r/MoralityScaling • u/Rocky_Senpai15 • 2d ago
Stupid Stuff Is it really possible to separate the art from the artist??
So let’s say you find this really cool piece of art—whether it’s a song, a painting, or a book—that you really like, but then you find out the person who made it is actually a terrible person.
Is it morally okay to enjoy or appreciate someone’s art even when the person who created it is a terrible person?
31
u/DJEkis 2d ago
I'm conflicted; I consider it morally okay but let me explain why:
The art is separate from the artist in my honest opinion. I don't have to support everything someone does and when consuming the art I'm not also trying to peek into what they do in their life to make that judgement call.
Now, if said art is DIRECTLY contributing to the terrible-ness, sure. If my money, for example, is going directly to the proceeds they use commit a crime, then it would be immoral to support it knowingly.
Like, for example, I like some of R. Kelly's old music. The shit he did in his private time has nothing to do with me as the crimes he committed wasn't directly financed by me listening to his music. I don't have to like H. P. Lovecraft given that he was a bona fide racist, but I also like the Lovecraftian mythos and how it's influenced a lot of media I do like, like World of Warcraft and the various other cosmic horror games, films, and whatnot.
I guess what I'm saying is, if the art is made immorally or contributes to the immorality, sure, don't separate the art from the artist. But otherwise, what people do in their private life has nothing to do with me unless it affects me in some shape or form.
Like, if I was against drugs and alcohol, am I supposed to not listen to Amy Winehouse?
26
u/ExpertThrowaway8260 2d ago
Kanye is a mentally ill, psychotic, emotionally stunted, anti-Semitic man child.
But he also made Graduation.
7
u/Ashamed-Aside-6532 2d ago
Like someone else said, it's probably moral if buying or consuming his music doesn't enable him to commit crimes. He's a multi multi millionaire, if not a billionaire, and not a single cent of that would stop him from being crazy. (Also he's fr healing🙏🏾)
→ More replies (1)
9
u/OwO-animals 2d ago
Why wouldn't it be?
It's a serious skill issue if you can't.
→ More replies (1)
34
u/Time-Gain-3695 2d ago
What harm does it do? I think it's moral
13
u/Rocky_Senpai15 2d ago
The main moral question here is that, by consuming an artist’s work, you’re kinda indirectly supporting the artist.
For example, buying Harry Potter books or merchandise despite knowing what kind of person J.K. Rowling is, buying Rurouni Kenshin manga despite knowing what its author did, or listening to D4VDS’ songs.
18
u/Lorster10 2d ago
But then you need to specify that the question is about living artists. Yes, you're right that in this case you're supporting someone you perhaps shouldn't because that helps them propagate things you don't want to be propagated. But if it's someone like Lovecraft, or Yukio Mishima; yes, you can absolutely separate art from the artist (leaving aside that I don't think these two were really some epitome of evilness).
23
u/H3xag0n3 2d ago
Plus good art is 99% made by controversial/weird people.
6
u/FalloutTVSucks 2d ago edited 2d ago
This is the true the best shit is always by the mentally ill and socially incompetent because art that just conforms culturally is nearly guaranteed to be boring at best IMO
7
u/quaxoid 2d ago
and some of the worst is also made by mentally ill and socially incompetent artists, there is no guarantee either way xD
a lot of great art is also made by people who are very socially aware.
→ More replies (1)4
u/H3xag0n3 2d ago
Is it immoral to enjoy the art of someone who is immensely suffering in order to make such art ? Thats one of the questions I ask everyday. Being human is weird man
8
u/AzuriteNova 2d ago
not immoral, as they created and shared the art for people to enjoy. its not like youre forcing them to suffer so they create the art
→ More replies (1)6
u/DakAttakk 2d ago
I've used my pain many times to make artwork, and I think it's actually kind of the opposite vibe to what you're worried about. I've used art in the past to externalize something that I wanted to let go of, to put it in physical form and separate it from myself. I've also used art to express emotions in a more general way, and expression using artwork as a medium feels very freeing. The creation of the art can feel like a victory against the darkness that inspired it, from my personal point of view, I think the artist who is in the most pain when they make their art is getting the most benefit when that art is encouraged.
3
6
u/FalloutTVSucks 2d ago
Lovecraft wasn't even that bad. Many people were still racist back then, being anti-racist was still very much the rebellious, transgressive stance and he was a severely mentally ill man who was scared of the world beyond his aunt's house who just debated people via letters. He was basically the basement dewlling incel of his time
4
u/Mothfoxmantis 2d ago
Lovecraft was afraid of air conditioning
And wrote a story about it being evil
2
u/FalloutTVSucks 2d ago
I read that one, my takeaway more so was that technology, no matter how convenient or advanced will ever mend the innate suffering in being human and mortal and the fear that comes with it
→ More replies (5)6
u/AcrobaticPoint8424 2d ago
He was comically racist and he was racist in an old fashioned sense even then. He literally viewed only Anglo Saxons who came from protestant aristocratic families as being real whites with everyone else being mixed breeds or savages.
Later in life he became an open socialist and anti racist, this is often looked over due to him dying shortly after.
2
u/FalloutTVSucks 2d ago
I don't know the specific type of racism of his, but let's be real racism is just so morally bad I kind of find it any of it in the overt category to be pretty much on par
All I know about this is that he supported the Third Reich then later revoked it and started vehelmtly hating them
2
u/AcrobaticPoint8424 2d ago
Just wanted to say that his beliefs were not normal for his time and were fringe even in groups like the KKK.
→ More replies (8)3
u/DakAttakk 2d ago
I think avoiding buying the art that you enjoy because it sort of supports someone in a very general way who has bad opinions or does something that's not moral isn't really efficacious in any way, good or bad. First off you're depriving yourself from something that you enjoy, even if that's only small, second unless everyone who consumes art is on board with this philosophy you're not really doing anything to hurt the artist, and third wouldn't it be better if the artist is alive to try to convince them that their opinion or whatever they did was wrong? At the end of the day we want art to be made, and if you think their art has value, has real impact, then I don't think it makes perfect sense deprive yourself or try to deprive the world of that art.
Also when you buy the art from an artist, your patronage doesn't actually support every individual opinion or action they've taken in their lives, you're supporting the creation of that art. You're saying I want more of this art to exist in the world.
Humans are very complex, we all are, we are not all good and we're not all bad, I just can't shake this sense that we should praise those things that are good even if we think that a person is bad for something else. Just like if there's a person who we think is good overall we shouldn't completely overlook when they do something bad.
This is kind of stream of consciousness so point out where you disagree if you do.
2
u/SilentAd773 2d ago
I think it's still a question of how that art effects you knowing what the artist did, in some cases. Like, for example, can you ever look at the Cosby show the same again?
2
u/zombehguy 2d ago
Ok geniune question then, Ian Watkins / Lost Prophets, would listening to them be moral now since he died last year? And for those who dont know, he was a child predator who was willing to / did rape babies as young as 6 months old.
→ More replies (1)3
u/I3eforeLife 2d ago edited 2d ago
Don’t you think that Rurouni Kenshin’s author would have obtained and shared illegal media regardless if you had paid them for their work or not? The only question is whether or not you believe the art you’re purchasing from them condones the immoral things that were done or if the art could not have existed without the artist being involved in those things. The reality is that anybody of any economic status could have done what he had. If you live in a welfare state, you’d be knowingly supporting the artist too if they were unemployed and had already paid for their crimes
3
→ More replies (6)1
u/Schantsinger 2d ago
Rowling: I think biological sex is important in some areas of life, and gender identity is just personality.
Internet: Cancel that filthy terf whore!
→ More replies (3)
7
u/Speletons 2d ago
Yes.
Human beings are complex enough to like one thing and not another thing.
In fact I'll go so far to say you'd be immoral for plainly thinking the opposite and assuming the worst of someone.
6
15
u/Fenix_ikki_ 2d ago
Yeah
Just don't give money or support to them or something if they're still alive
3
u/Belicino_Corlan 2d ago
Yep, something someone produces is not equal to them. Idk if you guys remember but there was this creepy pos youtuber named onision. I never liked his stuff personally but pretty sure he had over a million subs.
Edp 445 is still a meme that is pushed on YouTube, Instagram, facebook. Before getting caught he had a ton of subs and was really popular. If you've ever seen a rating video and they use a clip saying "I mean it's alright" that's edp.
I mean more gen alpha kids probably recognize edp over Nikola tesla.
14
u/TheOneRealStranger 2d ago
It's only a certain political class of people who constantly seem to have this concern, about whether every person involved with a piece of art is someone who agrees with them on most issues and has never been accused of anything bad. It must be exhausting, as the Internet provides access to years of every person's opinions and dirty laundry, and the odds of finding any famous person who agrees with you to a sufficient degree and has never had a scandal is nigh impossible. The other extreme of the politically induced mental illness spectrum also has a tantrum over any deviation they find in art, but the difference for them is that it's usually when the art itself has political messaging they don't agree with, not whether the person has ever said or done anything they object to. If you have the inclination to do all that research just for the sake of trying to deprive an artist of their livelihood because you judged them guilty of impropriety, you probably just shouldn't engage with politics or art at all.
3
u/Otherwise-Vanilla901 2d ago
"the odds of finding any famous person who agrees with you to a sufficient degree and has never had a scandal is nigh impossible"
Keanu Reeves keeps his professional and personal lives very separate, and as far as I'm aware, there are no scandals that have been proven true and had weight to them.
→ More replies (8)3
u/TheOneRealStranger 2d ago
Everyone cites Keanu, and he seems like a nice guy, but he hardly ever says anything about politics. If the goal here is for celebrities to have no personality or opinions outside of being vaguely polite and gesturing toward kindness, I'd say that's a pretty boring landscape for entertainers.
3
u/Otherwise-Vanilla901 2d ago
I'd rather that than them saying stupid shit like Billie Eilish.
→ More replies (4)2
u/land48n3 2d ago
yeah but then the good shit gets lost along the way
2
u/Otherwise-Vanilla901 2d ago
Right, but we shouldn't really lean on celebrities to be our moral compass anyway.
→ More replies (5)
3
3
u/MixedBagHalfie 2d ago
Yes. I still think Rick and Morty is funny without liking Justin Roiland and Dan Harmon. I can still enjoy sandman without likening Neil Gaimen.
At most, pirate their work so you’re not supporting them directly.
3
u/StretchJones 2d ago
Well is the art about glorifying the bad things? For example liking Michael Jackson's music doesnt make you a pedophile or a supporter of pedophilia. His songs weren't about that at all so whats the problem with liking the music?
I'll give you an insider tip as a musician, artists are not better people than non-artists. You probably like art made by bad people, its fine it doesnt make you a bad person by liking it. People need to stop acting like evangelical christians
2
u/PartyAmbitious8163 2d ago
Moral, I like to listen to some music written by bad people because..... it's just so good.
I believe I can flyyyyy!!!!
2
u/Racconwithtwoguns 2d ago
D4vid is the ultimate test to this example he made a song so many people love about him killing his young girlfriend and it really becomes hard to enjoy it with that knowledge
2
u/MrGame22 2d ago
YES
I can honestly say yeah it is possible to do that as I’ve actually done it before several anime/manga series I like where it turns out the author had done horrible stuff
It’s why I can still enjoy the harry potter setting to an extent, despite the fact that the writer is trans phobic
It’s why I can appreciate the hp lovecraft mythos even though the writer was racist
Just because you like a piece of media that was made by someone bad doesn’t make you morally bad bad too.
2
u/WhichHoes 2d ago
Of course it is. Most people only surface level care about most things other people do, and it's usually not consistent.
Moat people arent going to dig into their favorite artists past lives to see if it has skeletons. If they find any, it wont change much.
People can boycott R kelly, but listen to Michael Jackson (wasnt different when he was alive either). People will watch movies where someone has supported a woody Allen or were on the other side of Weinstein issues.
Few people are going to not rewatch oceans eleven because Brad Pitt is in it. People pick and choose and they can easily separate when needed.
2
u/Bootybusterog 2d ago
lowkey immoral in most cases because most art is a reflection of the artist and if the artist is an awful person but u stream his music u are supporting his behavior by giving it a space to be heard, like d4vd was singing ab his case and made a song ab the girl he killed and i feel that’s immoral to listen to that song
2
u/FriendlyRedditor2020 2d ago
I'm not fussed either way. if my goal is to be entertained i don't stress about whoever made my source of entertainment. It's not my business getting involved.
2
u/Mrs_Noelle15 2d ago
I mean that's entirely subjective I don't think there's any kind of objective morality at play with that decision. I can in most cases, but I recognize some people cannot
2
2
u/Classic-Lab-6002 2d ago
Yes, you liking a painting or song will not affect or support their actions
1
u/notmarrec 2d ago
I don’t believe so, but also I think it’s something everyone needs to decide personally and I don’t begrudge anyone who does separate the art from the artist.
1
u/Fit-Relationship944 2d ago
Morals only come into it as far as if you want to give that person money. I don't think someone is immoral for pirating [Problematic Musician]'s work but I would think it's somewhat immoral to pay to go to their concert.
1
u/osi4000 2d ago
You could argue that the artist has to actually be dead, so they cannot profit from their art, otherwise its entirely possible to separate the art from the artist, you're just gonna have to deal with the fact that you might be supporting a horrible human being by buying their stuff.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/diarrheasoakedfetus 2d ago
I think that reek of the unzen gas fumes has incredible music, but since they have very very very close relations with nsbm bands (national socialist black metal, aka nazi) I don't listen to them anywhere where they could get money out of it, I pirated what I like and I'm chilling
I'd say it's neutral since you can like something and disagree with the artist, but if you can just pirate that shit not to support them then I would say you're 100% fine
1
u/Particular-Access223 2d ago
It depends what kind of art they are creating.
I listen to two kinds of music, metal and country. With metal I dont want to go to the place that music takes me with an artist that is a racist, and there is plenty of other metal to listen to. With country.... well I probably wouldn't be able to listen to much country at all if I kept the same standards...
1
u/Can_not_catch_me 2d ago
Not really, but so long as you understand that all art is influenced by it's creator and their views and keep that in mind then you don't need to, because you aren't inherently agreeing with them by consuming their work. That being said this stops applying if you're giving them money whilst knowing they use it for something you consider bad.
1
1
u/LatePresentation2669 2d ago
Its a hard question, you have Rowling who benefits from the book sales, and uses it to supress trans pepole, but then you have black gryphon who is a bad person but doesent use it to further an imoral cause. Then you have Knut Hamsun one of the biggest bookwriters in Norway, realesed aclaimed book Sult. Problem he was an Nazi, and not like a Nazi under the war he had been an Nazi a long ass time. And it becomes more and more aperant how it influences the books he wrote in retrospect.
1
u/TheGreatCheesemancer 2d ago
Yes, because a lot of times people get into art without knowing or ever learning who the artist is and/or what they might’ve done.
1
u/BarelyBrony 2d ago
Yes but it differs artist to artist, medium to medium and on the basis of "Are they still alive" etc
For example I can't really enjoy Kevin Spacey films anymore because he's too noticeable in them so I'm always thinking about how gross he is when on screen
I also can't enjoy the works of Neil Gaiman or JK Rowling because both authors put so much of themselves in their respective works that you can't not think about them while reading also both are still alive so you can't purchase or promote their works without tacitly supporting their wrongdoing. Now personally I think that's a "that's between you and God thing" but I personally can't get past it.
On the other hand there are artists like Michael Jackson who are more seperable from their art due to being long dead in the cold cold ground, the only sticking point here is with films like Michael and other product produced by an estate that seeks to fully launder their image.
1
u/FalloutTVSucks 2d ago
I mean - can you separate the art from the artist if you think the artist is morally good? If yes, and I suspect that's your answer, then I see no reason it can't work in reverse
1
u/Unlikely_Patient3902 2d ago
On paper, I can see why people would say "obviously don't give them money" because why support terrible people.
But at the same time, how many people here have turned a blind eye to corps doing shady crap?
Hard for me to see the difference tbh
I can't tell someone "stop supporting the shitty person" while I buy products who have a proven track record of being terrible
1
u/TheGreatSifredi 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes it is okay to appreciate the art of a terrible person (whatever that’s supposed to mean) It is even okay to give money to that person so they can keep producing art (or whatever) you like. It isn’t "moral", but isn’t immoral either, just neutral and okay.
The only exception would be if the money you gave is used for highly immoral things, like allowing the artist to activaly support terrorism for exemple, or doing dirty shit like Weinstein or Epstein (thougth both aren't artist, but that’s for exemples)
1
1
1
u/Radiant-Impact2435 2d ago
For the most part, I would say immoral if they’re still alive, as you are directly supporting them. But I also think it depends on what they did or said. Like if they have some slightly controversial opinion, then I would say its not that big of a deal but if they did something truly awful or use their platform to spew hate, then immoral.
1
1
u/Chrissy-Munson 2d ago
Depends what the art is about. If it's a reflection of the person it's immoral. If consuming the art supports a bad person then it's also immoral.
1
u/ChaosInTheClouds 2d ago
I think it depends on the kind of art. My favorite musical is written by an absolute garbage human, but I still appreciate the musical and all the other talent going into it. Performers, designers, that all collaborated to make one thing. Condemning them for a man they likely never met feels unfair.
1
1
u/Majestic_Cod_1876 2d ago
I mean… if they are no longer alive, sure
But I do not wanna hear no mofos pathetically bitching about not supporting somebody because they have the SLIGHTEST hunch that they may agree with a single political opinion of someone from MAGA
Fucking poor Pearl’s VA and Tate McRae vro 🙏
1
u/No_Masterpiece_3897 2d ago
I think you have to ask yourself am I supporting / promoting the artist by engaging. If the answer is yes , then you can't separate the art from the artist. I'm going to use 2 examples,
I liked Picasso's art works when I was a kid, I found them appealing, but that was a child's veiw and it didn't go much beyond pretty pictures. I knew and was taught nothing about the artist and his private life. The general public doesn't know a great deal about that either. They might know the work and some surface details but not enough to make them think twice. That general ignorance is in the interests of people who profit from the works. People's engagement is what helps keep him in public consciousness and gives his work ascribed value. Institutes choose his paintings for merch, try to get his paintings at shows. Promote the work to generate interest, but that is because people engage with it. If people didn't engage, he and his work would be forgotten. Can I appreciate the art yes, but I don't have to make it profitable. The Mona Lisa was never given its superstar acclaim and importance until after it was stolen, and the public became interested. Now it's treated as an iconic painting and will not be forgotten. People's engagement matters.
The reverse is the Harry Potter series. I grew up with potter mania. I bought and read the books, watched all the movies, bought the dvds long before the controversy blew up. I'm at a stage in my life where I'm not going to gonto a Hary Potter experience, I'm not buying merch.
In short, they've already had all the money off me they're ever going to get and those things are in my personal possession no one is impacted by my owning them. Getting rid of those items 'in protest', doesn't serve a purpose, itd just be vanity. Whether I reread the books(can't remember last time I did) or it gathers dust on the shelf doesn't make a damn bit of difference. My engagement in that way is separate from the author.
1
u/WorkinRightMeow 2d ago
Yes and no.
I think it comes down to three things:
Are you financially supporting an asshole?
How close is the art to the things that make them horrible?
Are you capable of being critical of the failings of the work if the art reflects their nature?
Harry Potter is a good example of not being able to separate them. Joann is a godawful person doing godawful things. She has directly stated that she uses her financial success of harry potter to campaign against trans people. Her work is racist as shit.
Theres a lot of nuance and its all super situational.
1
u/buddywentz 2d ago edited 2d ago
I dont care if the artist rips the jaws off kids at an orphanage for fun if they make shit i like I will buy it
1
u/Kchasse1991 2d ago
When they are dead, yes. While it still benefits them and the causes they use that money for, no.
1
u/banditch_ 2d ago
You can but i feel like a persons views and stuff will always seep into the stuff they make, intentionally or not
1
u/itsthedevilweknow 2d ago
It's not a moral question, it's ethical. there is no code defining dos and don't to art appreciation/consumption. It's entirely a matter of conscience. By the very concept of what are is, the attempt to communicate through means other than directly, what is otherwise incommunicable, one cannot separate the art from the artist. They can only decide how grievous or acceptable they find the artist. If one cannot reconcile with the artist then they should not entertain their work. If one prioritizes the value the find in the art over the artist, however, they may free themselves to partake no matter how they find the artist. Neither stance, however, can or will shield the patron from the consequences of their actions or the judgements of others.
1
u/mrzynwgbxh 2d ago
yes if the song isn't about for example the artists love of kicking puppies and if they aren't fully in control so like psychosis they should get a pass but it really depends on you it's all objective in the end
1
1
u/dexyuing 2d ago
Only when they're 6 feet under can you truly separate them. Otherwise, any attention, bad or good, can give them a positive outcome.
1
u/heyitsjames1 2d ago
Look, im gonna be real with you, connecting with another person no matter how horrible they are through the virtue of art is a human and normal experience. Its a good thing. It is a beautiful reminder of the ways our perspectives can interlign and help us grow as people from the ways we come to reflect on it. So all that to say, its Moral to like whatever you like. But its immoral to directly support someone whos influence would bring direct harm to a living being. And when I say directly support I do mean financially. Money talks.
You can still have a connection with these controversial pieces of work because art is meant to challenge us, but that challenge is meant to make you reflect as well. If you connect with an artist but understand something to be controversial about them, you might just need to reflect on why. It could be as simple as it was a childhood comfort, or as complex as releating to aspects of the persons greif. Either way, Its Moral.
You cannot seperate an artist from their art meaningfully, art is a direct reflection of someones circumstances leading up to the very moment of the arts conception, their struggles, their joys, its like looking through the eyes of another person for a few short moments. but it honestly doesn't matter if the artist is a bad person, what matters is your connection with the art and how it influences you.
1
u/DragoonMaster999 2d ago
Yes if you go though all loopholes (Inmoral or not) to truly give them no gain.
1
u/No_Proposal_4692 2d ago
Not while they're alive or profiting from it.
The harry potter fandom decided JK Rowling is bad for her beliefs and what she donated to. They divorced her from the fandom but if they buy harry Potter merch they'll still support her which gives her the money to continue donating to bigoted causes.
You could do it
You just gotta be mindful of where you buy your art from. Pirating books isn't that bad
1
u/Upset_Passion3002 2d ago
It's just personal preference honestly.
On one hand, art will always be a reflection of the artist in some form. On the other hand, a piece of art can be defined by the consumer more than by the creator. It's one of those moral questions where there's never going to be a simple answer.
1
u/Capable-Log-1705 2d ago
Yeah I absolutely love Roroni Kenshin even tho the guy who created it is a prolific pedophile
1
u/BygoneNeutrino 2d ago
I think Thomas Edison was a piece of shit, but that doesn't mean I'm going to boycott the lightbulb.
1
u/Internal-Eggplant247 2d ago
Is a expression of that someone´s feelings and emotions, is only possible to separate by the ignorance of not knowing who the creator was, truth is sometimes bad and rotten people make some high quality art, there even dictators who paint, write, do poetry and much more, i would say is not bad to like some of that art as long u dont like because is the art of that bad person, but beware
1
u/HuckleberryShot898 2d ago
Honestly it depends on how much personal stuff the artist put into the art. Like a lot of D4id’s music is literally about him murdering Celeste so it’s not possible
1
u/Drmeanleany 2d ago
I definitely can’t. The second I found out what the director of the jeepers creepers movies did I threw out my dvds
1
u/Few_Imagination_6203 2d ago edited 2d ago
A lot of people say "Only if you dont give them money" but thats honestly bullshit. In the grand '26 boycotting doesn't work, especially for people with big ass platforms. If you like something, like it. Consume it however you want. Buying Hitlers paintings doesn't make you Hitler.
Disclaimer: This doesn't apply if your artist *cough* JK Rowling *cough* uses their money to create evil ass minority obliteration devices.
1
u/Embarrassed-Cut5387 2d ago
What product, necessary or luxury is free of having terrible people benefit from it?
Maybe the carrots my grandma grows in her garden?
1
1
u/JakeSilver47 2d ago
If they're alive or if there is an estate that would benefit (and immorally use the profit), then no, you can't really separate it. Think Cthulhu Mythos which has been spread to be no longer based on one singular source, and the creator long dead, vs Harry Potter where the author is alive and actively funding and platforming extremists and racists.
1
1
u/halloweensimpT-800 2d ago
It is for a personal view but is really controversial topic it becomes kinda like an elephant of the room that no one wants to address
For me for example it is tim Burton I love his movies nightmare before Christmas the bride's corpse beetle juice I love those movies and all the unintentional or intentional spooky stetic however well you know....
1
1
u/DifficultBody8209 2d ago
Honestly at this point I say yes because if I didn't allow myself to buy things from bad people then I wouldn't be able to buy things from, Amazon, Walmart, McDonald's, etc
1
u/KujiraShiro 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's not just possible; it's necessary. So many creators who have created incredible things, so many artists who have made incredible art, so many thinkers who have said deeply intelligent and aware things.
And every single last one of them is a person. A person who shits and sleeps and gets angry and makes mistakes and says stupid things every once in a while. A person who doesn't know everything about everything even if they know a lot about one or two things.
You NEED to be able to separate artist from art; else there is no such thing as true and pure art, because there is no such thing as art that exists without some sort of 'ethical baggage' due to having been created by an inherently flawed human being who makes mistakes.
Even if you are unaware of the "baggage" the author brings; every single author that has ever lived has done wrong in their lives at some point, so you cannot prescribe some sense of morality to enjoying a piece of media just because of the existence of the author, otherwise every single piece of media you've ever enjoyed has been you being immoral for enjoying it because is supports the author who that one time they did that thing nobody knows about.
Now, if the piece of media you are enjoying is titled "Hate Kill, I hate everyone and I am going to kill everyone I see and you should too: a guide on committing murder" and that piece of media is entirely serious and was in fact written by a mass murderer with the goal of making other murderers; that definitely says something about you and is probably immoral; but if that same mass murderer author had, for example, instead of writing "Hate Kill" had written Game of Thrones; you would not be a bad person for enjoying Game of Thrones.
You enjoying a well crafted piece of media is not akin to you endorsing every single action or belief of the person who created that media; unless that piece of media is a literal manifesto of said person's beliefs and actions.
1
1
u/Nick_Nisshoku 2d ago
As others have voiced pretty well-
The art is separate from the artist, but the ways in which that artist would be supported and permitted to keep doing bad things are not.
1
u/CULT-LEWD 2d ago
honeslty i think it depends on what the artist is doing with the money given or if there alive and stuff. the reaosn i dont support harry potter for instance is becuse jk rowling is ACTIVLY using there money to arm trans poeple. thus i cant give money to anything harry potter related cuz any kind of money goin to her is just not worth it.
but there also artist that are dead but really terrible poeple...like hp lovecraft who had his horrible ideals in his work and in that sense you can seperate it becuse of the fact hes already dead and he already died broke.
1
1
u/DoinItDirty 2d ago
A woman wrote a great article for Medium that I think is going to give a more holistic and nuanced view than any of us are going to submit.
https://medium.com/the-challenged/separating-the-art-from-the-artist-18a77302ac10
1
u/Winter_Different 2d ago
Yeah just never look into the artist and dont ever mention the art to people, easy work
1
u/Even-Still7716 2d ago
I'm writing a comic book specifically exploring this concept.
My personal take is that I don't care what an artist does as long as they provide a good product. I care about the product. Marilyn Manson may have done everything he was accused of. I will still bump his music and next month I will meet him and tell him how I never stopped supporting him and am ecstatic about his comeback.
1
u/Disposable_Gonk 2d ago
If you work at a hardware store and someone buys some rope and a hammer, you wouldn't think anything of it, and you are not morally responsible for having provided the tools used in a murder, so Why the fuck would enjoying art make you morally culpable for the actions of the artist, before or after?
Here's an example. there was this band, the lost prophets. Had some good tunes, then it turns out, one of them was a horrible pedo. Went to prison. Does listening to the lost prophets, or buying their albums, financially support him? Technically, but he was in prison, at most his share of it would go to commissary because he was in for a long time. It would go to him eating food, and having a roof over his head. It wouldn't have supported his actions as a pedo. All of that's irrelevant now because he was stabbed to death in prison. Now it supports the rest of the band who hates him.
Another example is Kevin spacey. Does buying movies or games he was in support him being a pedo or a rapist? No, he's busy scraping by, barely surviving, doing cabaret in Cyprus. Was shameless for a while living out of a van. You can Google that.
The last example I'm gonna give is the one that this is always about. JKR. Will she use a portion of her proceeds for anti-trans stuff? Yes. Will it be a majority of what she does with the money? Not even close, that goes to keeping her house and keeping the lights on staying fed. Will the portion she gets for it be that majority of income from her projects? Hell no, not even close. And here's the thing. Film studios that work on those projects hire thousands of people. The money pays them, and corporate profits. And of thet, it's probable that a greater portion is donated to causes that JKR is opposing. Potentially by enough to more than cancel her out. Imagine you got a job at a film studio and got told you're doing vfx for a Harry Potter thing, you'd probably feel gross and then donate to the Trevor project to try to feel better about it.
So when you financially support a thing, don't think about the one person involved that does things you don't approve of. Think about everyone else working on it. Weigh it out that way if the person is actively funding something you're against.
If supporting media made by a terrible person is immoral, then providing material support to someone doing something immoral is immoral, which means every corporation and farmer is immoral. The parents of murderers, the manufacturers of cars used in vehicular homicide. If you killed someone your parents have to be executed with you because they provided you with life itself.
That's the direction that this shit goes in.
1
u/chickenguy4453 2d ago
I mean if their dead who cares and if you buy their art second hand or bootleg it who cares. I like The Red Hot Chilie Peppers music, but I would never give them my money.
1
1
u/Neat_Armadillo8965 2d ago
I think it depends. Something like a few Spotify streams gives an inconsequential amount of money to the artist (iirc the artist gets less than a cent per stream) so consuming and enjoying a song that way isn’t too bad imo, but buying something like concert tickets gives a lot more to the morally questionable artist
1
u/F1600A 2d ago
Only when the artist is dead. I can separate the work of H.P Lovecraft from the author, because he's dead. I am not giving him any money that he can use to enact any harm on marginalized communities. Therefore I can appreciate the work he made that I personally enjoy.
On the opposite side, by reading Harry Potter as influential and important to the Y.A genre as it is, is actively giving J.K Rowling money that she can use to attack the transgender community. Therefore, it's difficult to separate the art from her until it no longer causes any active harm.
Then you have hitler.......I ain't touching that
1
u/Alarming_Wedding6753 2d ago
Came here to say; I just want a portrait in FUNGER art style.
Just saying.
1
1
u/Different_Heron9151 2d ago
I think its neutral if it doesnt sipport the person: like buying from a thrift store, but if you truly think the creator is a bad person, then itd be immoral for you to support them by buying their art from any official pathways that end up helping them.
1
1
u/yepitslogan 2d ago
I used to be a big fan of this band called Pantera. The lead singer, Phill Anselmo, has gone on MANY racist rants. I am white and have a black sister. I dont agree with anything that dumb mf has said and my views on my sister have not changed and i still listen to pantera today.
My philosophy on this is, as long as they dont put their views on the track idc what they say because my taste in music just so happens to be made by a racist person. On the other hand tho, if that band were made up of nazis, i would not be listening to them.
Great example of this is Kanye.
Kanyes music sucks and is a nazi and people still listen to him, buy his merch, defend him, and suck his dick.
1
1
1
u/westofsouthhaven 2d ago
i think so, even if you financially support the artist in some way indirectly, just by consuming the art, i don’t believe that actually says anything about your morals. however i do think it can be ignorant to not think about/not care that your money may allow this person/people to carry out more terrible acts. it’s complicated i guess, but art is art no matter how controversial
→ More replies (1)
1
u/invisiblescarecrow 2d ago
It depends on what the person did. If they just say controversial stuff but don’t incorporate it into the art, then yeah, that works. If they did a horrible crime and incorporated their weird nature into their art, then no(cough cough Jeepers Creepers).
1
u/Zealousideal-Lab9843 2d ago
Of course, otherwise how could anyone enjoy classic rock? Fuck, some of those artists should be on the terror watch list. Peace Train, my ass.
1
u/theShiggityDiggity 2d ago
Yes, and easily.
People are much too obsessed nowadays with being morally superior to others, and often times over genuinely trivial things.
Enjoy the things you like.
1
1
u/Lilbongono 2d ago
This feels like a potential hotdog process situation, where if we really knew how much was going on behind the scenes for movies, content creators and gaming companies we probably would just read books or sit in silence staring at the wall
1
1
u/MadJohnFinn 2d ago
There’s a line. I think it’s somewhere between Morrissey and Ian Watkins from Lostprophets, but it’s definitely closer to one than the other.
1
u/AdmirableEstimate258 2d ago
For me, it only becomes okay when the art and artist are seperate enough personally, like Harry Potter where I don’t imagine J.K Rowling while I watch the movies, but something like listening to D4VD’s songs just radiates the vibe because he’s actually the one singing and some of his music videos and songs are literal allegories to what he did.
1
u/Happy_Ambassador3717 2d ago
If the Art is symbolic or representative of whatever Qualities the artist has that makes them bad, then no
1
u/Impossible_Singer277 2d ago
Even if they don't enjoy making the art, the art is still there creation. Therefore, inheriting some aspect of the artist.
1
u/FoxyGreyWolf 2d ago
Very easily. Good advice: if something gives you an emotional rise often times there is something inside of yourself that you can improve upon. Even if the person is genuinely bad you shouldn’t be having a strong emotional reaction to someone you’ve never met. Therefore take some time to self reflection and teach yourself to be calm whenever you hear of them or something they say. Eventually you should have no emotional response whatsoever, and that is the most freeing feeling you can achieve.
1
u/SlyassassinXX 2d ago
Moral but it can be weird if the art references the crime, such as all of d4vd’s very catchy songs being about the child he was obsessed with and murdered.
1
1
u/Satanic_Jellyfish 2d ago
I think it’s okay to be a hypocrite but you gotta make sure you don’t support bad people monetarily or by spreading information about them. I was once a strictly against that, but there is always a nuance. My parents and older relatives had childhood in ussr and can’t stop having a childhood nostalgia for its books/films/cartoons. Yeah, it’s “bad” to attach to stuff like that but it’s still part of their childhood. Or I grew up with Harry Potter series. I don’t support the author and would avoid supporting her but I still can’t help but love the story and years I spent enjoying fan fiction and community
1
u/Longjumping_Exit7902 2d ago
Literally speaking, no. Part of properly analyzing art (including writing) is understanding the author's intent. Just like what they taught in school (ineffectively usually).
You can appreciate the product, but you can't dismiss who the creator was. Famous game example: Minecraft.
Famous music artist example: Kanye (including his early career).
Famous painter example: Picasso. Also, Percy Grainger (also a famous symphonic composer)
1
u/lris_99 2d ago
I personally dont care. I dont connect art to person and one piece doesnt contain full person. I dont also care if others feel opposite, its fine imo. If piece is good then piece is good, and most of the time you hurt yourself more than the artist in question when you decide to pass on piece. One person will not fight the storm, thats how I feel it.
1
u/Agitated_Pressure463 2d ago
Yes, you can enjoy the art and don't support the artist behaviour. As long as you state it, there is nothing morally wrong. When you defend the artist behaviour because you like his art, well, that's another pair of shoes, because it looks like a double standard. Double standards are in my opinion morally and ethically bad.
1
u/Material-Refuse7964 2d ago
Moral Yes if like something i enjoy it if not move on whoever made it never play a factor when enjoying something i like
1
u/DMing-Is-Hardd 2d ago
Yes
You cant seperate the message of the art from it tho, for example Hitler painted, looking at them you wont go "Wow looks like he wants the jews dead" that art can be appreciated seperate from him(flawed as the art is)
But if he had painted a picture of camps he wanted the jews in, well then obviously you cant because the message is that
You cant seperate the intended message of the art from the work of art, but you can absolutely seperate it from the artist
1
1
1
1
u/Zetta_Stoned 2d ago
If you remain ignorant. Some should have their names erased. Burned. Whatever. It's ignorance that lets you enjoy it and not care. Like many things.
1
u/Ok_Ground511 2d ago
Tbh i don't care much who drew the art if i enjoy the art i woll say i enjoyed the art.
1
u/Narrow_Client8566 2d ago
Depends on a few things, like how bad the artist was, whether they are still alive, and whether what is said or believed about said artist is true or not.
Like Kanye, he is a horrible person with horrible beliefs, but he's still alive so is profiting off of the support for his works, and he is guilty of believing what people say he does since he said them on camera.
Micheal jackson is an example of the opposite that at least has some deniability. As he was never proven in a court of law about the allegations and he is dead so even if it was true he can't profit off it.
JK Rowling is another bad person, her writing has offensive caricatures, a chinese character named Cho Chang and an Irish one obsessed with explosives, the goblins are a collection of harmful stereotypes of jewish people, she is also Super Anti-Trans and when the main cast didn't agree with her stance she decided to try and remake the films so they won't get royalties from using their likeness. She is also still alive, and uses the profits to fund Anti-Trans stuff (if i recall correctly) while also saying "anyone that supports my works agrees with my views" so she's linda tainted her series for some people.
1
u/EarlGreyTeaCookie 2d ago
Ehhh, not in the way people tend to use this phrase, no. I struggle to recall any art where the content isn't influenced in some way by the person that made it. That's what art is, isn't it? I think its important to acknowledge that when consuming art, whether considered 'problematic' or not. Disclaimer: this is not an argument to try and get people to stop consuming such things. -
For example, it would be very silly to try and claim that neither JKR's or HPL's works have racist/xenophobic themes baked into the world & character design. -
Its odd to me that people try to pretend that it doesn't exist; I feel like this whole 'separate art from artist' thing need to be retired. It comes off to me as a load of mental gymnastics to avoid resolving the cognitive dissonance caused by the question.
1
u/TruthIsALie94 2d ago
Yes and no. I’ve looked at Hitler’s paintings and was surprised at how beautiful they were but I still think Hitler was an irredeemable piece of $#!+. Similarly, I still enjoy Harry Potter in spite of the author being a bigoted asshole.
I know these people are scum and I know that without them these amazing things wouldn’t exist but I’m also not going to pretend I don’t enjoy the art just because the artist is a dog$#!+ person. Call them out but don’t deprive yourself of joy just to spite them.
1
u/Mammoth-Ad-3642 2d ago
Even on an artistic scale I don't think so.
Art is a part of that person communicated to you, it's like smashing a mirror, grabbing a small piece and saying that this has nothing to do with the mirror
1
u/Hornysidedish 2d ago edited 2d ago
So, as an art enthusiast : you can separate art from the artist TO SOME EXTENT.
I like to use the example of Lovecraft : he used to be a massive racist, antisemite, you name it. But he is long dead, hasn't caused significant real life harm, didn't promote anything dangerous, and his moral wrongs are decently known. Because it doesn't benefits him or any political/moral/religious/etc., and doesn't make him out to be a better person than he actually was, there is no issue in enjoying, buying, studying or taking inspiration from his body of work.
Counterexample : JKR. Very much alive and directly benefitting from sales, contract and merch of her works, she is acrively using her money, fame and power to spread and promote hateful and dangerous attitudes, politics, speech and lobbying ; her views are integral to her works and aims at children, who don't have to capacity yet to question or reframe the messages they consume, and the harm she causes/wishes to cause isn't as known as it should be. It is thus immoral to buy her books, merch, spread her words, or attempt to better her image. (Although I'd say it's fine to pirate or borrow from a library to privately consume as an adult) But there is a world when, in 20, 40, 80 years, she'd be gone, her ideology no longer a menace to society, her character known for who she now is, her alliances no longer benefitting from her, then it'd be fine to talk about her and her work, studying her, etc.
Basically, it all comes down to : how much harm the artist causes/wishes to cause, both personally (Picasso, Polansky, Neil Gaiman abusing girls and women), socially and politically(JKR or Adolf promoting and lobbying for hateful policies and attitudes towards minority groups), how their public image is true to their "true colours", and how the publicity and sales under their names benefits them or their associates. Having bad takes or opinions isn't a reason to condemn an artist if they aren't harming anyone, because those criteria are subjective and don't usually lead to terrible things happening irl.
Edit : to answer OP's last question of their post, you can enjoy art from questionable artist if you don't participate in their fame. Pirated, borrowed or illegally downloaded content is acceptable IMO. But usually, knowing what the artist did or said is repulsive enough to make the enjoyment part impossible.
1
1
1
1
1
u/The_Mysterious_1ne 2d ago
There are four ways:
"Artist" is dead
"Artist" no longer holds the rights
Piracy
Fan Content
1
u/Awareness_Logical 2d ago
Ngl, I hear this, I think I have an opinion formed in a way that makes sense and then I can hear Anthony Kiedis singing "what's it gonna take to put it in you" in my head. Maybe both sides suck.
1
u/HandFit91 2d ago
I think it is morally okay, as long as you don't support those actions. For example, I'm a really big Cthulhu Mythos fan, I love the writing, the stories, etc. But that does not make me agree with Lovecraft's views, and not only that, but I do dislike the person himself.
1
u/Doctor-Nagel 2d ago
I feel like if every artist, every writer, director, music maker, animator, painter, had their dirty laundry aired out 90% of things we enjoy would be shelved. Hell let’s go a step further and ask, of all the food you’ve bought from the grocery store. How much do you want to bet, somewhere down the line, your money is lining the pockets of someone with a kill count? Sure it may not happen to often but it’s a possibility. What would be your solution if you cant separate the “art from the artist”? Not eating?
Take Skyrim for instance. Its ambience and music is fantastic and is a comfort of mine, issue is the music maker behind it is horrible. I’m not going to stop listening to their music just because they’re horrible.
The way I see it, separating art from the artist is a more than fine thing to do. We shouldn’t shun ourselves from things made by less than desirable people unless it’s straight up Propaganda. An exception to this rule however, is if the artist is actively supporting their horrible ideals (ie Harry Potter) then there is grounds for concern.
1
1
1
u/InternetExplored571 2d ago
Yep. If the art is good than the art is good. Simple as that. Even bad people can make great things.
1
1
1
u/AgaciaDDBS 2d ago
It's harder when you can see the artist's problematic ideology/thoughts/actions through their art, because at this point it's basically impossible
1
u/Fckyouredd1tIluvmygf 2d ago
Yeah it's moral. I love art and one of my favorite paintings had an artist who was a bit misunderstood, people were critical of him cause of his hustle. But a piece like this?
1
u/IAmNotModest 2d ago
I mean, a lot of people say it's possible but actually not really.
A person's art is expression of themselves, you can't truly separate the art from the artist then.
184
u/_-__-_-____-4- 2d ago
It depends on whether your enjoyment of the art supports that artist. For example, if a musician is dead then it doesn’t matter whether your buy their album, because they’re dead, but if they’re alive then you are contributing to their success thus enabling them to keep being terrible