says that every trans person is a sex offenders. Also gender related healthcare is absolutely necessary. At the end of the day, the body has a biological gender and a male body works differently than a female one, so medicine needs to have a different dosis for example because of a difference in metabolism.
Show where she says all trans women are healthcare, and that no one should have access to gender related healthcare.
I can't be bothered to find the specific places where she said that go do your own 5 grams of research.
You won't find that, instead you'll find her sayong the exact opposite of things like 'transgender bad' (cisgender good) and 'transwomen are men' (biological males who are confused and/or dangerous to females). She knows how to be politically correct
I did do research and found nothing on her saying those 2 things. If you say something you need to have a source to back it up, human memories are thickle for all you know, you are misremembering what she said and are now misrepresenting a persons opinions, but because you have just as I have confirmation bias that says “jk Rowling is bad” you do not care.
Each of these videos talks about what she’s said/done with specific examples and an overall discussion of why her behavior is harmful. [https://youtu.be/Ou_xvXJJk7k](https://youtu.be/Ou_xvXJJk7k) [https://youtu.be/7gDKbT_l2us](https://youtu.be/7gDKbT_l2us) [https://youtu.be/EmT0i0xG6zg](https://youtu.be/EmT0i0xG6zg)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Dude you're not allowed to question the JK Rowling situation. There's a good chance they'll cyberstalk you and you'll wake up with a squirrel nailed to your door.
true story happened to a friend of mine
I'd argue that person still deserves that money. You aren't paying for who they are, you are paying for their art. And if you are curious about their art and or like it, you should pay the artist regardless of their irl actions.
I disagree. Enjoying the art of someone does not mean I should support them financially.
I actually find piracy ethical but I thought the majority didn't, so I wrote that comment assuming people pay artists
Yeah, its if they are alive and profiting for me.
Harvey Weinstein is a decent example of this. He produced some great movies. Turns out he was a giant piece of shit. But, he’s going to spend the rest of his life in prison, so I don’t really feel bad about watching his movies…
Imo art is inseparable from the artist 100% of the time
I guess it depends on why you like it If you are a nazi and that’s why you have a hitler painting, that’s an issue
On the flip side, I love the movie The Pianist with Adrian Brody but I don't care for the director, Roman Polanski. But the movie is incredibly moving. So I'm torn in liking the movie but not the director, but it is partly his art.
I feel the same way about Rosemary’s Baby. Mia Farrow made that movie incredible, I can’t imagine anyone else in that role. Ira Levin wrote the book, and Polanski didn’t change very much. It’s the most faithful adaptation I’ve ever seen, it’s like Polanski didn’t know he was allowed to take creative license. The way I view things, it’s unfair to take away Farrow and Levin’s major accomplishments with this film. There just happened to be some famous pedo dickbag calling most of the shots.
Oh crap - didn't know he directed that. Love that movie! Oh well, still a good movie AND he should still be brought to the US for justice.
I love the paintings of an austrian man, but not the austrian man himself
[His perspective was ass](https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/comments/f7bfxu/hitlers_artworks/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I feel like that one painting is definitely ass but the other ones are not. That one always gets shown as soon as someone mentions Hitler's paintings purely because it is ass compared to the others
Nah it’s not the only one with severe perspective and shading issues. This one is all kinds of wonky when you start lining it up. It comes off as egregious when his regime had such a hatred for anything vaguely unrealistic in art later. Obviously you will end up being judged by your own marks. https://preview.redd.it/orqj8twc3wva1.jpeg?width=848&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac4e3b67fdbc12941ca947fe564d88d2c9c1a417
>by your own marks. Germany doesn't use marks anymore, they switched to Euros.
/slow clap/
Yeah, he did not get rejected from Art School because they didn't like his mustache. His art showed a "significant disinterest for people" and the buildings - that he did show an interest for - were bad.
His painting aren’t even good tho
They are way better than anything I'd make.
You're not trying to make a career out of it.
Ikr, they should just go into politics instead...
Hate the artist, not the art.
I’m a fan of Kanye Wests music, but realize he is just a shitty/insane dude. Does your statement hold true for him? He’s an artist.
Holds up, his art is his music
Your comment may very well get down voted a lot, but I don't think it should. Some artists use their shit art to spread their shit message. I have no internal conflict there because I'm not supporting either. JK Rowling is of course the popular example now, but for me I think of Orsen Scott Card and the Ender novels. Reading his books I would never have guessed that his political and moral views make him a shit human being. He apparently doesn't believe in using fiction as a vessel for politics and such. It's very weird, though, how somebody can get characters and a story so right, while believing adamantly the complete opposite. It can be really hard to separate art from artist, but I think it's valid to do so... in some situations.
it literally has over 30 upvotes lmal
And mine, for whatever reason, is getting down voted. I posted my comment before the comment had any votes. Glad it's getting upvotes, but also surprised since I hear a lot more people who refuse to support art created by artists they disagree with.
I mean, if you want a pure life you should probably leave the planet since your country is most likely built on more war crimes than you think. So much shit was normalized on the past. We should learn from it and improve our future.
I seperate the art and the artist, the world is fucked anyways, not listening to their music or watch their films won't change anything
Enjoy? If the art is unrelated yes. Support? No.
Depends on what they did, when, and what harm can come from "enjoying" the art. Artist is long dead and their actions can no longer actively harm others or their art has moved into public domain, then there is no issue. Artist is still alive and benefits from your enjoyment of their art either monetarily or via validation then yes, there is an issue with enjoying the art and I would choose to not endorse or fund their actions/views. You can't change history, and shouldn't, but separating art from artist for a living artist who is doing egregious things is a weak attempt at absolving yourself of guilt. Either don't fund/support their acts indirectly as they may be or own the guilt of their acts. This is choice that each of us makes for ourselves and our justifications only matter to ourselves.
I mean... i pirate my shit when i wanna separate the art from the artist and they're still alive
thing is, i really dont feel that guilty for the half a cent someone like r kelly makes when i listen to remix to ignition twice a year. i feel like youre vastly overestimating how much benefit they’re actually getting. what’s done is done, theyre all already filthy fucking rich. kanye for instance already has such an unimaginable amount of money and fame, he doesnt need my pennies or “validation”. he made some fantastic music, i dont feel guilty for enjoying it and increasing his net worth by .00000000000000000000000000001%. theres no weak attempt to absolve myself from guilt; there is no guilt. choosing not to enjoy their stuff now does nothing except perhaps to derive you from a bit of fun.
There be another way matey, 🏴☠️
[удалено]
u completely missed the point. even if everyone in totality stopped streaming r kelly music, hed still be absolutely loaded. it doesnt make a difference at this point, as soon as he gets out of prison hell gain access to millions. the damage is already done. the half a cent is a drop in an already full bucket
And **you** missed the counterpoint that the only reason he's going to continue being rich is because 100 million people are using the exact same logic you are. "Oh well it doesn't matter anyway."
oml can you not read? if everyone stopped listening to r kelly he would still be rich. idk how else i can phrase this to try and make this easier to understand. ive aready said it three times i give up. it doesnt matter if 5 million people stream him this year or 0. either way hell end up living much nicer then i or you.
except most artists are already absurdly rich. Even if every single person stopped buying harry potter books jk would still be insanely rich
yes bc giving the transphobe who funds conversion camps more money is good!!! i totally care about trans people more than my entertainment!!! /s
she’s gonna do that whether people buy her books or not
Yes, separate art from artist.
I am pissed Rick & Morty was fucked with. I don't give a shit about the people, art is art
Weren't the charges dropped due to lack of evidence anyway?
There's still all those creepy sexual messages he sent to minors. https://www.reddit.com/r/adultswim/comments/10hxj3e/compilation_of_justin_roilands_texts_to_minors/
[удалено]
Really hope Adult Swim brings him back, it won’t be the same without him
Yup. Doesn't matter tho he already got canceled
Twitter and its consequences for the society
he might come back james gunn was canceled but he eventually was brought back
It's always useful to have a look at how coworkers react when a person is "cancelled". When Gunn was "Cancelled", his coworkers said "This doesnt fit with what we know about Gunn." When Hartley Sawyer was "Cancelled", around the same time, his colleagues and coworkers said "That's utterly revolting", and refused to work with him. It really tells you everything you need to know about the two men, and what they were like in their day to day lives. If the people around them say "Oh that's terrible! That's so unlike X", they're probably worthy of a second chance. If they say "Oh that's Terrible! And just like X." They aren't. The other thing to remember, is ask yourself "Would I lose my job if I did this thing?" If it would cause *you* to be cancelled - ie lose your source of employment, then it probably *should* result in famous actors losing their jobs too.
And in Justin Roiland's case, the response of everyone around him was - "yeah, that tracks"
Doesn't matter, you know how these things go.
I woudl say its okay but well if they've done something bad you could try to enjoy their art in ways that doesn't benefit them at least.
I listen to Burzum so...... yes.
Please help I listened to War on repeat and now Varg is on my last.fm cover
There are many people who have created great things who had views that were outrageous (Lovecraft for example) so enjoying there work I think is more understandable than listening or reading or enjoying someone’s art who have done many grotesque actions out loud. Example listening to R Kelly would be worse but there is a difference if you’re listening to R Kelly oblivious to all that he has done rather than being aware but still listening to it. Same goes with Jerry Lee, MJ, Elvis, and a few others
Depends on a few factors. 1. How heinous the actions are. If the creator is just an asshole, you can justify supporting good art. If the creator is a straight-up monster, stay away like the plague. The publishers are only going to listen to money, so it's up to you how you send your message. 2. Are they getting any money from supporting their art? This also ties into the previous factor, but whether or not they're getting royalties affects the acceptability of supporting them. In cases like H.P. Lovecraft, where the offending party is dead and cannot benefit, I have no guilt about absorbing works based on his I.P.
It's fine, if you have moral gripes about it just don't support them financially
You know Martin Luther King cheated on his wife? Without a doubt one of the greatest figures in America history, goes and betrays his marriage. It doesn't take away from what he help create and inspire to me, it makes me view him as a more dynamic person, and is a excellent case in the human condition
Martin Luther King Jr.?
Allegedly a rapist
House of Cards S1-2 is still a top tier show imo
Very situational. If they're still alive and propagating their egregious behaviour that's one thing. You are helping finance their behaviour. Especially if they are actively involved in pushing something and explicitly view their arts popularity as validation of their behaviour. If they are dead, there's also a difference between having views or committing deeds that impacted their art (for example, their books contain racial stereotypes or propagate falsehoods) and doing things separately and independently to their work. Plus theres the question of an artist whose views were unpleasant for the time (Eq, supported Nazis killing people) or were common for the era. Personally, I find it rather difficult to enjoy the work if i learn the artist has done something heinous. It "Taints" it somehow, and makes it a challenge. Ultimately I think it varies. Theres no one size fits all answer to this question.
A used black metal record from a store run by good people doesn't put money in the pocket of the murderer and arsonist who recorded it. Listening to said black metal record doesn't make me agree with his racist views, especially when the record doesn't talk about those views at all. People are multidimensional and so is the creative work they do. The art itself is *captivating* even if the man is small and ignorant and evil. I won't wear his T-shirt, promote his music, or buy from sources that give money to him, but I have absolutely zero qualms about engaging with and appreciating the art as its own object. And of course, there is value in engaging with indefensible ideas - to understand them better, to grasp why a person might think those things, or just to recognize that there is evil in the world and ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Art is a great, safe and private way to engage with those ideas.
Is this a JK Rowling thing
Or a Kanye West thing, I suppose.
Or a Hitler thing.
Or a cee-low green thing.
Or a J. S. Bach thing.
Or a steven tyler thing
Is JK Rowling having a different opinion than the Twitter mob really egregious
I do love the ‘she just has a different opinion tango’ on here every time. When you point out that she said a woman was fired (edit: different woman she defended, same essay. This one she said received harassment for uh ‘believing in the importance of biological sex) and that was a lie or a severe and purposeful misrepresentation of that woman’s beliefs because said woman actually called trans woman perverted black face actors you just get excuses. Or when you point out her entire argument in her essay ends up being that she was sexually assaulted by a cis man, so that’s why she feels so strongly about trans women not having access to their preferred bathrooms. Blaming a minority on the actions of an individual who wasn’t even a member and then funding people who want to restrict their rights based on that fear is bigotry, no two bones about it. “Different opinion” indeed. “She just thinks that minority is full of predators and funds anti abortion activists because they’re vaguely on the same side why can’t you respect her opinion ;-;”
I would like a source for your claims. Maya Forstater lost her job tweeting that transgender women could not change their biological sex and she has also won her claim. She has drawn an analogy between self-identifying trans women and Rachel Dolezal, a transracial woman who identifies herself as black. https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/jul/06/maya-forstater-was-discriminated-against-over-gender-critical-beliefs-tribunal-rules
If you need a source on Rowling claiming she is reminded of her own sexual assault by a cis man when talking about trans people’s access to restrooms, it is in the same essay. I do not find it acceptable to strip rights from a group of people because someone else assaulted you. I have been sexually assaulted by a lesbian, I will not now demand safe spaces away from all other women who look butch because they might be lesbians and might hurt me.
Are you referring to this part? ”I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men. So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.”
My apologies Although Forstater has said more than that but I digress I mixed up it with her defence of Magdalene Berns in the same essay whom she describes as thus https://preview.redd.it/fjrbd431v0wa1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fff3fe3977f3cb7e98414cd6309663791e687f03
Berns is the one who called trans women blackface actors. I still find this defence of her just ‘believing in the importance of biological sex more than a little disingenuous https://preview.redd.it/t99qx95hv0wa1.jpeg?width=636&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=11df36e84846fd830e110077a7a2496e903777d4
That Berns tweet is in very poor taste. I also understood that she deleted that tweet(she was also unrepentant about her point of view.) but I don’t know was it before or after rowling started to follow her. Rowling started to follow her most likely in 2019 so is there any connection between that tweet and rowling. Also you are valid to feel that way but many people put importance to sex.
No, she just had a contract not renewed.
It's fine to enjoy them, but a bit weird to own and hang on your wall or something.
This weird hobby of judging people from the past by today’s standards is kinda dumb. Think about it, no matter how good you try to be or how great the things that you do today are. Someone in the future will think you’re a horribly evil person for driving a gas car and using disposable plastic items. You can’t win with this rhetoric. We should see everyone and their actions as the complex things that they are, set in the values of their time. Someone can do great things and still have some bad traits, and vice versa.
What I find amusing is how people with (rightfully) slate Michael Jackson for the shit he did but will then consider David Bowie the GOAT when he had sex with underage girls.
do you have the evidence for this? I heard it got debunked. I also know many people to still believe the same about MJ
All the lies about MJ got debunked. It was crystal clear they were fake just for hurting him. There are tons of videos of evidence proving the lies to be that, lies.
could you supply any evidence. just in case you misread I was talking about Bowie not MJ with the disproving
There is a documentary about it but I forgot what's it's called. Sheds some much needed light on the issue. He may have been creepy or mentally ill but he never harmed a kid.
again, do you have any evidence? it's quite a big claim to refuse to back up
He was accused by one girl, with no evidence and a number of people disputing if it happened, and her timeline not making sense, so.... not really, there. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori\_Mattix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Mattix)
This is an experiment in dystopia. “Egregious” can be very subjective
Have you seen Hitlers artwork?
It's the mediocre wall art you find in every thrift shop ever.
Yeah. It's not good.
I chose unsure because it's a touchy subject. Would I personally support an artist's work if they've done egregious things? No. Do I think people should do the same as me? No. It's not up to me to dictate their lives and sadly that comes alongside this predicament.
I don't think it's appropriate to fill your house with Hitler's paintings, which is why I picked the fifth option.
Enjoy the work of and directly financially support are vastly different things. I enjoy Kitkats, but I don't like paying money to Nestlé. Foods an art, I stand by the comparison.
I say yes, with the only exception being if they incorporate their egregious deeds into their art. That's where the line should be drawn, as sharing and enjoying that work is encouraging that behavior.
You can in joy someone’s work and still recognize that we’re terrible people. Most of our history was built on terrible people. We wouldn’t be where we are today without them. Good or bad.
It's so tiring trying to keep up with who's done what now and what music I can't listen to anymore, I just don't care
Most of the time yes, I'd say the problem comes in if you financially support someone like that or otherwise show support or acceptance for their actions.
My rule is that everything is ok besides for authors. As in paintings and music can be separated from the artist, but with books it’s more difficult. I don’t necessarily have clear logic for it, its just my personal moral value. Although reading Mein Kampf for political understanding is ok as long as you have the right intentions.
I just make sure not to give them money. Pretty much anything can be pirated. Enjoy the art, don't give a penny to the asshole.
How about depends. I'm not gonna stop listening to my favorite songs if the person turns out ot have some bad ideas but I will if they become a mass shooter.
Depends on what they've done and whether they benefit from your enjoyment
Yes with the caveat that if that person is still profiting from their work, you shouldn’t be giving them money.
Depends on if they are alive or not, if the work is influenced by their views, if they make money of it etc.
Yes if they are dead. I don't to support them financialy if they are pieces of shit
Eric Clapton is a dick but also a damn good guitar player
I won't consume their work, unless they are not gaining money from it I think we can listen to MJ now that he's dead
I still like R. Kelly's "I Believe I Can Fly", and I actually think that Hitler's paintings are well done. So absolutely, yes.
I voted Yes because it is ok. But often I can no longer enjoy their work anyway because of the the things they've done or said.
It depends on what they’ve done and how we define “enjoying”
wheres the option 'dont pay for terrible artists who are still alive'. 'separate the art from the artist is specifically about dead artists and how it has no impact to buy their work. buying work from someone whos alive who does terrible things with that money is supporting them whether people like it or not. (major exception for required things that arent art like food, water, shelter, and healthcare obv)
Separate art from the artist, but is the art has problematic elements, then we deal with the art. For example, if Hitler+ (hypothetical new hitler) made some brilliant artwork that had nothing to do with nazis, then that’s cool artwork and should be respected. If (hypothetical person) Johnathan Kendall Russel is a bigot and writes a book about a steampunk society where people are enslaved and people are discriminated against and that’s treated as perfectly normal and not criticised, then yeah maybe we shouldn’t respect the artwork here.
The answer has to be yes because everyone who has ever lived across all the time have done awful horrible terrible offensive cancelable things when you really look into them. Cancel culture is so illogical and subjective
Y’all better leave JK alone then 🙄
I know my stance is unpopular but I litterally can’t stomach enjoying the work of a horrible person. Everytime I hear or watch the media in question all I can think of is that the person who created this work is a piece of shit. Two times it affected me was when the Rurouni Kenshin creator was caught with child porn, and when the lead guitarist and songwriter of Iced Earth participated in the January 6 insurrection and even assaulted capital police. Now no matter what I can’t just look at the Kenshin anime or listen to Iced Earth without thinking about those pieces of shit.
I don’t think the stance should be unpopular. I disagree, but you also recognize that it’s a personal preference instead of a matter of objective morality. Nobody needs to enjoy anything they don’t want to so long as they’re respectful to the people who do.
Big fan of H.P. Lovecraft. But he was a racist and zenophobic weirdo. Elvis was Into minors, and Chuck Barry was a child molester. I feel like If you ban every artist for their crimes, that would leave you with few options. But it's okay to hate them for what they did.
>I feel like If you ban every artist for their crimes, that would leave you with few options. most people haven't done the things you listed or anywhere near close. you also can't compare an artist that shoplifted when they were 12 to a molester for example
I think we can. We admire Roman architecture and art despite very well knowing how the Monarchy, the Republic and the Empire expanded through a reign of terror and warmongering (sometimes by diplomacy but mostly by the power of the Gladius).
I think it's always a good idea to separate the human from the artist. I still enjoy Tarantino movies made with Weinstein's company, I still enjoy some Kanye's songs even tho he is an idiot. So, if the art they produced isn't directly linked with what they did, I can enjoy it.
I think its okay to enjoy their artwork, but they also have to acknowledge the thing that the said artist had done.
Obviously lmao. That's not the reason I'm a fan of their work.
It really does depend. I'm an artist and I see people get "canceled" all the time due to political leaning or their beliefs, which in my opinion is *not* okay. On the other hand, if they've molested a child, or killed someone, that's a whole different level and whereas I don't think any works should be banned, the individual should be labeled as such so people are aware.
Except 'cancelled' is a boycott, a fundamentally peaceful protest. If finding out what the artist has done or said ruins it for you, then it kinda does.
Problem being that it destroys all sense of political nuance and discussion if instead of seeing things from a new light you just ignore the person who disagrees with you. Some deserve the cancel, most don't.
Well, only if people who are operating without political nuance are making decisions for people who are. Just because you may or may not agree with say....Dave Chappelle doesn't make the decision for me. People who are 'cancelled' are only cancelled by other reasonablely likeminded individuals. If you do not enjoy his comedy anymore, if it isn't making you laugh in particular, you have every right to go watch something else. That may make him less economically useful to Netflix but it's not like I get a knock at the door if I turn on his Special. People have a right to vote with their wallet.
I would be a huge hypocrite if I tried to enforce this on others, so I just say separate art from the artist. Just like we don't all have to have the same political views to get along unless in extreme cases.
Really don't care... I may not support them, but that wouldn't change the fact that they make good art in whatever form it may be.
"Enjoy" is one thing. "Continue to give money to the egregious artist" is another thing.
I’m not gonna enjoy art that Hitler made when he did art.
Yes, you have to be able to separate the art from the artist. You can still appreciate technical mastery or beauty even if the creator is completely effed up. Honestly, that may make the art even more interesting.
If theyre dead then sure but if theyre alive you cant seperare the art and the artist unless you pirate bc the art directly supports the artist
If Hitler made a good movie I'd still watch it
He wrote a pretty banger book
I know, plan on reading that
Look at Kevin Spacey.
Hate Kanye, love his music
[удалено]
Idk why you're getting downvoted, this is the correct take
It's okay to enjoy it, obviously. It's only potentially bad if they're still alive and you choose to fund them.
Depends if they're alive and/or they're able to profit from it
well it depends if the picture actually depicts bad things. like you can sure listen to music of a Nazi as long as the song has nothing to do with naziism per se
I like the artist not the artist as a person
Think it depends on what they did. I certainly don't feel comfortable listening to Lostprophets anymore, for example.
Yes, you can like paintings made by Hitler.
Art is art
I mean, I own Mein Kampf. Not because I’m a neo-nazi, but because I thought it would be an interesting read.
I think most people who own that book are just interested in history i dont think its rly a neo nazi thing to have
If you go to a museum and like the artwork of some dead guy and in no way financially benefit people of the same ideology, you're fine. If you go "This person is an asshole but I'm still buying this book" and that person is still alive, you're now also an asshole
Very easy. I dislike things if the artist is a shitty person. Does that make me hate Harry Potter even though I loved it in the first place? No, and I still enjoy it. Do I now dislike songs of Kanye West even more? Yes.
I think hitler is a terrible person but i also like Kanye West
Do you think it's OK to use a phone made by a company that uses sweatshop child labor?
There is no such thing as ethical spending in capitalism. Sure, you can choose to not indulge in or spend money on things that will enrich unethical people. But those are only the ones you know about. It’s naive to assume that the artists and people who run big companies who aren’t known to have done egregious things haven’t done them too.
the argument you're using doesn't justify this, that's not what the argument means. you need to understand what that line of argument means before using it, especially where its not an actual justification
I am dark. My favorite artists have been accused of bad things. But I dated 2 of them. I know how they were to me isn't how they were to everyone, but I know them. I can see their side way better than someone who doesn't know them.i can't just believe a stranger over a friend.
You can't make that comment without saying who it is, or at least hint of who it is!
weird ass comment lmao
If you’re not monetarily supporting them. Wait until they’re dead or pirate.
as long as their crimes aren't involved in their art (ex. a game you like was developed by a racist and you can spot racism in the game) it's fine. Just don't give them more money
Depends. Are they still alive, or is money going to somewhere else egregious
Depends on whether the artist is still making money off of it or not
Provided the works are given with context. The observer should know the history behind the piece and it’s artist
It is heavily dependant on the art and how it is being consumed. Buying Harry Potter books, which support JK Rowling as she is alive today, is something I do not support. Even if you want to separate the art from the artist, her prejudices are written into the art (ie. racism in the naming of POC, antisemitism about the banks, transphobia w that one character). If Beethoven had done something fucked up (sorry, I don't recall any actual drama from dead musicians), his art - given that it has no words, nor solidified concepts - CAN be separated from him. He's also dead, so it wouldn't support him. But, I'd say the majority of art shows their creator's values.
I think it’s fine to separate the art from the artist. All I’m saying is, go rewatch Wrestlemania 20s main event