How do you separate the artist from the work?

[Comic-Reader Lad]

For me, it's very case-by-case specific. And, I'll be the first to admit that how I felt about the person BEFORE the scandal heavily weighs into things, so I definitely don't have a "fair and impartial" system. However, if a person does bad things, I don't completely overlook it, but it often does NOT cause me to "cancel" them.

For example:

- Mel Gibson - I never really cared too much about him before his drunken anti-Semitic rant years ago, so I had no problem avoiding any of his future work, but I would still watch the DVDs of his movies I have like Mad Max.

- Nick Cannon - His anti-Semitic comments were a lot more recent, and he's already been forgiven and is back to work with Sony. Quite frankly, he's getting away with things that others have not -- like the country singer, Morgan Wallen, who recently used the N-word and has been dropped and canceled all over the place. We can't have a double standard, so I do have to question why Cannon was so quickly uncancelled. Is it because prejudice against Jews isn't considered as big a deal as prejudice against people of color? If so, that's a bad message Hollywood is sending.

- Bill Cosby - Again, I never really cared about him, and because he committed actual CRIMES, I'm ok with canceling him. I have a couple of Bill Cosby projects in my collection that I'll continue to own, but I don't see myself getting anything I don't already have.

- Harvey Weinstein - Like Cosby, he committed crimes, but since he was not an on-camera actor, I can overlook his name in the credits and enjoy his productions that I already like. As a person, he was terrible, but as a producer, his taste was unparalleled in Hollywood, so he did produce a lot of art-house flicks that he turned into mainstream blockbusters, and a lot of people put a lot of hard work into those movies, so their work should not be flushed down the drain with Harvey. Like Cosby, he's actually receiving punishment in the justice system, not just losing his job, so I think there's nothing more that I need to do.

- Joss Whedon - I can enjoy Buffy and Angel and Avengers, again it's easier because he's behind-the-scenes, but if committed any actual crimes (Michelle Trachtenberg's tweets are hinting in that direction, but she's being very cryptic and needs to understand proper punctuation), then it would depend on how serious things get to see how much effort I need to make to overlook his name in the credits.

- Alfred Hitchcock - gotta admit this is the toughest for me, as I'm a big Hitchcock fan and he's not an anonymous behind-the-camera guy. His image and persona are very well known. I don't see that he's committed out-and-out crimes, but if he were in Hollywood today, they would have canceled him for the way he treated his actresses. The fact that it was decades ago and it's not on social media right now makes it easier to overlook. That's not fair to the actresses affected, but as I said, my system is very much "what benefits me most." That being said, I'm not going to forget what's been said or make excuses for his behavior. He was wrong.


However, some recent cases seem a bit of an overreaction to me based on what little I know about the situations:

- Armie Hammer - So, he allegedly has cannibal fantasies and texted a woman or women about them. You know what? I think it's unfair that he's been dropped from projects and by his publicist and management agency. We don't have Thought Police in this country, and if all he did was have fantasies and express them, then I don't think things need to go to that level. It seems that he hasn't ever hurt anyone or pressured a woman to indulge in his fantasies (if true), so I think this is a case of social media running amok and then Hollywood overreacting, but that's what happens when a "zero tolerance" policy is first instituted. You don't want to be the one who is seen as covering up for someone, so people are getting thrown under the bus a lot more easily these days. I will still absolutely watch his movies and hope his career recovers. I was pulling for him to be Batman over Robert Pattinson, and I still think there's a place for him in a superhero movie (no, not as Dracula, you wiseasses).

- Gina Carano of The Mandalorian - Don't know her, but from what I understand of her situation, she compared expressing a conservative political viewpoint to the persecution of the Jews during the Holocaust. It does bug me that people sometimes throw around a Holocaust comparison in order to make their point (she's not the only one who's done this). It's lazy and has the side effect of diminishing the historical power of that event, but if that's ALL she did, then I wouldn't have fired her from the show. A sincere apology would have been enough. If she's done other stuff, then that might change things for me.


So, there you have it, a lot of this is emotion-based rather than set-in-stone rules. But that's how things are going to be when discussing people that I've never met and don't really care about.

[AndrewCrossett]

Mandalorian Woman (Gina Carano) now gets to loudly proclaim her victimhood, which for "conservatives" of her type is like crack wrapped in catnip. So not feeling too sorry for her.

[Castle]

Many people in America have gone insane over the last few years, you cannot really separate the work from the artist anymore. the finest example of this is Donald Trump. the problem with this issue is the level of the crime or bad behaviour and how much it escalated that it has now bleed into their professional jobs that what we can do now is yes, cancel them.

Trump is the best example because for years people ignored his terrible character and bad behaviour all because they liked some of his policies but as we have seen, both became interchangeable , you cannot separate it any more, when it escalates, you are who you are both professionally and personally.


While some of these people like Joss Whedon or Bryan Singer professional work will live on and can still be enjoyed by fans, many of them should be banned for life from doing more professional things or imprisoned for a significant period of time until they confess to what they have been accused off, sincerely apologise and show real redemption and even that may never be enough when the case may be criminal.

[Mister Mets]

I generally separate the artist from the work with a combination of cynicism and generous interpretations. I think there are serious issues I'll disagree with most people on, and that most people have a flawed understanding of the world, believing things that would make things significantly worse if their preferred policies were enacted. We have to get along with other people in spite of that. I do also have a tendency to go for generous interpretations in any ambiguous situations (IE- I would not assume that someone who backed Jeremy Corbyn was an antisemite.)

It's mainly an issue when their deep flaws seem to be reflected in their work. There was a Northlanders arc where a young woman learns to be more selfless and understanding, which gets a weird subtext when we know that writer Brian Wood was a serial sexual harasser. Gerard Jones' child porn conviction makes me less interested in reading his Green Lantern, and I really don't want to reread Prime, his take on the Captain Marvel trope of a kid transforming into an adult superhero.

[Mister Mets]

You haven't seen Brooks other stuff? Like some of the funniest movies ever made? And Buck Henry? The Graduate and Catch 22 among other great stuff.

Yeah, anyone who likes anything Brooks did should check out the Producers (the original film), Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein.

Wait...what happened?

I think he's just saying that Mel Brooks and Buck Henry are two people who did a show he likes, but he doesn't know much about them beyond that.

Cosby is an interesting case. I will say on the outset, his being a loathsome rapist is irredeemable. But in other aspects of his life he did much good. He was active in Civil Rights and Education. He earned a true PhD, not an honorary one. He gave millions to black universities. And he was one of the funniest comedians I ever heard. None of that makes up for what he did. Just shows that there truly can be two sides to a person's life. Can I listen to him or watch him now. Well, no, I can't.

With Cosby, there is the question of whether he used a reputation as a good guy to cover up his crimes. People didn't want to come forward with stories about someone who was active in Civil Rights.

[Kirby101]

Yeah, anyone who likes anything Brooks did should check out the Producers (the original film), Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein.



I think he's just saying that Mel Brooks and Buck Henry are two people who did a show he likes, but he doesn't know much about them beyond that.

With Cosby, there is the question of whether he used a reputation as a good guy to cover up his crimes. People didn't want to come forward with stories about someone who was active in Civil Rights.

Okay, I thought he was saying he doesn't care to check out anything else.

I think he was both sincerely involved in the good works, AND used them for cover for his horrible criminal behavior.
It was really abhorrent. I mean he hung out at Hefner's, so if he was just a serial cheater and womanizer, I could look the other way. But what he did was depraved. If he wanted to get away with it, he should have run for President.

[C_Miller]

It's absolutely a case by case basis. Generally it depends on how singular the vision is as to whether or not I struggle with it after something bad comes out about a creator. It's going to be a while before I can enjoy anything related to Harry Potter again, if ever because J.K. Rowling is the sole creator responsible for Harry Potter. I feel a twinge of discomfort when watching Chinatown or Rosemary's Baby because while film is a director's medium, saying the moves only belong to Polanski would be discounting the contributions of the actors and other crew involved.

Either way, I don't have much consistency. It is more of a judgment call for me.

[ERON]

It's a case-by-case basis for me, as well. If the person said something stupid or offensive, or has views that I disagree with, I can usually set that aside and still enjoy the work. If the person actually committed a horrible act - Bill Cosby, Gary Glitter, Roman Polanski, etc. - it's tougher for me to ignore.

[Mister Mets]

For me I find almost no correlation between artist and art. Good art stands on it's own feet, with no need for any backstory, history or 'grounding'. Good art is good art; and can be enjoyed again and again and again, regardless of the man or woman (or they) who created it. And truthfully MOST artists from pre-1950 (by modern standards) were all homophobic, misogynistic, racists, transphobic bigots... by MODERN standards (I personally like viewing people's opinions through the lens of the time period, but that's another discussion for another). And any artists from pre-1800 we don't REALLY ever know the truth; so giving them a 'pass' seems unfair/disproportionate in terms of reassessing history of who we can (and cannot admire).

If an artist is doing things or say things you don't agree with, block them, don't seek out their work unless you have a specific reason. If you love the work, keep enjoying the work, doesn't mean there is an correlation between art and artist. A racist can still write an incredibly compelling and lovable black character, a homophobe can still create a beautiful gay love story. What someone writes, or paints, or performs isn't necessarily connected to their views on a subject matter. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

One of my English professors had an interesting take on reconciling an author's views, which were often disgusting, with a text that might have a different message. He figured that writers were often subconsciously wrestling with the big questions, so ambiguities for multiple interpretations, so a story about a slave rebellion could be seen in the 1850s as a battle against a gothic monster, and in the 1940s as the white narrator being the bad guy.

[superduperman]

The short version is I don't. I've had to give up a lot of things I enjoy because of the behavior of the people involved. Smallville, Roseanne, The Cosby Show, any Marvel movie Joss Whedon directed, anything with Kevin Spacey in it, anything made by the Weinstein Company, the X-Men movies, you name it. I'm just glad that I never got into Harry Potter because I've lost enough things I enjoy. This may seem petty but my mind doesn't have the ability to look past some of this stuff. I want to at least get back into Smallville (I spent a lot of money getting the complete series) but I'm not sure I can.

[GozertheGozarian]

For me, it's very case-by-case specific. And, I'll be the first to admit that how I felt about the person BEFORE the scandal heavily weighs into things, so I definitely don't have a "fair and impartial" system. However, if a person does bad things, I don't completely overlook it, but it often does NOT cause me to "cancel" them.

For example:

- Mel Gibson - I never really cared too much about him before his drunken anti-Semitic rant years ago, so I had no problem avoiding any of his future work, but I would still watch the DVDs of his movies I have like Mad Max.

- Nick Cannon - His anti-Semitic comments were a lot more recent, and he's already been forgiven and is back to work with Sony. Quite frankly, he's getting away with things that others have not -- like the country singer, Morgan Wallen, who recently used the N-word and has been dropped and canceled all over the place. We can't have a double standard, so I do have to question why Cannon was so quickly uncancelled. Is it because prejudice against Jews isn't considered as big a deal as prejudice against people of color? If so, that's a bad message Hollywood is sending.

- Bill Cosby - Again, I never really cared about him, and because he committed actual CRIMES, I'm ok with canceling him. I have a couple of Bill Cosby projects in my collection that I'll continue to own, but I don't see myself getting anything I don't already have.

- Harvey Weinstein - Like Cosby, he committed crimes, but since he was not an on-camera actor, I can overlook his name in the credits and enjoy his productions that I already like. As a person, he was terrible, but as a producer, his taste was unparalleled in Hollywood, so he did produce a lot of art-house flicks that he turned into mainstream blockbusters, and a lot of people put a lot of hard work into those movies, so their work should not be flushed down the drain with Harvey. Like Cosby, he's actually receiving punishment in the justice system, not just losing his job, so I think there's nothing more that I need to do.

- Joss Whedon - I can enjoy Buffy and Angel and Avengers, again it's easier because he's behind-the-scenes, but if committed any actual crimes (Michelle Trachtenberg's tweets are hinting in that direction, but she's being very cryptic and needs to understand proper punctuation), then it would depend on how serious things get to see how much effort I need to make to overlook his name in the credits.

- Alfred Hitchcock - gotta admit this is the toughest for me, as I'm a big Hitchcock fan and he's not an anonymous behind-the-camera guy. His image and persona are very well known. I don't see that he's committed out-and-out crimes, but if he were in Hollywood today, they would have canceled him for the way he treated his actresses. The fact that it was decades ago and it's not on social media right now makes it easier to overlook. That's not fair to the actresses affected, but as I said, my system is very much "what benefits me most." That being said, I'm not going to forget what's been said or make excuses for his behavior. He was wrong.


However, some recent cases seem a bit of an overreaction to me based on what little I know about the situations:

- Armie Hammer - So, he allegedly has cannibal fantasies and texted a woman or women about them. You know what? I think it's unfair that he's been dropped from projects and by his publicist and management agency. We don't have Thought Police in this country, and if all he did was have fantasies and express them, then I don't think things need to go to that level. It seems that he hasn't ever hurt anyone or pressured a woman to indulge in his fantasies (if true), so I think this is a case of social media running amok and then Hollywood overreacting, but that's what happens when a "zero tolerance" policy is first instituted. You don't want to be the one who is seen as covering up for someone, so people are getting thrown under the bus a lot more easily these days. I will still absolutely watch his movies and hope his career recovers. I was pulling for him to be Batman over Robert Pattinson, and I still think there's a place for him in a superhero movie (no, not as Dracula, you wiseasses).

- Gina Carano of The Mandalorian - Don't know her, but from what I understand of her situation, she compared expressing a conservative political viewpoint to the persecution of the Jews during the Holocaust. It does bug me that people sometimes throw around a Holocaust comparison in order to make their point (she's not the only one who's done this). It's lazy and has the side effect of diminishing the historical power of that event, but if that's ALL she did, then I wouldn't have fired her from the show. A sincere apology would have been enough. If she's done other stuff, then that might change things for me

So, there you have it, a lot of this is emotion-based rather than set-in-stone rules. But that's how things are going to be when discussing people that I've never met and don't really care about.

Anti-vax, anti-mask, anti-trans, and a 1/6 supporter. Is that enough other stuff?

[Powerboy]

For me I find almost no correlation between artist and art. Good art stands on it's own feet, with no need for any backstory, history or 'grounding'. Good art is good art; and can be enjoyed again and again and again, regardless of the man or woman (or they) who created it. And truthfully MOST artists from pre-1950 (by modern standards) were all homophobic, misogynistic, racists, transphobic bigots... by MODERN standards (I personally like viewing people's opinions through the lens of the time period, but that's another discussion for another). And any artists from pre-1800 we don't REALLY ever know the truth; so giving them a 'pass' seems unfair/disproportionate in terms of reassessing history of who we can (and cannot admire).

If an artist is doing things or say things you don't agree with, block them, don't seek out their work unless you have a specific reason. If you love the work, keep enjoying the work, doesn't mean there is an correlation between art and artist. A racist can still write an incredibly compelling and lovable black character, a homophobe can still create a beautiful gay love story. What someone writes, or paints, or performs isn't necessarily connected to their views on a subject matter. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

I agree wholeheartedly with that. I've heard people say racism is racism and sexism is sexism and they don't understand how the time period has anything to do with it. It's more like they don't understand reality or history.

An example would be a guy born in the 1830s in Mississippi who never had the benefit of studies showing that there is no difference in intelligence by race when given equal access to education. But, says the person in 2021, "That's just obvious". NO. It is not obvious. We learned it by growing up in this time. We learned our social attitudes from the society we grew up in. But, for many, this guy who grew up in the early 19th century and who stood high above most others in his racial attitudes is a racist because he would be a racist in 2021.

That said, I had never heard these sexual harassment accusations about Alfred Hitchcock until yesterday. I grew up picturing him as this kindly grandfather type of person who would not even feel attraction to younger women. Now, as an old man who knows those feelings don't just vanish, I was still mildly surprised. But "Psycho" and "The Birds" are such a part of my history that I can't suddenly not like them. I might feel a bit differently about some scenes in "The Birds" that may have been done out of revenge by Hitchcock for rejected advances. But still, it's effect on me is very minor.

"Buffy" is a bit different because I consider it basically current even though it ended almost twenty years ago. It still happened and was gotten away with in a time when awareness of such things should have been much stronger but it was instead covered for.

Eliza Dushku has talked about being sexually assaulted by someone on the movie "True Lies" when she was underage. Worse yet, her claim is that practically everybody in the cast and crew knew about it. Even if they didn't know the worst part, when he literally groped all over her, they knew he was calling her his little Jailbait and that there were constant sexual innuendos.

And yet, same thing, he was not powerful himself but was in good with powerful people. Her parents even backed down because it would have squashed her acting career to make an issue of it.

Finally, in the #MeToo era, it's becoming such public knowledge that the studios can't cover it all up and threaten women and girls into silence.

[Powerboy]

Many people in America have gone insane over the last few years, you cannot really separate the work from the artist anymore. the finest example of this is Donald Trump. the problem with this issue is the level of the crime or bad behaviour and how much it escalated that it has now bleed into their professional jobs that what we can do now is yes, cancel them.

Trump is the best example because for years people ignored his terrible character and bad behaviour all because they liked some of his policies but as we have seen, both became interchangeable , you cannot separate it any more, when it escalates, you are who you are both professionally and personally.


While some of these people like Joss Whedon or Bryan Singer professional work will live on and can still be enjoyed by fans, many of them should be banned for life from doing more professional things or imprisoned for a significant period of time until they confess to what they have been accused off, sincerely apologise and show real redemption and even that may never be enough when the case may be criminal.

I will grant you that Trump's claims could be defined as fiction but I don't think not separating a world leader from his policies and actions is the same thing as not separating a writer/ director/ actor from his or her art.

[babyblob]

While some of these people like Joss Whedon or Bryan Singer professional work will live on and can still be enjoyed by fans, many of them should be banned for life from doing more professional things or imprisoned for a significant period of time until they confess to what they have been accused off, sincerely apologise and show real redemption and even that may never be enough when the case may be criminal.

Maybe I am misreading what you are saying. But in no way should you imprison someone just because of an accusation until they confess guilt to that accusation. Whedon may be guilty of the things he is accused of may have done illegal things but you can not just imprison them based on what people have said and then say we will not let you out until you confess or show remorse. Kind of flies in the face of the innocent until proven guilty thing we all claim to hold so dear. If you say it is okay to do it to Whedon and Singer then you have to say it is okay to do to every one and man would that be really abused. I mean hell our legal system is already abused to the point that is is sickening. This just adds to that abuse.

[KabutoRyder]

People by and large are shite behind closed doors.

I am cynical as hell I will admit just in general, but people say and do things behind closed door all the time that run counter to the image they present to the public. It is what it is. People are human. Humans partake in the 7 deadly sins all day every day.

If you get caught up in that, you would find yourself taking in a very small range of books, music, movies, TV shows and other entertainment avenues.