I've struggled with this over the years. In highschool I fell in love with the works of Orson Scott Card. Ender's Game and the Shadow series really struck a chord with me. Political intrigue,...
I've struggled with this over the years. In highschool I fell in love with the works of Orson Scott Card. Ender's Game and the Shadow series really struck a chord with me. Political intrigue, alien invasion, etc. what's not to love? Then I discovered his Lost Boys and Treasure Box books, which were complete mindfucks for me at the time.
And then years later I come to find out OSC is incredibly homophobic (a mormon from the south, who'd've thunk it?).
Does that mean I can't enjoy his works? I've tried to separate the art from the artist as best I can, but there's still a matter of financially supporting someone like that by buying their work. So if I've always tried to buy second-hand. And if he ever wrote something that reflected his homophobic views, I wouldn't touch it, even second-hand.
I don't know if that's universally "OK", but I can live with those limitations guilt-free. It's really easy to avoid questionable artists when you don't particularly enjoy their work or have a passing interest in them. But when it's someone who was incredibly influential in your life through their work? It's a lot more difficult to make that decision.
Also I think if people are floored by R. Kelly's music and actions, they should really look into pretty much any rock band from the 70s. So many gross songs about teenage girls it's not even funny, and plenty of actual questionable actions (including the adoption or marrying of a minor) to go with them.
There's a question surrounding all of this I'll hear every so often. "How famous do you have to be to be a permissible deviant?" Elvis had met his wife-to-be when he was 25, and she was 14 years...
There's a question surrounding all of this I'll hear every so often. "How famous do you have to be to be a permissible deviant?"
Roald Dahl was an anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer, and has been quoted saying that "...even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on [the Jews] for no reason.”
Sean Connery thinks it's alright to slap a woman with an open hand "...if [the circumstances] merit it."
Hell, Walt Disney created "the happiest place on earth" and was an infamous anti-Semite himself.
So what do you do in this situation?
What if you're a Disney fanatic? What if you love James Bond? What if you love Elvis' music?
Should you go out of your way to avoid indulging in these things?
Should you be made to adjust your tastes against the actions of someone else?
Is it ethically sound to enjoy a product that comes from an unsavoury source?
Honestly it's such a complicated question that I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer at all. If you dig enough, you'll always find something questionable in the past of any public...
Honestly it's such a complicated question that I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer at all. If you dig enough, you'll always find something questionable in the past of any public figure. Are we supposed to hold off on enjoying anyone's work until we do a thorough background check, scrutinizing every last detail of their life? No, of course not. All we can do is decided if their actions, once discovered, are so heinous and offensive to us that we can't enjoy their work. In my case I abhor Card's views, but I love his books and I come to grips with that by only purchasing his books second-hand.
The question is more of a thought experiment than anything, really. I just keep going in circles. Like I avoid Louis CK's stuff because he's gross, but I also never really liked him that much. Would I do the same if my favorite comedian did the same things? I'm critical of fans of R Kelly's who know what he's doing and still support him, but it's exactly the same kinda shit that a lot of classic rockers did in the 70s/80s and I've made no effort to avoid their work. But then it's like...that all happened 10-20 years before I was born and it's not an ongoing issue, should I even care anymore? Am I huge hypocrite or this just a really complicated question with no right answer?
It's a very, very blurry line. After all, once you start reading classic literature, it's hard to find an author that wasn't homophobic/sexist/racist. Standards of morality change over time. Even...
It's a very, very blurry line. After all, once you start reading classic literature, it's hard to find an author that wasn't homophobic/sexist/racist. Standards of morality change over time. Even an older, living person like Card grew up in a time and place with a slightly different take on what is ethical.
It's probably a bit of an easier decision in the case of R. Kelly or Michael Jackson, who in all likelyhood knew full and well that what they were doing was wrong, and in the former case, he directly profits off of consuming his media, so I don't think it's something that can be a one size fits all solution. Personally I don't like R Kelly's music, but if I did, it would be a tough decision to make, but I don't think I could continue enjoying his work.
It's not that terribly hard to find non-homophobic/racist people from the past. Even Christianity had people like C.S. Lewis, of whom was basically a saint in that regard. From Surprised By Joy,...
It's not that terribly hard to find non-homophobic/racist people from the past.
Even Christianity had people like C.S. Lewis, of whom was basically a saint in that regard.
From Surprised By Joy,
Here’s a fellow, you say, who used to come before us as a moral and religious writer, and now, if you please, he’s written a whole chapter describing his old school as a very furnace of impure loves without one word on the heinousness of the sin. But there are two reasons. One you shall hear before this chapter ends. The other is that, as I have said, the sin in question is one of the two (gambling is the other) which I have never been tempted to commit. I will not indulge in futile philippics against enemies I never met in battle.
Another excerpt, from the same,
Cruelty is surely more evil than lust and the World at least as dangerous as the Flesh. The real reason for all the pother is, in my opinion, neither Christian nor ethical. We attack this vice not because it is the worst but because it is, by adult standards, the most disreputable and unmentionable, and happens also to be a crime in English law. The World will lead you only to Hell; but sodomy may lead you to jail and create a scandal, and lose you your job. The World, to do it justice, seldom does that.
The difficulty isn't within finding people who weren't morally reprehensible (they existed, even in the past), it's choosing what to do with those who are.
Personally, I'm apathetic to it all for the most part, though not entirely. A lack of it is something that most certainly tends to boost my opinion on a given person or artist, but it's certainly not necessary.
I just don’t care. Never did. I won’t let the abhorrence of an individual deprive me of a beautiful work of art. That would make their act have even more negative consequences. Manhattan is just...
I just don’t care. Never did. I won’t let the abhorrence of an individual deprive me of a beautiful work of art. That would make their act have even more negative consequences. Manhattan is just too beautiful to be tainted by Woody Allen’s crimes.
Counterargument: what's the point of having moral standards at all if we choose not to enforce them? Personally I think there are enough excellent artists that we can (and, I believe, should) be...
Counterargument: what's the point of having moral standards at all if we choose not to enforce them?
Personally I think there are enough excellent artists that we can (and, I believe, should) be picky about our consumption. Of course, this proves to be very difficult in practice. I also think the way we give power to celebrities in our culture creates a system where they can frequently operate outside normal moral (and, often, legal) bounds with no significant repercussions. Until we address that systemic issue, I don't think we will be free of the social and philosophical issues presented in the article.
Until then, here are some things I think we should try to do, even though it's hard:
Promote people and voices who act in ways we want to encourage in others above those who perform unethical acts (yes, this means effectively demoting people like R Kelly in favor of other artists who are better role models)
Strongly acknowledge the problematic nature of works and their creators, and actively discuss how the philosophies embodied in those works may have affected the culture around them. Recognize the historical context of these works, but don't use it as an excuse to allow people to get away with bad things.
If we feel strongly about the quality of a work and want to own a copy of it or support it in some way, do it in such a way that doesn't support the original creator financially. This for me usually means tracking down a second-hand copy of the work.
Yeah, I mean. I just don't understand how irked some people get by innocent things by less than innocent people. I get it, the guy is a dickhead, but that doesn't mean everything he touches is...
Yeah, I mean. I just don't understand how irked some people get by innocent things by less than innocent people. I get it, the guy is a dickhead, but that doesn't mean everything he touches is tainted. I can watch IT Crowd, read Enders Game, watch House Of Cards all without thinking about those controversies. But I know people that go full "boycott" mode at the slightest hint of that sort of thing.
If they're not conveying that stuff in the works, then I really don't see how it should matter.
yes. for those of you who remember the hbomberguy stream earlier this year for Mermaids, that was basically done to spite linehan and his shitheadery because he was campaigning to get a grant they...
yes. for those of you who remember the hbomberguy stream earlier this year for Mermaids, that was basically done to spite linehan and his shitheadery because he was campaigning to get a grant they were potentially going to receive revoked due to their activities and he's just kind of a giant asshole in general, lol.
I've never listened to any of those people, but I'd take the previous person's point to an even greater extent: I don't care even if the art does promote those values. I have no problem...
I've never listened to any of those people, but I'd take the previous person's point to an even greater extent: I don't care even if the art does promote those values. I have no problem distinguishing art from reality, I don't start thinking bad things are acceptable after listening to bad lyrics.
Out of those 3, only the first one has any relevance to my stance IMO. That's where I start to care about these things on a case by case basis. When it slips past the curtain and into the...
Out of those 3, only the first one has any relevance to my stance IMO. That's where I start to care about these things on a case by case basis. When it slips past the curtain and into the performances.
Also, why does it matter that those people 'still have fans'. All sorts of people have fans, you can't reasonably expect everyone to have peeled off, regardless of how much they should have.
He merits avoidance bc he's a soundcloud rapper, to me. If I was into that stuff, I don't think i'd avoid him either, I'd avoid the performance in question, but that's about as far as I'd go. but...
He merits avoidance bc he's a soundcloud rapper, to me.
If I was into that stuff, I don't think i'd avoid him either, I'd avoid the performance in question, but that's about as far as I'd go. but I would pass judgement on that incident and constantly take the piss out of him. Like I said before, not everything they touch is toxic. I avoid people/artists out of personal preference. For example, I avoid Childish Gambino bc all those meme remixes have overdone it for me.
Art is always over artist unless the art is in the extremities, not the artist. I'm talking about really overt overtones where the entire art piece crosses the line. Propoganda/misinformation or whatever.
I've struggled with this over the years. In highschool I fell in love with the works of Orson Scott Card. Ender's Game and the Shadow series really struck a chord with me. Political intrigue, alien invasion, etc. what's not to love? Then I discovered his Lost Boys and Treasure Box books, which were complete mindfucks for me at the time.
And then years later I come to find out OSC is incredibly homophobic (a mormon from the south, who'd've thunk it?).
Does that mean I can't enjoy his works? I've tried to separate the art from the artist as best I can, but there's still a matter of financially supporting someone like that by buying their work. So if I've always tried to buy second-hand. And if he ever wrote something that reflected his homophobic views, I wouldn't touch it, even second-hand.
I don't know if that's universally "OK", but I can live with those limitations guilt-free. It's really easy to avoid questionable artists when you don't particularly enjoy their work or have a passing interest in them. But when it's someone who was incredibly influential in your life through their work? It's a lot more difficult to make that decision.
Also I think if people are floored by R. Kelly's music and actions, they should really look into pretty much any rock band from the 70s. So many gross songs about teenage girls it's not even funny, and plenty of actual questionable actions (including the adoption or marrying of a minor) to go with them.
There's a question surrounding all of this I'll hear every so often. "How famous do you have to be to be a permissible deviant?"
Elvis had met his wife-to-be when he was 25, and she was 14 years old.
Gandhi slept naked with much younger women; some of which were his own family as a test of celibacy.
Mark Wahlberg threw rocks and yelled slurs at black children; and was arrested for beating a Vietnamese man whilst yelling slurs.
Roald Dahl was an anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer, and has been quoted saying that "...even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on [the Jews] for no reason.”
Sean Connery thinks it's alright to slap a woman with an open hand "...if [the circumstances] merit it."
Hell, Walt Disney created "the happiest place on earth" and was an infamous anti-Semite himself.
So what do you do in this situation?
What if you're a Disney fanatic? What if you love James Bond? What if you love Elvis' music?
Should you go out of your way to avoid indulging in these things?
Should you be made to adjust your tastes against the actions of someone else?
Is it ethically sound to enjoy a product that comes from an unsavoury source?
Hell, Eric Clapton is on the record saying "England is for white people, man. ... Get the coons out!" Even literally saying "I used to be into dope, now I'm into racism."
Am I meant to never again listen to Eric Clapton after learning of this?
Is it okay to separate the art from the artist?
Honestly it's such a complicated question that I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer at all. If you dig enough, you'll always find something questionable in the past of any public figure. Are we supposed to hold off on enjoying anyone's work until we do a thorough background check, scrutinizing every last detail of their life? No, of course not. All we can do is decided if their actions, once discovered, are so heinous and offensive to us that we can't enjoy their work. In my case I abhor Card's views, but I love his books and I come to grips with that by only purchasing his books second-hand.
The question is more of a thought experiment than anything, really. I just keep going in circles. Like I avoid Louis CK's stuff because he's gross, but I also never really liked him that much. Would I do the same if my favorite comedian did the same things? I'm critical of fans of R Kelly's who know what he's doing and still support him, but it's exactly the same kinda shit that a lot of classic rockers did in the 70s/80s and I've made no effort to avoid their work. But then it's like...that all happened 10-20 years before I was born and it's not an ongoing issue, should I even care anymore? Am I huge hypocrite or this just a really complicated question with no right answer?
It's a very, very blurry line. After all, once you start reading classic literature, it's hard to find an author that wasn't homophobic/sexist/racist. Standards of morality change over time. Even an older, living person like Card grew up in a time and place with a slightly different take on what is ethical.
It's probably a bit of an easier decision in the case of R. Kelly or Michael Jackson, who in all likelyhood knew full and well that what they were doing was wrong, and in the former case, he directly profits off of consuming his media, so I don't think it's something that can be a one size fits all solution. Personally I don't like R Kelly's music, but if I did, it would be a tough decision to make, but I don't think I could continue enjoying his work.
It's not that terribly hard to find non-homophobic/racist people from the past.
Even Christianity had people like C.S. Lewis, of whom was basically a saint in that regard.
From Surprised By Joy,
Another excerpt, from the same,
The difficulty isn't within finding people who weren't morally reprehensible (they existed, even in the past), it's choosing what to do with those who are.
Personally, I'm apathetic to it all for the most part, though not entirely. A lack of it is something that most certainly tends to boost my opinion on a given person or artist, but it's certainly not necessary.
I just don’t care. Never did. I won’t let the abhorrence of an individual deprive me of a beautiful work of art. That would make their act have even more negative consequences. Manhattan is just too beautiful to be tainted by Woody Allen’s crimes.
Counterargument: what's the point of having moral standards at all if we choose not to enforce them?
Personally I think there are enough excellent artists that we can (and, I believe, should) be picky about our consumption. Of course, this proves to be very difficult in practice. I also think the way we give power to celebrities in our culture creates a system where they can frequently operate outside normal moral (and, often, legal) bounds with no significant repercussions. Until we address that systemic issue, I don't think we will be free of the social and philosophical issues presented in the article.
Until then, here are some things I think we should try to do, even though it's hard:
Yeah, I mean. I just don't understand how irked some people get by innocent things by less than innocent people. I get it, the guy is a dickhead, but that doesn't mean everything he touches is tainted. I can watch IT Crowd, read Enders Game, watch House Of Cards all without thinking about those controversies. But I know people that go full "boycott" mode at the slightest hint of that sort of thing.
If they're not conveying that stuff in the works, then I really don't see how it should matter.
What’s the deal with IT Crowd?
Looks like the creator, Graham Linehan, is super transphobic.
Wow, what an asshole!
yes. for those of you who remember the hbomberguy stream earlier this year for Mermaids, that was basically done to spite linehan and his shitheadery because he was campaigning to get a grant they were potentially going to receive revoked due to their activities and he's just kind of a giant asshole in general, lol.
I've never listened to any of those people, but I'd take the previous person's point to an even greater extent: I don't care even if the art does promote those values. I have no problem distinguishing art from reality, I don't start thinking bad things are acceptable after listening to bad lyrics.
Out of those 3, only the first one has any relevance to my stance IMO. That's where I start to care about these things on a case by case basis. When it slips past the curtain and into the performances.
Also, why does it matter that those people 'still have fans'. All sorts of people have fans, you can't reasonably expect everyone to have peeled off, regardless of how much they should have.
He merits avoidance bc he's a soundcloud rapper, to me.
If I was into that stuff, I don't think i'd avoid him either, I'd avoid the performance in question, but that's about as far as I'd go. but I would pass judgement on that incident and constantly take the piss out of him. Like I said before, not everything they touch is toxic. I avoid people/artists out of personal preference. For example, I avoid Childish Gambino bc all those meme remixes have overdone it for me.
Art is always over artist unless the art is in the extremities, not the artist. I'm talking about really overt overtones where the entire art piece crosses the line. Propoganda/misinformation or whatever.