How do you separate the artist from the work?

[maninthemacintosh1606]

Doesn’t saying God forgave him imply he asked for forgiveness?

I do understand that this doesn’t always mean much to those inflicted, and possibly less so to those that don’t believe in “God”, but for people of faith it can be a turning point.

This is from the point of view as an Atheist, for what that’s worth.

Presumably, he is Catholic so the right thing would be to ask forgiveness from God in conjunction with seeking to do right by those he harmed and asking for forgiveness if appropriate from the people he assaulted and injured and blinded. I know not every practicing Catholic is actually a Catholic in good faith and that not every congregation is the same or every priest responsible enough to actually do the right thing, but I doubt his statement about asking God for forgiveness existed in a vacuum.

And despite what one might think of the actual sentence he served and what not, don't forget he was charged, arrested, and served time for his crimes.

Now, the crimes he committed were when he was 15 and 17 years old. He is now 49. The article linked above references that he was accused of hypocrisy for supporting BLM and mourning the death of George Floyd, because when he a teenager he committed racially motivated assaults. I am not diminishing that he did these actions nor am I trying to undermine the severity of them or that he should be accountable and responsible for them, but surely the fact that he has changed as a person over the course of 35+ years isn't a bad thing - assuming he is acting in good faith now? Do we really believe he is a hypocrite? As far as I am aware he is being sincere and call me naïve but I believe people might not be the same person at 49 as they were when they were 15 years old. I mean I hope it is at least possible that people can actually change. I mean there are literally people who have been involved in white supremacist groups as young men and reformed, not to mention the fact that the whole premise of reformative incarceration is predicated on the idea that, well, people can be reformed and fundamentally change in some manner.

That being said, the victims should have a voice and I also respect their views - some have forgiven him and some haven't as stated in the article.

But CLEARLY the statement that he never apologised and never showed any remorse for his actions is just incorrect and I feel like you have to be invested in misrepresenting the situation to say something like that, in the article cited above there are paragraphs devoted to both his statements regarding his remorse and attempts to be a better person, and quotes from victims about it, so... [this was not directed at bunchofcoconuts btw in case that wasn't clear]

[Zauriel]

That gets to the 3-point scale I mentioned. The nature/scale of the bad thing matters. In your case, you see abusing cats/dogs are serious enough to blackballs someone.



Generally, I agree. But, some art (an actor's work) is easier to separate than other art (a writer's work).

Of course, some people (such as the German earlier in this thread) use that natural ambiguity to argue that it does not matter st all.

With regards to your 3-point scale, I have compared works by different artists who are both murderers. I have seen a few of George Zimmerman's paintings on the google. I have thought they were awful. Worse than Hitler's paintings. I would not even give a second glance at Zimmerman's paintings. But I can stare at Hitler's paintings long enough to analyze and criticize them. George Zimmerman killed only one person but Hitler killed millions of people.

Perhaps it's not The scale of the bad deed, but the assessment of their art works. Perhaps Zimmerman's paintings are bad and don't suit my tastes at all.

[Zauriel]

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.

Bill Cosby received many awards and honors including the Medal of Freedom, prior to the rape conviction. Most of his awards including Kennedy Center Honor and Mark Twain Prize for American Humor were rescinded after the rape conviction.

It's funny, Elvis Presley and Tiger Woods, both of whom are womanizers also received the Medal of Freedom. Who do you think has awarded the medal to those two fine gentlemen? Donald Trump, another womanizer.

[Kieran_Frost]

I think another part of the problem is that people want things to be either good or bad. They have trouble accepting that sometimes good people can do bad things and that sometimes bad people can do good things.

Life is complicated, and we are all shades of grey. This idea of "this person is good and pure, we stan them and therefore all their endevours are great" and "this person is evil, and everything they do is therefore terrible, let's cancel them" is just absurd. Good people do bad things, bad people do good things. MOST PEOPLE do both. As for art, good art is good art, period. Doesn't really matter who did it, acted it, wrote it, conjured it up; if it's masterful enough to stand on it's own without need of research or analysis to be enjoyable... then it's good.

Like others here have said, you just separate the artist from the work. If if comes to a situation where I don't want to put money in their pocket. I buy the DVD/box/book/CD second hand. Or I just borrow the DVD from the library.

And this is the key part. Nothing about me re-watching and appreciating Kevin Spacey's work in my DVD of "American Beauty" will ever lead to my money going into Spacey's pocket nor reforming the ashes of his career. I do... feel a little guilty putting money in JK Rowling's pocket by going to Harry Potter World for my husband's birthday, but ultimately she's rich enough that I really can't stop her or hinder her in the slightest through refusing to contribute £5 to her war chest. And my husband loves the world she created, and it's magical and I won't deny him that treat just so I can sanctimoniously act like I'm purer than pure.

[Mia]

One thing that is left out of this discussion is the arbitrary nature of 'boycotting' an artist for whatever action or view they hold because cognitive dissonance allows a person to highlight someone who for various reasons captures their attention at the exclusion of all else. For instance, if you don't like an actor because they hold views you disagree or find reprehensible, that's all well and good but what exactly are you doing by refusing to see a film with them in it? You are trying to have 'clean hands' or feel better about yourself, but that movie wasn't made by that actor, the actor was a cog in a large machine where typically a large amount of people and their creative efforts are involved. Not only that, the property itself is typically owned by a huge corporation. Why is the thoughts of behaviours of a single person held out above all else and used to judge something they simply had a part in? Should the grip who worked on the set be made to suffer for their role in the production of the film? The costume designer? And usually we are talking about something made and owned by huge conglomerate corporations which represent far worse and far more heinous and reprehensible - systematic - abuses and horrors but everyone who wants to single out an individual seems to be fine with the workings of monopoly capitalism and capitalism in general. It seems that this motivation to not taint oneself by supporting an individual is rather myopic and more about personal mental hygiene than anything like social justice or even 'ethical consumption'. Which also makes me wonder why things considered as part of entertainment media or art are taken to be expressions and extensions of particular individuals, but no other commodity that is bought and sold is given this same kind of 'fetishistic' quality. If you found out that one of the workers on an assembly line of workers at a factory responsible for the table you have in your living room had beliefs in his head that are reprehensible, you wouldn't throw away the table because you didn't want to be infected by that worker's ideas or because you didn't want to support the livelihood of that worker. But if you don't like JK Rowling's personal views and everyone deciding to boycott her work means that some guy working some low-level job at a publishing house loses their job due to the financial consequences of the boycott, then this is justified so that consumers can feel more ethical about the choices they are making, determined in a completely arbitrary fashion? I think the problem is the ruling ideology has primed people to believe in a very specific, idealistic conception of artistic creation and the singular creative function of the 'artist' and as a result people are primed to view things through this prism of artistic creation and the purchase power of the consumer mediated by the market. We need to actually just get outside of this paradigm and start to view things more as an interrelated structural network of production and consumption and start to analyse how these things function accordingly.

Which is why I think 'boycotting' should be used in only the most egregious instances.

Boycotting an artist or a company, just due to the fact that they hold political opinions or like something I don't or have views on something I don't agree with. Is the worst side of fan entitlement. People are allowed (yes there are egregious situations) but more often than not it really doesn't make a whit of difference. It's matters no more than someone likening apples and another liking oranges.

I think another part of the problem is that people want things to be either good or bad. They have trouble accepting that sometimes good people can do bad things and that sometimes bad people can do good things.

Heh. Good point

I read about Whedon's behaviour, but to be frank, Much of it comes across as the classic behaviour of someone who has allowed power to go to their head, is filled with such self importance that they think they can behave and treat others whatever way they please. Because they are the boss or the money making talent.

I used to get upset by this. Not anymore

People's behaviours are driven by their mindsets, attitudes, maturity and life experience. I have no control over that. Whenever I hear stories about people being sent to behavoural counseling I just shake my head. But what can you teach a grown man or grown woman who lacks empathy or has the maturity level of a spoilt 12 year old? I would also guess that if management confronted Whedon with his behaviour, he would have dismissed it as her being too uptight and sensitive.

[CentralPower]

Spacey was not convicted. The charges were likely false.

I would not even give a second glance at Zimmerman's paintings. But I can stare at Hitler's paintings long enough to analyze and criticize them. George Zimmerman killed only one person but Hitler killed millions of people.

Zimmerman was also acquitted.

But, the main thing to consider is the other variables on that scale.

-scale of the bad act.
-connection of the work-product to the person (and by extension, their bad acts).
-value or quality of the work-product.

In this case, Hitler would be an illustrator.

Putting aside sophistry, Hitler's bad acts were significant, earning him a high score on that metric.

His work product was illustration. Is there some case for saying that his illustrations are tied to who and what he was/believed? Would his ideology contaminate his illustrations? (His city-scapes were based on existing streets and buildings, which arguably means he is contributing less to the image.) For the sake of this thread, assign a mid-range score on this metric.

What is the real value of Hitler's city-scapes? Did he change the industry? Did he add some new technology or methods to illustration? At a more basic level, are Hitler's city-scapes good enough to balance out his bad acts? Is it worth having to explain your interest in, or ownership of, a Hitler city-scapes? (Honestly, the more you are trying to explain it, the more likely that the answer is "no".)

[Alan2099]

Like others here have said, you just separate the artist from the work. If if comes to a situation where I don't want to put money in their pocket. I buy the DVD/box/book/CD second hand. Or I just borrow the DVD from the library.

Of course on that note, saying you don't want to put money in J.K. Rowling's pocket (for example) is one thing, but if you're boycotting the movies, you're also not putting money into Emma Watson's pockets and Daniel Radcliff's pockets.

There's a lot of people that say they won't watch the Cosby show anymore. Do you think that's fair to everyone else that was on the show?

[titanfan]

It's totally subjective and there are a lot of variables to consider....

- What did they do? Is it having an opinion you disagree with? Is that opinion really heinous? Did they hurt people or cause long lasting damage, etc.
- How long ago was it? Are they sorry? Was it like 20 years ago or a long time where they could have changed? Are they dead?
- Whose profiting? Are they the only ones profiting?
- How important is the product to every day life? Is it something I can actually afford to boycott?

Everyone's answer to this is a little different. We probably all have our lines that we won't cross no matter what. It's also nearly impossible to not consume products produced by awful people because there are a lot of awful and talented people out there. (Or good people who did awful things at one point in their lives)

Like all things, we make compromises and those compromises might not look totally sane when another person looks at them.

[Javaxcore]

A mighty hard question, to answer, depends and I sadly don't have the objective answer if you ask in regards to MJ i will argue the toss that he never did anything wrong, just that his tortured childhood left him maladjusted and with boundary issues, but some snakes have tried to take his corpse for a ride, whereas as me about JK and I'll tell you never to spend another penny on her merch, because she actively dehumanises people everytime she communicates in public. All you can do is avoid supporting oIhave promoting people you know are actively doing harm.

The problem I have had is Ian Watkins, it knocked me for six I mean with emo bands you feel your in safe hands, and I have avoided listening to them ever since i heard, but once i found my mates old vid and i was humming along without even realising what the song until i read the doobley.

[j9ac9k]

I think another part of the problem is that people want things to be either good or bad. They have trouble accepting that sometimes good people can do bad things and that sometimes bad people can do good things.

While I agree to a degree, I think that since people can't really know which is which, society condemns first, forgives later - and you can either redeem yourself if it's the former or cancel you if it's the latter.

[Zauriel]

But, the main thing to consider is the other variables on that scale.

-scale of the bad act.
-connection of the work-product to the person (and by extension, their bad acts).
-value or quality of the work-product.

In this case, Hitler would be an illustrator.

Putting aside sophistry, Hitler's bad acts were significant, earning him a high score on that metric.

His work product was illustration. Is there some case for saying that his illustrations are tied to who and what he was/believed? Would his ideology contaminate his illustrations? (His city-scapes were based on existing streets and buildings, which arguably means he is contributing less to the image.) For the sake of this thread, assign a mid-range score on this metric.

What is the real value of Hitler's city-scapes? Did he change the industry? Did he add some new technology or methods to illustration? At a more basic level, are Hitler's city-scapes good enough to balance out his bad acts? Is it worth having to explain your interest in, or ownership of, a Hitler city-scapes? (Honestly, the more you are trying to explain it, the more likely that the answer is "no".)

Don't get me wrong. I would neither want to own his painting nor hang it in my home. But I thought I would take a look at his paintings because they might give a bit of an insight into the mind of this monster. I wonder why the history's worst and most evil tyrant would once have dreamed to become an artist and why he failed to achieve his aspiration.

[Mister Mets]

As far as I know, MJ was accused of sleeping with a child, not having sex with one.

that's pretty heinous.

There were nastier allegations in Leaving Neverland, including Jackson exchanging jewelry for sex. https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ving-neverland

[Iron_Legion87]

There were nastier allegations in Leaving Neverland, including Jackson exchanging jewelry for sex. https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ving-neverland

Yea the whole Leaving Neverland doc series definitely makes you think. It's no way of knowing if any of it is true of course, but they make some serious and nasty allegations.

[Mister Mets]

It's totally subjective and there are a lot of variables to consider....

- What did they do? Is it having an opinion you disagree with? Is that opinion really heinous? Did they hurt people or cause long lasting damage, etc.
- How long ago was it? Are they sorry? Was it like 20 years ago or a long time where they could have changed? Are they dead?
- Whose profiting? Are they the only ones profiting?
- How important is the product to every day life? Is it something I can actually afford to boycott?

Everyone's answer to this is a little different. We probably all have our lines that we won't cross no matter what. It's also nearly impossible to not consume products produced by awful people because there are a lot of awful and talented people out there. (Or good people who did awful things at one point in their lives)

Like all things, we make compromises and those compromises might not look totally sane when another person looks at them.

It does raise some weird questions.

One factor is that it seems the penalty is the same no matter what. There's no grace, or sense of proportionality.

Jonathan Chait has written about some of this for New York magazine.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/arti...ee-speech.html

Last week, I likened the treatment of actor Gina Carano — who was fired from a starring role in a Star Wars feature and then disavowed by her own agency over a supposedly anti-Semitic social-media post — to the postwar Hollywood blacklist. It is different, of course, in a couple important respects. For one, communists were barred even if they had kept their views secret, whereas conservatives have little to fear if they keep their beliefs to themselves. Second, the blacklist pressure came in part from the federal government, whereas the modern impetus to punish conservatives is generated by a combination of internal cultural norms and market pressure.

But the dynamics share some eerie similarities. Washington was not the only force behind the blacklist; right-wing activist groups like the American Legion convinced studios they would be punished at the box office if they could be connected to communism. The social-media dynamics that produce panicky firings or groveling apologies follow the same logic: No film or show wants to be linked, however tangentially, to “racism” or “anti-Semitism,” either real or imagined.

I would concede that private employers aren’t bound by the First Amendment, and not only can but should separate themselves from clear-cut expressions of outright racism and misogyny. But, as with the blacklist, the process of determining who is guilty of these sins is distorted by an atmosphere that has disabled the braking mechanism.

Current political demography currently works as an accelerant to the dynamic. The demographic groups most valuable to advertisers tend to have much more liberal social views than the general public, a dynamic that gives not only Hollywood but any public-facing corporation an incentive to placate any social-media uproar, fair or otherwise.

We could imagine an alternate world in which conservatives enjoyed more market power. Perhaps studios would be ruthlessly policing the social-media accounts of their employees for any post that even hinted at disrespect for police, the troops, Christianity, or the two-parent family. Imagine the tactics Donald Trump successfully used to blacklist Colin Kaepernick from the NFL were copied and used more widely. The progressives cheering on Carano’s firing would have no principled objection, other than their belief that left views are Good and deserve protection while right-wing views are Bad and should be interpreted and require policing.

Every story reporting on Carano’s defenestration cited her post comparing modern partisan hatred to the early days of Nazi Germany. Most of those stories credulously repeated the charge that her post was anti-Semitic, even though it plainly was not.

In retrospect, the absence of actual anti-Semitism was so obvious that it became impossible to defend her firing on its actual basis. Many left-wingers began to circulate a previous post she made, suggesting it supplies the evidence of her anti-Semitism that justifies her subsequent firing on spurious grounds:

One further complication is that the ideas of what is beyond the pale often map in partisan ways. We're not going to be in agreement that a bad-faith argument in general merits cancellation. Mel Gibson went to movie jail for a while because of his antisemitic rant after he was pulled over for drunk driving, and not the lives he endangered when he was under the influence.

[AndrewCrossett]

On the merits of the offense, I think Carano deserved to be called out but not to lose her job. Her statement was stupid, insensitive and obnoxious, but not anti-semitic, I don't think. But studios don't want the news to be about the actors rather than the show. Carano would have gotten called out, she would have clapped back, back and forth, back and forth, and pretty soon a large portion of the show's audience is boycotting it. A sincere-seeming apology would have put an end to it.