The character assassination against John Lennon has been ongoing since he was alive, other artists at the time don't get the same dressing down for the same thing. Lennon only get's shit because he was open about it and has scores of people who irrationally hate him. That to me makes him a better person, where as he could have kept it hidden instead he chose honesty and rehabilitation.
I don't think "separating the art from the artist" is really an accurate description of what's going on most of the time when you enjoy at art by people who did bad shit. Like I guess in the case of Michael Jackson where the art is so culturally ubiquitous and the thing you might want to separate it from is kind of hard to digest anyway, then sure that's a good description of what's going on. But a lot of the time it's more complicated than that.
For one thing you have artists who talk openly about bad shit they've done and that's a core part of the art. Charles Bukowski painstakingly chronicles lot of fucked up shit he's done that would certainly make you think less of someone if it wasn't part of their image. But part of the reason you go to his work in the first place is to hear shit like that. It doesn't change your perception of him. It's not like he tricked you and now you can't look at his work the same way. It IS his work. And then there are plenty of examples of people seeking out art simply because the creator is infamous. I guarantee you no one would be listening to Charles Manson's music if he wasn't Charles Manson. But no one has ever had any ethical debate about enjoying his work. Why is that?
I think what this demonstrates is that this is not an ethical issue. If something an artist does makes you not want to enjoy their work, it's more because what they did changed your view of them than it is because the thing they did was bad. If consuming the art requires supporting the person monetarily, then that is a separate issue. But where is your moral obligation to... not listen to some music? It's just not an ethical question. Louis CK made a career on jokes about whipping out his dick, but then it turns out he was actually doing it. Those jokes simply are not funny anymore with this added context. It has nothing to do with how bad a person is, and it has nothing to do with the initial quality of the work. It's just that work cannot be viewed the same way any more and has lost its value. And it can be something as simple as part of the appeal of the art being that you are meant to like and relate to the creator, and the thing they did is just so bad that you can't do that any more. But there's plenty of art that doesn't require you to do that, and I think it's a lot easier for people to overlook bad things the artist did in those cases.
where is your moral obligation to… not listen to some music? It’s just not an ethical question.
that's really the crux of it.
Bobby Fisher had brilliant chess games that chess players consider as art, and most chess players know that Fisher turned into a vitriolic antisemite in his later years, but that seems to be separate from his chess in a way that say, Hitler's paintings would not be. Maybe it was because he was the "mad genius" that everyone had to love in the 60s and 70s because he stood up to the Russian chess machine and won. Americans considered his petty antics "gamesmanship" because he won, while Boris Spassky was nothing but a pure gentleman through it all. I think his celebrity and meteoric rise to the championship, and his sudden, puzzling departure from chess left his chess too iconic to consider the unraveling mind behind it.
https://local.theonion.com/man-always-gets-little-rush-out-of-telling-people-john-1819578998
No, because I guess the backwards thinking and delusions people find themselves in are a product of environment and the times they live in.
Wagner was an awful human being, anti semite, regularly abused and used people, but has written some of the most memorable music in the classical canon.
However, from my own experience, I think that most of the successful artists are assholes anyway and that if you met a lot of these people, you'd have that conclusion as well.
There's something about always following your passion and what you like that makes you a self-absorbed asshole. There's something about not working a "real" job, I would always pick musician over what I actually do. Or the entitlement and privilege that comes from pursuing an art your entire life.
For example, Mozart had the foremost saught music educator as a father and was regularly in aristocratic courts, he probably wasn't that cool of a dude irl.
I don't think it's a question that has an easy answer. A good example would be something like drill rap coming out of Chicago, which has given economic opportunity to heavily apathetic youth who come from crippling economic anxiety, from wanton violence, and gain clout via the pile of dead bodies that this city has produced for decades. Along the way, the music has appeal to a good amount of people. And all this within a capitalist structure that is the root cause of all that ailed these kids to begin with, but which also presents them with a faustian bargain, so that they might get out and give their families a piece of the cursed pie.
Yeah drill rappers are almost always already involved in gang activity well before they start rapping. If they’re gonna be caught in that cycle of violence anyway they might as well try and make something of it so they can hopefully escape it eventually
oh yeah? try and separate art from the artist now https://www.reddit.com/r/beatlescirclejerk/comments/k1czj5/its_okay_to_leave_your_dog_in_a_hot_car_the/
John Lennon’s not making any money at this point. The music itself isn’t saying domestic violence is okay, as far as I know. Like, I guess I can separate the music from John Lennon and still like a Beatles song and say John Lennon was a piece of garbage too.
Wagner isn’t making money off his music dramas. But his music dramas are either overtly anti-Semitic or German supremacist. It’s harder for me to separate Wagner the bigot from his music.
Morton Feldman likely molested his students and stole some of their material. The music itself is wonderful and he’s not making any money off it. But supporting performances of his music means supporting one of the more grotesque examples of patriarchy in New Music, so I’m not sure I can separate Morton Feldman from his music. Why not do a cool piece by anyone else?
Sorry I don’t have good examples outside music. But does that logic make sense?
If it's good art it should endure through the ages, so by definition it needs to be able to shed its ties to its maker (notorious example Shakespeare - a dyed in the wool monarchist yet almost no one save for Shakespearean scholars takes this into consideration when enjoying the verses). Besides, not employing this separation quickly opens up the slippery slope of where to stop? Do you throw out the art if the artist once yelled at a cashier? Besides art is supposed to be the expression of all the best character traits, all the most profound insights, all the purest impulses of the person making it, the distilled bit of goodness lurking in even the vilest of people, so why throw away possibly the only redeeming act of someone's existence? Throw away the artist is what I'm saying but don't throw away the art. Strip it of its reactionary ideology, if any is present but salvage the beauty. Because if there's one thing always in short supply in this wretched human existence it's beauty.
Yes I do unfortunately. I'm aware of people who will boycott films for example because of an abuser work, and I agree with that idea, but as my fav film boy Edgar Wright said when discussing Kevin Spacey- there's literally thousands of people employed who helped create this work. So unfortunately I do support artists if their shits good.
I don't support Amazon at all though hahha. I don't know why I take that distinction, but I will.
