Should We Separate the Art from the Artist? (thetyee.ca)

submitted 2 days ago by maam@feddit.uk to c/canada@lemmy.ca

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] orbitz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

Okay they use Michael Jackson, I know his history but even McAuley Culkin didn't point him out, like come on at this point you'd think he would have by now if was true. And you also would assume Jackson would have tried something if that was his deal. Maybe I'm sympathetic to Jackson, I do hope none of it's true of course. But Culkin stayed there and not one bit from him. (Yes I know how that can work don't try and learn me thank you, I try and take all things as needed as experienced). Just for some reason (okay after watching him game on a YouTube with semi popular at best rating) thought Culkin was more honest with things. Plus we always watch home alone so that does skew my per perception but I still think modern day seems like an honest one. As much as my perception sucks of people and I get taken in by scams, learned and all from previous.

For the most part me not wanting it to be true is cause how Jackson's family was, they wanted to be big stars I think and they really put it on Michael. Or maybe I'm a slave of the 80s. Either or I like to think better of Michael but any real evidence will make me change my mind. But not any so far but perhaps missed something.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

A: No

You can enjoy the art, and remember that the artist is a piece of shit, and that will affect the enjoyment of the art in various degrees, and that informs later decisions on supporting/platforming that art and/or artist - all on a case by case and very personal/individual basis. I don't even see how there's a debate to be had here.

[-] Soup@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

People don’t want to deal with the discomfort of facing that they supported, even by accident, a piece of crap and it only gets worse each day that put it off. And it’s not an excuse, I think they’re weak for it.

I’ve done it before, and I will not make excuses for it. I made a priority and sometimes I’m ashamed of that choice. For music and other art…there’s just so much good shit out there that I really don’t care if I can’t listen to a certain band/artist anymore.

[-] Gerudo@lemmy.zip 17 points 2 days ago

I can separate artist from the art and appreciate what they create. That doesn't mean I will give my money to those same people if they go against my morals.

[-] Cardinalis@sh.itjust.works 25 points 2 days ago

Gopnik talks about moral and artistic values while completely ignoring the moral implications of financially supporting a living artist and their problematic behaviour.

[-] Kichae@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 days ago

I mean, there's a real difference between separating the art from the artist and separating the commodity from the producer. One is about enjoying or appreciating a work, while the other is about buying or funding it.

Capitalism looks to forcefully equate the two, and that's really a more important discussion, but it's not the same thing.

[-] Cardinalis@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 days ago

You’re entirely correct that there are two (well four) different concepts in play.

But I feel addressing the first without addressing the second is dangerous in our current social context.

Too many of us are naturally inclined to ignore the political/moral implications of our consumption.

That said, I understand that truly ethical consumption is nearly impossible within the existing system and that people did not choose to be trapped in this system.

[-] HopeOfTheGunblade@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 days ago

Sure, no ethical consumption under capitalism.

Within the set outside of the pure ideal, there are still gradations of more and less ethical. Where entertainment is concerned, it is hard to accept people shrugging because capitalism, when there is more media being produced on this planet than any human being is ever going to have the time or ability to run out of.

We do not get to decide whether we are going to enrich the top ten thousand or so people at all ever because we do have to exist in this world, but I think there is something to be gained in exercising your ability to make ethical choices where it does not mean the difference between eating or heating or meds, or not.

[-] Cardinalis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Yes, we are in total agreement. I was just trying to pre-empt some counter-arguments.

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago

Whether they agree or not, every Lemmy user needs to read and consider this.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

If the artist did something heinous, I would say take the art and then forget the artist's name. Make it common use, and no need to attribute the name of the artist to the art. Give it a pseudonym if need be, assign a random name to the piece, and let the actual artist's name fade away.

[-] 007ace@lemmy.ca 2 points 22 hours ago

Oooh, that's huge. I would feel way better if the artist was no longer receiving royalties or payment, and the state or the marginalized group got the funds instead.