Submitted by adarsh_badri t3_11tf030 in philosophy
Shield_Lyger t1_jcixonv wrote
The author lays out two lines of thought when discussing their Scenario Two:
> Second, if I have propinquity towards the victim or am sympathetic to their cause, I would abandon listening to the artist altogether. In that case, one can argue that we cannot separate art from the artist.
The first is that purchasing an offender's art directly contributes to their material well-being, and the second is that interacting with an offender's art is a way of excusing their actions, and is thus a problem for their targets.
But I also think that many people operate under a third line of reasoning, and that is that art produced by people who have committed serious offenses is objectively bad art; in other words, one judges the quality of the art by the reputation of the artist.
I first encountered this in a discussion of the paintings of Adolf Hitler. I quickly found myself in the minority, due to my perception that while his work didn't reach the levels of The Old Masters or anything, the man had considerably more talent than I, and I appreciated his work on that level. Nearly all of the other people present concluded that the work was utter garbage. Similarly, I've heard people say that Bill Cosby was not a good stand-up comedian or actor, but that he's somehow tricked or bullied people into having a long career in the entertainment industry. This strikes me as a dubious argument, but I've learned the futility of contesting it.
I think this idea that good art also requires good moral standing, while it may be a raging logical fallacy, is common enough (at least in the United States) that its absence was somewhat conspicuous for me.
smadaraj t1_jcjhhdl wrote
An aesthetic evaluation of art is not the same as a moral evaluation of the artist. The author's case for not separating the artist from the art is entirely unconvincing. Your example of Bill Cosby is excellent. Unless you fixate upon the writer and performer as the immoral creature that he is, his performances range from hilarious in his stand-up to convincing in his dramatic roles. This does not make him a good person, any more than a bad artistic performance by anyone else makes them a bad person. His moral imperfections do not make his performances bad. There are many examples of persons whose vile behavior was only discovered after their death. They were evil, but this does not diminish their performance or their creations. If you want to refrain from purchasing their artistic contributions, I would not disagree with you. If Mr. Cosby's planned stand-up tour happens, I will not be attending, but that does not mean the performances he gives will be poor nor that his humor will be inadequate. I would never condemn anyone who said they cannot make the separation practically, but I do not see that the separation is logically impossible.
KobeFlenderson t1_jckckr0 wrote
I totally agree with your take on it, but there’s also something to be said of perception. How people see and interact with the world is colored by their personal biases (either explicit or implicit). Individuals who saw Bill Cosby’s comedy in the 1980s are infinitely more likely to recognize his talent despite his actions because they did not experience his comedy with a predefined bias of him being a predator. Likewise, people who experienced his comedy after his actions became public are absolutely more likely to perceive the comedy in a different light.
People have no real control over how their brains choose to perceive the world in response to its previous experiences.
Shield_Lyger t1_jckholf wrote
> Individuals who saw Bill Cosby’s comedy in the 1980s are infinitely more likely to recognize his talent despite his actions because they did not experience his comedy with a predefined bias of him being a predator. Likewise, people who experienced his comedy after his actions became public are absolutely more likely to perceive the comedy in a different light.
I don't really find this to be true. I've met more than a few people who experienced Mr. Cosby's work prior to the allegations being leveled who then became convinced that said work lacked merit or talent.
It's possible that what is at work here is the idea that solidarity with the targets of injustice means having an active unwillingness to ascribe any positive attitudes to those perceived as unjust.
And, interestingly, perhaps vice versa as well. I told an acquaintance that I had no interest in reading any of the Harry Potter books, and was thanked for supporting people in the trans community. To be clear, I don't care for that brand of young adult fiction, and didn't even when I was in the target demographic. (I "noped" out on the Narnia books the moment I realized that all of the protagonists were children, even though I was in junior high school myself at the time.) But the perception was that I had a problem with J. K. Rowling's public stances, rather than her actual writing.
KobeFlenderson t1_jckkglm wrote
Oh, it’s for sure true that there are people from the 80s who didn’t like his humor. My parents had Cosby records when I was a kid, and I listened to them in the 90s. I found them to be corny with too much religious humor, so they weren’t my thing. Much like you and Harry Potter, I didn’t think Cosby was funny before everything came to light.
That being said, I was more likely to enjoy it before I knew he was a rapist than I am after. The main reason is that I just thought it was corny before - now I think it’s hypocritical at best, which is a much stronger ethical response than when I was a kid.
Johannes--Climacus t1_jclr6hy wrote
I don’t like how you act like this is some uncontrollable thing happening in the brain, and not the result of cultural attitudes about art and morality. If someone reads and internalizes the aesthetic ideas of Susan Sontag, Harold Bloom, and Oscar Wilde then they will approach works of art from “problematic” artists much differently
KobeFlenderson t1_jclzlyc wrote
I suggest you look into psychology. Your brain uses biases created through experience to create shortcuts so you don’t have to analyze everything you look at. That fluorescent light at the end of the hallway is rectangular. Even though it appears to be a trapezoid, your brain automatically registers that it’s a rectangle because of experience. You don’t have to analyze it for that to happen.
Your brain chooses how you perceive the world, and the best you can do is be aware it’s happening. Think about it like a colorblind person - the barn may be red, but that person will always see it a different color, no matter how aware they are that it’s not brown or gray or whatever.
Johannes--Climacus t1_jcm85t8 wrote
This does not address anything I said.
The fact that your brain interprets sensory data does not tell us about what the affect of aestheticism has on your view of art (in fact, the latter presupposes the former). It’s like if I made a comment about literature, and you pointed out “well your eyes take in light, you know”.
If you “looked into psychology”, you’d understand that cognitive behavioral therapy, for instance, involves altering mental models which results in altered perceptions.
KobeFlenderson t1_jcmcnxl wrote
What you’re suggesting is training your brain to replace one shortcut with another. Once your brain is conditioned, you have no control over the perception. You’re intentionally trolling Reddit for things to argue about with the limited knowledge you learned watching YouTube.
Johannes--Climacus t1_jczi709 wrote
What you call a “shortcut” merely describes a model.
You accuse me of using YouTube knowledge, but I’m pursuing a masters in philosophy while you’re here saying “yes but have you considered that the mind uses schemas to process information”. Nobody doubted that and only someone who learned psychology on YouTube would think this is insightful
KobeFlenderson t1_jczpbji wrote
>pursuing a masters in philosophy
This means as much as a hope, prayer, or wish. Wanting to accomplish something isn’t an accomplishment.
Johannes--Climacus t1_jd0lql8 wrote
Anyone who touches grass knows that the common connotation is that affirmative steps have been taken. In this context, those steps take the form of graduate level courses
adarsh_badri OP t1_jcjhe6q wrote
Well, I agree with you. Sometimes, we may distance ourselves from certain art as morally repugnant or bad. But, at times, the art is really good, and its appreciation is never in question. However, our engagement with it may be partly, as I claim in the essay. However, your point is interesting. And I need to think more about it.
vnth93 t1_jcnhqqe wrote
That's the thing about the need of a lot of people to be awoken--and I don't mean that as an insult--to the reality that abusers and bad faith actors are taking advantage of them. It's a terrible fallacy. Cosby didn't need to trick anyone into liking him back then.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments