Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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.

18

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.

12

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.

6

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.

4

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.

2

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

1

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.

1

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.

0

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.

2

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

0

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.

0

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

0

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.

1

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.

1

Agamemnon420XD t1_jck2qso wrote

Part of the problem is, a BAD person can create GREAT art. Also, a bad person can be an amazing lawyer, or doctor, or worker. And we support all of those bad people by hiring them and letting them do work.

At the end of the day, work is GOOD. Art is GOOD. We need BAD people doing GOOD things, like art, and law, and medicine, etc., because the other option is simply bad people doing bad things, like crime.

Everyone needs to make money to survive. And when you stop people from making money, oh god, they will find a way to make money and survive, and it won’t be as nice as the good work they can do.

Call it an Opportunity Cost.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/opportunitycost.asp

Now, do you want bad people doing good work, or do you want bad people to do bad things? Because you have to choose one, literally HAVE TO. Again, think about opportunity cost. Bad people have many options; do you want them to opt for the good option, or the bad option?

I’ll give you a real world example; JK Rowling. JK has said bad things. JK has also helped countless people through philanthropy and inspired countless people through writing. Should JK double down on being a ‘bad’ person and stop helping anyone and instead focus all of her fortune on greed and hatred, or should JK continue to help others despite having said or done bad things? The option forgone is the opportunity cost, and I know I’d rather see ‘doubling down on bad’ as the opportunity cost as opposed to ‘helping others’.

7

2ndmost t1_jck7b3o wrote

How about this though - when bad people do bad things while being protected by their good acts.

Bill Cosby's bad acts were PROTECTED from justice by his good work. He didn't have to choose at all. In fact, the more good he did, and the more we enjoyed his good work, the worse he was allowed to behave.

Harvey Weinstein made a lot of great movies. Movies that would otherwise never be made. His philanthropic efforts undoubtedly helped a lot of people. The only cost was the rape of a few women.

If we hadn't stopped him or brought him to justice, he could have made literally hundreds of good movies, and probably given millions more to charity.

Should he continue to do the good work, even if the cost is a few more rapes? Is the opportunity cost worth it?

6

Agamemnon420XD t1_jckatrh wrote

All I can say about that is, being bad and being a criminal are two different things. JK Rowling is a ‘bad’ person but she’s not a criminal, she’s not raping anyone. Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein were criminals, they were raping people. In their case, I’d still support their careers and their opportunities, but I’d 100% demand they face Justice for their crimes as swiftly and earnestly as possible, and realistically if they eventually are released from prison they’d need to be on a tight leash. Like, the rule of law is important. If Pablo Picasso was a murderer, despite my love and support of his art I’d absolutely want him arrested. I’m not saying we should excuse people from breaking the law, I’m saying that a bad person (not criminal, just bad) can do good things and that if doing good things keeps them from becoming a criminal or something worse than they are, then it’s important that they be allowed to succeed.

I’d summarize it like this; you can’t ‘cancel’ someone, but you can kill them. Cancelers (ideally) want people they deem worthy of being canceled to not have any opportunities whatsoever, meaning that that person will have to turn to a life of crime to survive. That’s essentially a death sentence, in modern society. So, I view it as equivalent to the death sentence.

Would I be OK with JK Rowling getting the death sentence? Absolutely not, even if I think she’s done some bad things. But criminals who have raped countless innocent people, like Cosby and Weinstein? Yeah, sure, kill them, they’re violent criminals, unfit for civilization.

You make a great point, though, that my idea could be stretched to an extreme, and used to protect criminals. I’d just like to reiterate that when I said ‘bad’ I did not mean ‘criminal’, and I do think it’s horrible that criminals are protected because of the things they achieve. The law is biased, and it shouldn’t be.

6

2ndmost t1_jckel6p wrote

Bad people, or people with bad ideas, always have am opportunity - they can stop being bad.

I'm not in any way obligated to pay to support someone's being terrible, and I reject the idea that for JK Rowling, the choice is "famous author who screams about trans people on social media" or "a life of crime".

There are so many options in between those two! She could be "famous author who doesn't scream about trans people" or she could be "anti trans author who is now broken and bitter and working at Subway" or she could be "famous author who took some time to reflect and apologized for the impact of her words"

All of these actions are under HER CONTROL.

I, as someone who exists in the universe with JK Rowling, have but a scant few options.

I can't force her to not be an asshole. I can't make it illegal to be an asshole (nor do I think that a law like that should be permissible).

So I can do a few things - I can ignore her. I can refuse to monetarily support her. I can encourage others to support my view.

With your thoughts on cancel culture it seems clear that you believe using the power of your speech or your money has an effect on people. So why is it ok for Rowling to use her words and money to actively try and hurt one group of people, but it is not ok for society to use their money and their words to convince her and other people that they are, in fact, acting badly?

5

Agamemnon420XD t1_jckgtrg wrote

That’s a good response/question.

So you don’t want to criminalize JK’s ‘bad’ behavior. Then I stand by my point that there’s nothing wrong with supporting her art, even if she’s a ‘bad’ person. She does many good things with herself and her fortune, and I hope she continues to do good, despite also doing bad.

You are right, she has many choices, but let’s be pragmatic, here; she’s going to continue to be herself, she’s going to continue to be exactly what she is and not be anything else. That’s where cancelling comes into play; should her life be destroyed or not? Most people would say no, yet some would say yes. That is why the rule of law deems her actions acceptable; there’s not enough people against what she is doing, what she is doing is not seen as a crime.

You can ignore her and not support her, that’s your right. But are you any morally better than someone who does support her? According to my argument, no. The reason being that good and bad come together, and unless the bad is so bad that she needs to be dealt with, we’ve just kind of got to accept that bad with the good.

You said it yourself that what she’s doing shouldn’t be considered a crime. That means you don’t want her to be forcibly stopped, you see the damage she does as so insignificant that she shouldn’t be held accountable for it in a court of law. And I agree with that statement. Yet we both also acknowledge that she is doing damage. I think there’s a very real but blurred line, where something is deemed so bad that we can’t allow the person doing it to continue. Clearly JK has not crossed that blurry line, and therefore is free to continue as she pleases.

3

BulbasaurIsMyGod t1_jcklg7z wrote

I’m just casually reading along. Not entirely looking to debate, but I think it’s possible to “accept” JKR’s bad behavior without endorsing it financially. And IMO that’s morally better than using “oh well, her hateful actions aren’t a crime” as an excuse to be ok with financially supporting a bigot. Just my 0.02.

2

2ndmost t1_jcktegk wrote

We agree that most speech should not be punishable by the state.

But I think it's reasonable, if not obvious, that all actions will have reactions - or in this case consequences.

Some of those consequences are good! Some of them are bad! If you say something unpopular, people respond by showing displeasure. This is natural and normal, and also changes based upon where and when you find yourself.

Indeed, many consequences for Rowling's views have been positive! Many groups have heaped praise on her and supported her both culturally and commercially.

However, she has also faced many negative consequences. None of them have risen to the level of life destruction (despite what Rowling would at times want you to believe).

Now, do I believe that someone is allowed to "do as she pleases" if they don't cross a blurry line that takes it to the level of a crime?

Let's try to see some real world examples:

I work in restaurants. It's not illegal for people to be rude to servers and bartenders. It's not illegal for a customer to argue with every person at the bar whenever they speak.

However, they do not have the right to "continue doing as they please" at the expense of the restaurant as a whole. We are well within our rights to deny them service. In fact, all the other people should have the right to do as they please without him being annoying the whole time.

Did I destroy this person's life? Or did they face the consequences of actions they could have stopped at any time?

Certainly they have the right, and probably the inclination, to continue being horrible to every establishment they step foot in. But it would be a far cry to say they were victimized by a biased restaurant industry.

I do not believe that a person should face no consequences for denigrating people in a public forum. I also firmly believe that if a person in a position of influence demonstrates clear prejudice it is permissible for society to determine, on their own, whether or not they want to accept that prejudice to have the opportunity to influence that position (to use your case of doctors or lawyers that behave poorly - racist doctors and lawyers have a clear opportunity to use their position to do real harm, even if they never commit a crime).

It feels like you and I have a bit of a gulf between us and I'm not sure we'd be able to do much more than say "x is impermissible but y and z would be so long as we consider a, b, and c." But I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and responses.

1

[deleted] t1_jcnys24 wrote

[removed]

1

2ndmost t1_jco03ui wrote

To the first part - I may not be able to change anything by not spending money on an asshole artist, that's true.

I may not be able to stop a corrupt politician from getting elected by voting for their opponent. Isn't it still worth it to cast my vote?

For the rest - I guess I think about it this way - an artist's art is an extension of their humanity, and what they think it means to be human. It is in many ways how they view the world.

So a) I find it hard to believe that their views don't make it into their work either overtly or covertly, and b) by commercially supporting these people I am endorsing their views. Now (b) might be a stretch for people, and I'm not saying that everyone must do this, but it is an ethical standard that costs me relatively little (oh no I don't get to consume to whatever vehicle the HP universe is putting out this month) and gives me a benefit (I feel good about keeping my money spent on people I feel worthy of my support).

There's so much art out there ready to consume, and so many artists to support. I can be picky and still have a rich and full life.

1

Pert02 t1_jckeh1i wrote

With JK you are missing the point. Her bigoted and hatred views are in fact shaping policy and misconstructing the image around transgender people which in turn makes their lifes more miserable.

JK "views" affect the world in a negative way and are actively hurting a collective of people.

2

Shield_Lyger t1_jckthz8 wrote

Okay, I'll bite. Why put "views" into scare quotes? If views is not the correct term, put your cards on the table... how should J. K. Rowling's thought processes be characterized or described?

5

GSilky t1_jckbitj wrote

Do you know the artist or any possible victims of their behavior? If the answer is "No", separation achieved.

4

Critical-Ad2084 t1_jcl93t0 wrote

I love art (the arts) and think that if we only want "morally acceptable artists" we will be in a lot of trouble, especially if these are people from other times and we try to apply a 2023 moral judgement to them.

If we go by moral judgement then we are not looking for works of art, but rather for people that fit into a mold we create, a problematic mold because it changes by the hour and what today is acceptable maybe in a few months won't.

3

bustedbuddha t1_jclf98x wrote

So here's the thing, a lot of the time when I hear this shit, the art itself is actively racist as well. JK Rowlings Goblins are direct Antiemetic stereotypes, Rudyar Kipling's "The gift" comes down to "Just take the present and stop bitching about Christians running everything". R Kelly has songs about seducing under aged girls. Cosby has an episode where he puts something special in his barbeque sauce that makes his wife and daughters horny. Woody Allen and Roman Polanski both have movies about relationships between young women/underaged women, and older men.

​

I'm willing to separate the art from the artist, but most of the time the art is still fucking racist/sexist/whatever.

​

Now, there's some good Cosby episodes, Chinatown and Bananas are both awesome movies, ""Trapped in the closet" is hilarious and musically sound. But typically when I hear "separate the artist" that means I'm going to have to wade through some offensive shit to dig up value.

​

Why bother, why should I go out of my way to reward the art of the offensive when there's plenty of other art out there? What value is there to creating this separation in my mind when it mostly ends up meaning I'm going to have to go through some cringe shit anyway?

2

fatty2cent t1_jcmjtal wrote

What do we do about the unknown evils committed by artists whose artwork we admire? The implications of supporting an artist who ‘may’ have committed abhorrent acts is so great that maybe we must withhold all our judgements of all artwork so that we are never inadvertently supporting evils that we are unsure have occurred by the artists. We can never be too sure of how much of our appreciation of art is being showered upon the the right artists of high moral caliber, because they may be crypto-deplorable people in which we should withhold our praise indefinitely. Is this going too far or should we separate the artist from the artwork instead?

2

Prometheus1717 t1_jcmu5q9 wrote

All artists are human beings just like we are all in this debate. But if we truly look at ourselves in the mirror of Life we can reach the conclusion that no one is a saint. There is no need to separate art and artist; just like separating a carpenter from creating a wooden structure. Art must be beyond good and evil just like ourselves.

2

FelipeNA t1_jckl89t wrote

>The answer to the art-artist conundrum is deeply personal. There is no way to produce a collective moral standard to arrive at a conclusive distinction between art and the artist.

This is a reasonable, but not practical, conclusion. This issue derives from the larger "ethical consumption" debate. The answer does not lie with art or artist, or an analyses of either, but majority consensus on ethical implications.

In other words, this debate only gains teeth when imposed on society, removing personal choice from a minority of the population.

For example, Russian sanctions are an example of society rejecting consumption. While boycotting most artists (and their art) is an example of society embracing consumption, by leaving the decision up to the individual.

Similarly, companies choosing to distance themselves from artists are an example of society banning consumption. This last example usually leaves a significant amount of consumers angry, which is why the art-artist and "cancelling" debates are so popular.

I have a cynical perspective on this issue: most people don't care, and those who do, shouldn't. It does not matter if you separate art from artist. What matters is if you should, or if you are allowed to, consume the art.

If you can't consume the art unless it is separated from the artist, for whatever reason, then you should not consume it.

TLDR: Should you separate art from artist? No.

1

H00K810 t1_jckqujy wrote

Elvis had a TV special the same week R Kelly was charged or sentenced.

1