Does an Artist's Personal Life Prevent Your Enjoyment of the Material?

[Timothy Hunter]

Would you avoid consuming material from an artist if they did something you deem heinous in their personal life?

For instance, Frank Miller's comments on Islam and Occupy Wallstreet or Chuck Dixon collaborating people to self professed Alt Righter Vox Day have led people to shun their comics.

[Kirby101]

Yes. I try not to let the artist or writers personal life and beliefs stop me from enjoying their work. But sometimes it is just too much to overcome.

[numberthirty]

Case By Case...

Take that Moore instance you cited as "Personal Life..."

I could not disagree more. It's a straight up artistic choice. He could be out there with a house full of foster kids and a fat sack of his hard earned cash going to Habitat For Humanity each week, and the way that sexual assault plays into his work would still be an obvious issue.

[mathew101281]

I'm beginning to believe everyone has some skeletons in their closet. Social media is making it harder and harder to conceal those skeletons. This is doubly true for creative people who are pretty much required to be on social media nowadays. The longer people talk the more likely it is that their skeletons are going to come out. This isn't like the old days were everything a creative said was filtered through several layers of PR representation. Sometimes I feel that social media removing those filters was a bad thing as far as civility goes. But then I question whether a skeleton hidden in the shadows is worse than one crawling around in broad daylight.

[Scott Taylor]

I'm beginning to believe everyone has some skeletons in their closet. Social media is making it harder and harder to conceal those skeletons. This is doubly true for creative people who are pretty much required to be on social media nowadays. The longer people talk the more likely it is that their skeletons are going to come out. This isn't like the old days were everything a creative said was filtered through several layers of PR representation. Sometimes I feel that social media removing those filters was a bad thing as far as civility goes. But then I question whether a skeleton hidden in the shadows is worse than one crawling around in broad daylight.

Its worse if its hidden deliberately, because then a person knows and believes what they are doing is wrong. At least the one's who are open about their politics, sexual preferences, whatever are being authentic and putting it out there for the world to see.

[Timothy Hunter]

Case By Case...

Take that Moore instance you cited as "Personal Life..."

I could not disagree more. It's a straight up artistic choice. He could be out there with a house full of foster kids and a fat sack of his hard earned cash going to Habitat For Humanity each week, and the way that sexual assault plays into his work would still be an obvious issue.

Yeah... I screwed up. That example didn't work. I'm going to replace my mentioning of Alan Moore with someone else.

[Celgress]

Case by case basis for me.

One of my favorite pro wrestlers was Chris Benoit but I can no longer enjoy his body of work because of how his life ended, despite there being possible mitigating circumstances (medically documented brain damage). I just can't move passed him killing his wife and son.

[Mister Mets]

It is a case by case thing. I don't mind political differences, but abhorrent behavior can limit enjoyment of the material, especially if it has some kind of implications on the work.

For example, the subtext of some of a Brian Wood story about how some people have to make sacrifices for the greater good reads a little differently after the sexual harassment allegations.

https://www.comicsbeat.com/brian-woo...al-misconduct/

[The no face guy]

Would you avoid consuming material from an artist if they did something you deem heinous in their personal life?

For instance, Frank Miller's comments on Islam and Occupy Wallstreet or Chuck Dixon collaborating people to self professed Alt Righter Vox Day have led people to shun their comics.

I think that a comic writer is pretty much committing career suicide if they start expressing opinions on the political fringes of the right, because Marvel and DC do not want to be associated with that, so there not going to be around long.

I've never heard of Vox Day, but looking him up he sounds pretty dodgy. If Chuck Dixon has willingly collaborating with someone who is a known alt righter than he obviously doesn't care about his reputation or legacy anymore. I really enjoyed his swashbuckling action packed adventures in Green Arrow and Birds of Prey, but obviously, if what you state is true, than it's hard for me to recommend his work to anyone.

As for Frank Miller, his comments are more Trumpsonian than anything else, though admitably I haven't read his quotes directly, I did hear he signed a new DC contract a while back. I don't have to worry about consuming his stuff, unless I'm looking for comedy relief, because his later work is....well....how shall we say...a little too over the top.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Yep. Too much venom on the far right for me to support creators like Chuck Dixon, Ethan Van Sciver and Jon Del Arroz's work.

[Kieran_Frost]

99% of the time, no; it wouldn't bother me. While they are the creators of their talent, so much goes into it that is beyond their control, or wishes. Let's not pretend every artists knows why, what they do, works.

I still love the films by Polanski, I still love House of Cards. And looking even further back, let's be honest, 99% of all writers, artists, painters, creators pre-1900 were probably massively racists, misogynistic and homophobic by modern standards (even IF, at the time, they were probably one of the more liberal voices in their society when it came to minorities and identities).

Would you avoid consuming material from an artist if they did something you deem heinous in their personal life?

There is a great thesis called Death of the Author by Roland Barthes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
[from Wikipedia] In his essay, the author argues against the method of reading and criticism that relies on aspects of the author's identity to distill meaning from the author's work. In this type of criticism against which he argues, the experiences and biases of the author serve as a definitive "explanation" of the text. For Barthes, however, this method of reading may be apparently tidy and convenient but is actually sloppy and flawed: "To give a text an author" and assign a single, corresponding interpretation to it "is to impose a limit on that text." Readers must thus, according to Barthes, separate a literary work from its creator in order to liberate the text from interpretive tyranny.

The ONLY situations that spring to mind, where I do not seperate the artist's personal life:
- Orson Scott Card. He uses his money to fund anti-LGBT laws and issues.
- Woody Allen when acting. I think this has two elements to it: a) I don't think he's a very good actor, he's not acting he's playing himself. And because he wrote it himself too, it's very much him on screen (not a persona). b) too many of his characters you are meant to root for, and it's hard to root for Woody Allen. Plus in Manhattan (1979) he's dating a 17 year old, and telling her she should be with men her own age, and it's creepy. That's a whole level of delusion going on in his mind, of what he wrote vs what he did.

[Gotham citizen]

«DOES AN ARTIST'S PERSONAL LIFE PREVENT YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE MATERIAL?»

Only when that personal life influences the artist's work, for example when he start to use his work to spread his political ideas. It doesn't matter if I share or not those ideas, when I read a comic or a book, when I listen a song or I watch a movie I search for a good comic, a good book, a good song or a good movie able to give me entertainment, amusement, distraction, not "indoctrination".

[DrNewGod]

«DOES AN ARTIST'S PERSONAL LIFE PREVENT YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE MATERIAL?»

Only when that personal life influences the artist's work, for example when he start to use his work to spread his political ideas. It doesn't matter if I share or not those ideas, when I read a comic or a book, when I listen a song or I watch a movie I search for a good comic, a good book, a good song or a good movie able to give me entertainment, amusement, distraction, not "indoctrination".

It does get difficult to parse out, because we often want entertainment that makes us think (critics and other entertainment gatekeepers certainly do). More than once, Moore made us question what being a superhero means. Miller did the same, but I can see in Miller an idea of what must be wrong with those willing to defend what they think is right, and what must be wrong with those that are outside the accepted norm of what is right.

What we call "indoctrination" versus "thought provoking" often has a lot to do with our own biases.

[CaptCleghorn]

One of the instances where the wrietr has really hit me with their work was Gerard Jones' Green Lantern: Mosaic series. The particular instance the hit me was a disagreement between Hal and John regarding John giving kids power rings. Now without Jones' subsequent arrest, the scene is relatively innocent as a difference of opinion. But considering Jones' reason for arrest into the scene, it almost seems like a defense of Jones' as yet unexposed discretions. I loved Mosaic when it came out, but now I don't think I can look at it again without needing to take a long hot shower.

[Joker]

It will change my willingness to support their future work.

I can't watch anything Cosby did at this point. Which is a shame because he was legitimately talented and worked with wonderful people often.

But I'm still going to watch Se7en. So, I dunno...