Submitted by ADefiniteDescription t3_1097594 in philosophy
Comments
jebbybakes t1_j3zi65t wrote
what if the artist still is able to earn a royalty off the media? Does that change it for you?
pestilenceinspring t1_j3znkk1 wrote
We could pirate the material. Why let them earn anything from their art? We could just make the art public property, give the royalties to the victims, anything beneficial to others and not the artist, because why should someone immoral profit from their art, especially if there was no punishment, or a just punishment?
kreiggers t1_j3zpks8 wrote
But there are other people that earn (and some even deserve) the income from art - Kevin Spacey didn’t make a movie on his own, other cast members, etc. same goes for music
Ivy_lane_Denizen t1_j419dj7 wrote
Thats unfortunate, but movies and other media projects fail all the time for a plethora of reasons, Im not responsible for helping them succeed in the first place. Additionally most of these other people rarely get paid based on how well the products sold.
pestilenceinspring t1_j3zpu1d wrote
Then specifically take his ends and the others can keep theirs. We can create solutions as we think and go. Problem solving should be ever evolving in my opinion.
Knale t1_j3zsuqq wrote
How exactly do you recommend pirating media so that only one member of an enormous cast and crew is affected?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
BlessedBySaintLauren t1_j3ztm9k wrote
I mean if they have an active civil suit against them for payment then the royalties will go to the victims and not the artist.
For example O.J Simpson
pestilenceinspring t1_j3ztmkg wrote
It's just a suggestion, take if you will or won't. I mean hell, some people refuse to watch a show with a "tainted" actor, or those programs aren't aired by many channels or streaming platforms, like the cosby show for example. Some people thought it was unfair because the other actors hadn't done anything triffling and they deserved those royalties. But on the one hand, they have other royalties and roles, or they take on other jobs after acting. I'm not saying it's fair, but its hard to work out royalty payments if viewers won't touch a movie or show or whatever with a ten foot pole.
[deleted] t1_j3zyttg wrote
[deleted]
tbryan1 t1_j40w394 wrote
It just seems contradictory when you apply the logic of the "non-separatists" to anything else. For example you can't like any product because people had to suffer/die in the production of that product. The computers we are both on involved slavery, exploitation, destruction of ecosystems, poisoning of water ways, caused entire regions of peoples to develop birth defects, cancers, brain abnormalities......
​
You can look at any product and find some kind of harm or ethical problems, so I don't understand why people fixate on just art.
corran132 t1_j41kh3y wrote
To a point, I agree with you. It's very difficult to be an ethical consumer of anything under an exploitive capitalist system.
For me, it comes down to two things.
- Art is different. You may connect with you computer or with your clothes, but art is intended to engage you emotionally. Art is also generally sold, at least in part, on the reputation of the artist (starring X!). Apple is not trying to have Steve from Bangladesh as a reason to buy the product in the same way that Knives out is trading on the name of Daniel Craig.
- Just because it's basically impossible to be an ethical consumer doesn't mean we can't try. With art, it's generally easier to know (at least, currently) who is a massive POS. I'm sure this computer was made with some incredibly inequitable conditions, but tracking down which companies did which is difficult. On the other hand, a Woody Allen movie is trading on his name, and the accusations against him are public knowledge.
This is all to say that we are meant to have a deeper connection to art, and as such I don't think it's unreasonable that we try to hold it to a higher standard. Additionally, since Art trades on the name of the artist, it's reasonable (to me) that the artist's conduct plays a larger roll in the appeal of the movie.
tbryan1 t1_j41wxuu wrote
- (A) I would argue that there is no difference between art and any other tangible object. The meaning behind art is derived from reality, so actual objects will always have the compacity to be "art". The no true Scotsman fallacy is at play here. (B) your analogy about how art is pointing at 1 individual and using them for branding while companies aren't is a bad analogy in my opinion. It is more accurate to compare the star a actor with representatives and CEO's which are synonymous with the branding of a company. What I mean is when a movie says "come see billy in the new movie", you change it to "come see billy the rapist", so you ought to make that same leap with companies. Blood diamonds are a popular example.
- This is where I part ways because I call BS when people want to be ethical some times well more like less than .00001% of the time. There is a name for it but I don't want to be rude. The argument here isn't equivalent either. An artist abuses someone in the past outside of the move what ever, compared to an artist actively raping someone on set. That's the difference between drama cycles and businesses do to the fact that business models have exploitation baked in.
​
(conclusion) I consider old presidential speeches to be art do to the historical element that has been introduced "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" as an example of something that's so unimaginable in todays world. I say this because there are some really bad people that gave speeches
corran132 t1_j42ue1b wrote
I'm sorry, I don't really follow your conclusion.
If the word you are thinking of for me is 'hypocrite', then that's fair. I recognize that this is not entirely intellectually consistent. The problem is that, in my eyes, being entirely intellectually consistent leads to one of two outcomes.
- Nothing matters, consume what you want. All businesses do shitty things, so don't worry about it.
- Completely disengage with society. All businesses, all governments, everyone does shitty things, so withdraw from all of it.
The problem is, I don't think either of these are actually helpful outcomes.
In the latter case, unless you found some commune and call forth followers to the woods (in which case, your own actions enter into the equations) you are never going to change anything.
In the former, nothing gets better because you cast aside that 'better' means anything at all. Everyone sucks, so who cares who sucks more than others?
What I am trying to outline is what I call 'doing my best'. I can choose, if/when I want to buy something for my partner, not to buy blood diamonds. I can choose not to consume (and support) media by people who are POS's. I can try to educate myself on how to support elected candidates that will push for better working conditions. Does my consumption sill cause harm? Absolutely, but I can try to make that as small as possible.
Because it is easier to find information on which art is made by problematic actors (but due to celebrity gossip and the high profile nature of the individuals), and because people have such an emotional attachment to art, it is the avenue of consumption that is most affected by people trying to be ethical consumers. Maybe it shouldn't be any different, but it is.
tbryan1 t1_j457fwq wrote
The word wasn't "hypocrite" it was "virtue signaling" which isn't inherently bad, however it denotes a completely different type of framework for your ethics. I'm not arguing for the negative or that you are a bad person or anything, just that there is deception in your framing. You are framing it from an "ought" position that is grounded in ethical principles, but they are never adhered to like ever. You are trying to claim all the virtue of holding this ethical position that you never use which is dishonest.
I can't know your mind but from the outside looking in you are utilizing a type of moral egoism which explains why you are able to ignore this dilemma 99.9999% of the time. Though there are many forms of egoism they are all willing to tolerate immoral/harmful behaviors so long as you incur a commensurate benefit. This puts people in a compromised position so they seek out instances where they can be ethical or virtuous to gain a type of moral currency to protect against the scales not balancing in their favor. This last thing is where the deception is introduced because we want to present a grounded ethical position that's virtuous not some egocentric motivation. The principled you make your position look the worse it makes everyone else look if they don't follow it so you are gaining moral currency while causing other people to lose theirs. This is on reason we even in an egocentric model you still seek external moral protection.
Joelsax47 t1_j410wn2 wrote
Well spoken. I dislike Tom Cruise as a person because of all the scientology bullshit he spews, but that doesn't keep me from enjoying his movies. Friends of mine think the same thing.
Luklear t1_j4070bo wrote
I disagree with your conclusion. I don’t think a piece of media can be toxic via the moral standing of its creator. If the content itself is toxic, then sure. To separate the art from the artist is to analyze and experience the thing itself in the moment, not the information attached to it such as it’s origin.
Now if we’re talking about supporting someone bad by buying their stuff then sure, you shouldn’t do that. I just wouldn’t frame it as the piece of fiction itself being bad. Consider piracy.
Take a great piece of fiction, say, Crime and Punishment. Now let’s say that it was actually written by Adolf Hitler. Will that shape your subjective experience of it, potentially even making it completely unpalatable to you? Yes. However, does that make it a worse piece of art? I don’t think so.
aaeme t1_j41cp4t wrote
>I don’t think a piece of media can be toxic via the moral standing of its creator.
I think it's fair to say Mein Kampf wouldn't be half so toxic if it wasn't for its author (for his actions and infamy) and yes if Crime and Punishment had been written by Hitler it would be tainted.
>a worse piece of art
What does that mean? How is that not 100% subjective?
Guilty_Primary8718 t1_j3xyukh wrote
Some things are harder than others to separate, and what would that even mean?
The biggest call for boycotting artists of various types is to stop giving them money. Usually that means waiting until the death of the artist, or buying/making non-licensed art. However even doing that can give publicity and a statement of ambiguity of separating anything, for example having a themed teddy bear you bought off Etsy and someone else going to the licensed store to buy a similar one because they liked yours so much.
So do you decide to stop the art all together, even if you can mentally separate the art from the artist, or do you continue and leave it up to interpretation to whomever may see what you choose to consume or purchase?
That doesn’t even begin on things that are essential with limited choices, such as cell phones that are all made unethically.
Varatta t1_j3zcu83 wrote
you can separate art from artist or not however you want. the tough choice is what you do about that separation. to not support Kevin Spacy’s past work so he doesn’t get money also punishes the hundreds of others who worked on the production. Group arts are tricky this way. Now not supporting future endeavours puts pressure on the community to stop working with him. Ultimately in group based arts the action needs to be done at a community level if it’s not to punish other hard working artists for one person’s misdeeds. But getting that community to hold them to account is where every fan’s choice matters.
Individual arts are trickier. Michael Jackson (we’re he still alive) would be a good example. that’s where nostalgia plays a more prominent role. but even now that he is gone - it begs the question - do you support his legacy and family or are they too punished?
This conversation has a long way to mature, but it’s important we mature it - collectively and individually so as to make something more constructive of reactionary “cancel culture” into something more thoughtfully socially just.
BlessedBySaintLauren t1_j3ztua0 wrote
I mean even with Michael Jackson, there are others who contributed and thus would have royalties from his work. Even art that is seemingly singular is not.
Goukaruma t1_j3yv127 wrote
I don't have to hate anything. It's a choice.
sZYphYn t1_j3zhb7p wrote
Hate takes more effort than indifference, that’s for sure.
Like the holidays, is it religion imprinted on pagan tradition and now a corporate cash grab? Yeah. I can recognize all of that, remain indifferent, and still take joy in watching my kid open presents.
Do people not use money because colonizers, fascists and tyrants are printed on it?
ChatOChoco t1_j3yei4a wrote
I can't separate. It's not that I don't appreciate the idea of separation but my gut instinct won't let me. And since my gut and art are both tied to emotions I can't untie them.
ComfortWeasel t1_j409m1v wrote
I've taken to going out of my way to avoid learning about artists I enjoy, if possible. Even if I wind up liking the person it colors my take of the art. When the creator is anonymous or just not known to you it's a simpler interaction
jljboucher t1_j3zcni1 wrote
Yeah, that’s bs.
HotpieTargaryen t1_j3whwbd wrote
That doesn’t seem terribly helpful. I mean just hating the artist whatever, but why would I want philosophy to help people avoid the consequences of their actions and statements.
stumblewiggins t1_j3wvttk wrote
The point is the art can be valuable even if the artist is reprehensible; same can be said of science, engineering, etc.
Sololololololol t1_j3x4oqt wrote
Yeah, death of the author is nothing new, but I think all the people who zealously consider themselves moral arbiters of society would do well to give it a read.
Wesgizmo365 t1_j3zk3ca wrote
Japanese Unit 731. We hate them but we use the knowledge they gained to this day.
HotpieTargaryen t1_j3xf07p wrote
Yes, that is obvious, but that doesn’t just mitigate the problematic author. Basically all this says is you gan separate the art from the artist as long as your separate the art from the artist. It’s neither novel nor particularly philosophically compelling.
stumblewiggins t1_j3xgfxx wrote
To be clear, I'm not responding to the article, I'm responding to your comment.
This is what I was reacting to: >why would I want philosophy to help people avoid the consequences of their actions and statements.
I don't care what the article says, I'm saying that this comment is missing the point of separating the art from the artist.
It's not about helping people avoid consequences; we can and should hold people accountable for their words and actions.
But if they have contributed work that has artistic, educational, scientific, etc. merit that is valuable to society at large, we should not jettison all of that simply because the person who contributed it has done or said terrible things. We should consider its value separately from it's creator, while also contextualizing it based on the sins of the creator.
HotpieTargaryen t1_j3xizy6 wrote
I am talking about the article because art and science are different. I don’t need to separate art from the artists because as amazing as art can be it doesn’t save lives or change society. Separating science from the scientist is far more palatable and easier since science is built by a tremendous number of people all improving upon or developing that person’s work. Separating art from the artist is not analogous to pretty much any other type of development.
stumblewiggins t1_j3xjztk wrote
>I don’t need to separate art from the artists because as amazing as art can be it doesn’t save lives or change society
Sure it does. Art therapy helps people process pain, trauma, grief, etc.
Works of art inspire revolutions, and change the fabric of society
thune123 t1_j3xkmrn wrote
So you've never read a book, watched a movie or listened to stand up/podcast and had a thought that improved your life? The idea that art has no merit outside of being mindless entertainment is pretty closed minded. I wouldn't be surprised if the average person is more affected by art than by science when it comes to their own personal development. Obviously science impacts their lives indirectly but I would be surprised if it affects their lives more directly than art.
HotpieTargaryen t1_j3xnap1 wrote
It’s not. Art can shape a mind. And if the artists shaping that mind is toxic it matters. Science is attenuated from cultural and individual biases; art isn’t.
thune123 t1_j3xnvza wrote
You sound like you need some art in your life. Or just interaction with humans. You don't really seem to grasp what's going on in the world and how people are. You act like only art has the duality of being good and evil.
HotpieTargaryen t1_j3xopra wrote
I have plenty of art in my life. You sound like you need some empathy, but it’s the internet so I won’t judge. Let’s just go on about our respective lives.
thune123 t1_j3xw66y wrote
It's actually quite humorous that you would bring empathy into this. I assure you, you are the one working with less of it. Just so you don't pat yourself on the back for giving out empathy to the "right people", I am not speaking on exclusively having empathy for the bad actors. I am speaking about having empathy for everyone. But this is a concept lost on people like you because I know you think only people on your side of the street deserve it.
Good day sir.
HotpieTargaryen t1_j3y0dc9 wrote
You need to take a long hard look in a mirror. Good day to you as well.
Prineak t1_j3wngw4 wrote
Inspiration and community is what causes multiple discovery.
durntaur t1_j41h34g wrote
I'm having trouble taking the article seriously when Johnny Depp is the introductory example after being all but absolved of the Amber Heard debacle. It would make a better introduction for a treatment on the problem with the court of public opinion.
Please don't mistake this for a defense of people like Cosby, Allen, and the like.
pin_eap_ples t1_j3xq5m5 wrote
You can love the art and hate the person but maybe not the artistic part in him Every person is composed of different morals irrespective of it being good or bad.. being an artist is one part which can be good if the art is good ... But the same person can be bad too
Sirscruffalot t1_j3zftny wrote
I love Woody Allen films but I don't want to support a bad person. I refuse to watch any of his movies while he is alive. The day he dies I'm going to have a Woody Allen film festival! I honestly look forward to it!
LUCKYMAZE t1_j3zj6ql wrote
It is true that philosophy, like any other field of study, is influenced by the cultural and historical context in which it is practiced. Philosophers are human beings and they are deeply influenced by their cultural, social, and political surroundings, which can shape their thoughts and beliefs.
Philosophical ideas and theories have developed and evolved over time, and these changes have often been influenced by the cultural, social and political context of the time. Many philosophers have been critical of the dominant cultural, social and political ideologies of their time and have sought to challenge and question them.
Furthermore, different cultures have developed different philosophical traditions, some cultures have had more of a tendency towards metaphysical and spiritual beliefs, while others have had a more rational and empirical approach.
It is important to acknowledge the cultural perspective and context of philosophy, as it can give a better understanding of the evolution of certain ideas, the motivations behind them and the context in which they were formed.
Philosophy as a discipline is ever-evolving and today many philosophers are actively working on trying to remove biases and prejudices that might be present in the field, and this includes also looking at how culture, society and politics might be influencing their own thoughts.
j50gibson t1_j410gw3 wrote
Close minded dick if you can’t appreciate the art because of something you heard the artist did to someone else. Its just like meeting new people, if they are nice to you , you think they are a nice person, if someone tells you “no that person is a meanie and the worst” To me, the only interaction i’ve had with this person has been positive. I would be a idiot to just start hating someone because of what the other person told me. I wasn’t there when he was a dick, he wasn’t a dick to me therefore i don’t think he’s a dick .
92taurusj t1_j417z13 wrote
Does the level of trust you have in the person telling you that the new person is mean and the worst not play a role in your decision-making?
If your most trusted friend, who's always been straight with you, told you the person is a dick, would that not carry more weight?
j50gibson t1_j41cmyf wrote
If my best friend tells me not to be friends with someone because of shitty things they’ve done i’ll consider that info for sure. However when it comes to art and the artist, i think people who’ve done shitty things can make beautiful art as well. It doesn’t mean i support the shitty things they’ve done . I just like art. I know some people who will stop listening to actual good music because of (possibly false) allegations . I think thats silly tbh . Museums have old paintings of artists who’ve done awful things back in the day, yet people still line up to go see them .
92taurusj t1_j41yo90 wrote
>I think thats silly tbh . Museums have old paintings of artists who’ve done awful things back in the day, yet people still line up to go see them .
To me, this seems to ignore important context. People go to museums to see famous art made by both bad and good people, yes. However, doesn't it seem that the historical significance plays a large role, as well?
Let's take Picasso as an example. He was famously abusive and misogynistic. His most famous pieces, however, depict scenes from the era of World War 2, among other topics. If we're looking at a modern artist like Spacey, in comparison, I think we have to consider a few key differences:
1a. Spacey's still alive, and it might feel more like you're directly supporting a person accused (and who admitted in this case) to doing some pretty bad things compared to viewing a dead guy from history's works
1b. The money spent to view the dead guy's work is likely going to a museum or organization with a mission of preserving and displaying a variety of historical pieces, rather than seeing a new Spacey movie knowing some of the proceeds go directly to him
-
Spacey's work has arguably less historical value when looked at overall
-
Society has advanced, and what it tolerates from artists has changed. Evolving standards in society is generally a good thing (slavery is bad now, more women have rights, torture is a no-no, etc.)
>I know some people who will stop listening to actual good music because of (possibly false) allegations.
Follow up to this point: do you find it silly if a Jewish person hears Kanye say he likes Hitler and decides they don't want to listen to any Kanye music anymore?
bildramer t1_j45dqes wrote
Maybe the real solution is not feeling "deep and profound moral disgust and outrage" in the first place? Wow, criminals (or people with opinions you don't like) exist, and they may have contributed to good things. What a dire conundrum. How will we possibly deal. Examine where your feelings come from and try to dissolve them, just like people usually do for any other feelings of disgust when they contradict moral principles.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j5fmzsc wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_j3zogad wrote
[deleted]
Luther-and-Locke t1_j3y33s2 wrote
You really shouldn't hate anyone to be honest. We are all just the universe expressing itself in the form of an individual. Our experiences and our genetics form us but in a way "there is nothing new under the sun". An artist creates art and you either like it or you don't. You shouldn't love the artist because you love his art and vice versa with hate.
toblotron t1_j403i7q wrote
Yeah.. it struck me that it's a bit strange to read a philosophical article telling us how to Hate :)
Also, i think it's worth mentioning that at least Johnny Depp seems to have been thoroughly exonerated in his trial, and that the offender instead was the woman
LSDkiller t1_j40kybi wrote
I hate amber heard, and think she's a lot less likeable than johnny Depp. But I would say Johnny Depp was only exonerated of the crass made up accusations of heard. He is still "guilty" of having been in an extremely toxic relationship where both of them were violent and just vile. I've lost a lot of respect for johnny Depp since they've gone through all of it. He may not have beat her up or raped her with a bottle but he aired his dirtiest, stinkiest shittiest laundry for everyone to see. any normal person would now look down on him more than before.
aaeme t1_j41ei88 wrote
>"guilty" of having been in an extremely toxic relationship
That isn't a crime. It's a strange thing to dislike someone for.
>both of them were violent
I watched the trial and saw no real evidence that he was. I saw faked evidence (doctored photos, made up bruises), which strongly suggests it never happened in a way that no evidence at all would not: people don't to fake evidence of something that actually happened. Conversely, I saw his blood on the floor. That wasn't faked.
>he aired his dirtiest, stinkiest shittiest laundry for everyone to see
Yeah he had to clear his name. That took guts. It's also a result of him being honest during the trial (of drink and drug misuse). That honesty was commendable I think. I'm pretty sure self-medicating when you're being abused like that would be quite common.
You do you but that seems a very strange and judgemental take on the whole affair to me.
[deleted] t1_j3y5ghj wrote
You can't love anything while harbouring hate for someone, artist or not. Direct your hate to that person's past actions or behavior that you disagree with, because we all share in that humanity whether you like it or not, and perhaps that introspection will help you better appreciate their art, and even yourself.
92taurusj t1_j419tcf wrote
Brb, gotta go let my wife know I apparently don't love her cause I hate my pedo uncle.
postart777 t1_j3wzrlg wrote
I too struggle with right-wing thoughts justifying and rewarding the behaviors of horrible people in order to make me amused for a few seconds. Help me philosophers!
edit: maybe we can also discuss how we prefer not to think of child slaves in diamond mines when proposing to each other in Disney World
Prineak t1_j3xbk0n wrote
You remember that time in high school when a group of guys do some horrible shit, but it’s really one charismatic guy raised by a narcissistic cycle of abuse seeking attention and a bunch of kids wanting to be liked by them?
thune123 t1_j3xl1oc wrote
Better throw out all your electronics. You wouldn't want to justify slave labor just so you can post on reddit to amuse yourself for 7 seconds.
jljboucher t1_j3zckxr wrote
You can hate the capitalism that forces you to have a phone in this day and age.
thune123 t1_j42osyx wrote
and you can hate the artist who makes art you enjoy...
[deleted] t1_j3yybil wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j41q9uu wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_j3xwe7c wrote
[removed]
LSDkiller t1_j40l63m wrote
I didn't agree with the article, but aside from the example mentioned of johnny Depp, it wasn't referring to anyone in particular.
durntaur t1_j41fpup wrote
I don't see how you can make your first assertion and then go on to making your last assertion. The error in the last proves the first.
LSDkiller t1_j42oma2 wrote
I didn't express myself well. What I meant to say was that the article is meant to be about the concept of seperating the art from the artist. So while johnny Depp is mentioned, it's not JUST about him or JUST about Kanye west or whatever. This is quite a common phenomenon now I mean I can think of like 3-4 people off the top of my head that have done absolutely horrible things, but they have a corpus of respected work still, and I'm terrible with celebrities and famous names and such.
92taurusj t1_j419z79 wrote
Quick reminder, everyone, don't feed the trolls.
corran132 t1_j3xz45o wrote
To me, there are two sperate questions. Those being, the consideration of art already consumed, and the desire to consume new art.
Take, for example, Kevin Spacey. Let's say, in my 20's, that I loved 'the usual suspects'. Watched it 1,000 times. Then I learn what he did. What does that doe to my love of that art?
Well, maybe I can separate the person from the art, and maybe I can't. That's each person's decision. But I can recognized that, in this case, my judgement is clouded by some amount of nostalgia. Perhaps I can get a flash of my memories of just enjoying Spacey's performance before I knew about his troubling history. And perhaps not. As it happens, while the above is hypothetical, I still find myself fondly remembering 'Baby Driver' despite his part in it, and have re-watched it a few times after I heard the accusations.
On the other hand is the desire to consume new art. Say, in this case, that Spacey has a new movie come out. Do I go see that in theaters? He is likely to act well in it, and I did enjoy it as an actor, so there is a chance I enjoy it. But by seeing it in theaters, I am spending my time and money, and tacitly saying to the movie industry that 'despite what he is alleged to have done, I am still willing to pay to see this artist.' In doing that, I am actively contributing to an industry that has shown itself more than happy to sweep abuse under the rug in the name of profit. Is that okay? Should I be saying 'yes, I know he's a POS, but he's also a really good actor and I'm paying him for that, not his personal life.'
Put it another way (and this is an imperfect analogy, but I think it tracks)- say my last partner was abusive, but we had good days. Is it wrong for me to miss the time they took me out on a date, and we had fun? In my mind, no. For a time we were happy, and it can be comforting to remember that we stayed so long because they teased you with light amongst the clouds. But do those good memories mean that I should get back together with them? God no, they broke my arm, and would have done worse except the neighbors called the cops. It's not wrong to miss what we had, but it would be to try to create it anew.
We are a tribal people. I think a lot of the resistance and anger around this question comes from 'person whose art I like did a bad thing, people are attacking the author, people are now attacking the art too, I like that art, therefore I must stand by the artist'. I think there is a lot of power in saying 'I did/do like this art. It was a big part of me. But I now recognize that the artist has done/said things that I can't agree with, and I won't be supporting them going forward.'
Ultimately, this all comes down to personal beliefs. Personally, I will never judge someone for an emotional attachment forged to a toxic piece of media, provided that attachment was forged before that person knew it was toxic. But I will judge people for continuing to support a toxic product once they have become aware of it's problems.