Is It Right to Separate Art from Artist?

[Jinsai]

ah yeah, that's true. I actually saw Manson do that once at a concert, while wearing something that was kinda like a thong he tapped the security guard on the head with his junk. I was pretty shocked, the security guard just rolled his eyes and stepped away. I'm not sure how frequently he did that sort of thing, but it's strange. I mean, it clearly is unavoidably sexual in nature, it's uninvited... the theatrics of it are what make it "unique" in a way. In some way, the assault is maybe amplified by the fact that it's done in front of a huge crowd and you just have to stand there and take it.

Yeah, that's pretty awful. I've heard some stories that are worse, and one of them in particular I am inclined to believe, so... whatever, fuck him I guess. I'm pretty much over listening to his music anyway. Most of it hasn't aged very well for me, and some of it is flat out embarrassing. I guess I still think Portrait, Antichrist, and Mechanical Animals are good albums for what they are, even if I think I'm kind of over listening to music like that. It doesn't hurt my approach there to consider what an asshole he is.

[Sesquipedalism]

The artist I have a hard time separating, enjoying: Wagner

https://www.wqxr.org/story/cancel-cu...-21st-century/

I almost included Wagner in the original essay. I should have. You're definitely not alone there and I turn him off because my brain tells me I should do so to be in the clear because of what he still means to so many people today. But the question remains.

If a god came straight down from heaven and decreed we should all listen to Wagner's music because his art has nothing to do with him, I think I'd stand against this god and say, "Tell you what? I'll play it when there's no chance a Nazi will hear it and have his heart warmed, 'kay?" So even if I were ethically cleared and indeed mandated, I'd stand unethically against him?

This conversation drives me mad. I can't win.

[Sesquipedalism]

And Billy Corgan on Infowars? I cannot ever reconcile that. I follow his partner on Instagram, she's nice, they live in my city. But, nope. I've tried, I've really tried. He's an asshole.

I've stayed out of the Forum's Pumpkins thread because—despite the fact that two of my Top 15 records are by Smashing Pumpkins—Billy Corgan has long been intolerable to me. And I can't not mention it and I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. He's actually a lot like Kanye. A lot. So, like Kanye, I struggled with him, but less, because I didn't have to consider new music (I dismissed his post-Pumpkins output as trash more than a decade ago). I had my seven records and change from the 1990s and I could just ignore the guy. Even when he made it hard—which is, again, impressive, considering I don't have Facebook or Twitter or Insta or Snap or TikTok. Or cable. Or read tabloid news. And he hadn't done anything like go out of his way to praise Trump or let Candace Owens use him to put down a whole hurting community.

I didn't know about Info Wars. And I'm afraid to look. How worried should I be? Even appearing is bad enough. But how worried should I be?

Why the fuck can't artists retire?

[Jinsai]

I guess I missed this earlier... I did not know that about Wagner at all. Well, that really sucks.

[ton]

I think he's maybe the easiest, actually. That's why he was the opening example. I no longer support him politically; he puts his money and considerable platform to use when he believes in something. He has influence. Therefore, I choose to no longer support him financially.

I was considering that very issue when #metoo made me realize I had more than one artist in my iTunes library about whom I needed to have a discussion. In fact, I had 50 or 60. And virtually all of them had done shit worse than vocally support Trump and Candace Owens. Up to that point, Kanye had just always been an unignorably loud asshole—it's part of his brand. So, I'd been aware of it and choosing to ignore it. Asshole is asshole and, as I said, most artists are probably some flavor of insensitive egotist.

But my question—which I should clarify in the original text—quickly became this: If I'm willing to constantly have a debate about supporting someone who is often an unremitting asshole with some questionable opinions which may in part be due to an unmedicated mental disorder, why am I unwilling to at least consider that David Bowie fucked a fifteen-year-old? Or the guy from Real Estate maybe raped everyone he met? Those are actual sex crimes.

And the answer is, it seems, because thinking about the artist when considering his/her/their art might force me into a position where I either cannot ethically do a thing I like or, instead, a position in which I must admit that I don't care enough about criminal sexual misconduct if I happen to enjoy a piece of pop music.

Unless I can somehow solve the eternal philosophical question of whether it's right to always divorce artist from art. If that is the right thing to do, then hell, I can spin all the R. Kelly I want while watching a Polanski film fest, so long as I don't pay either of them—ethics of commerce are a different issue.

Nope. Kanye's the easiest discussion to have. It's just where it began for me.


I didn't know this! Thank you. That honestly would have balanced the scales a bit for me, back in the old days.

Here are some videos I found of Kanye discussing homophobia and the LGBTQ+ community:




I'm sorry I misunderstood your post initially - I do see now how you started with Kanye as the starting and why he was the easiest to talk about. Your points are always so well explained and articulated - I can't argue with anything. I really agree with you.

The discussion of separating the art from the artist is always going to be hard for us because it challenges our perception of who we thought these people were before. Art is so powerful that it's painful for people to come to the realization that someone they are inspired by could be a bad person. But I think you said it better than I ever can. I'm not a fan of Polanski since I've never actually seen his work but I did wrestle with Bowie's music and the stories of his past. Eventually the guilt of being a fan due to those allegations let me to gradually stop listening to his music. Whether people choose to listen to his music or not is their prerogative. And there's always the discussion among fans and his critics of whether or not they want to believe the allegations. I would like to believe that victims are justified or vindicated though. The entertainment industry also brings attention to the patriarchal construct of society. This is a really heavy conversation and I will still need to do more research to contribute more to it. There are people way ahead of me in that field.

[Sesquipedalism]

Here are some videos I found of Kanye discussing homophobia and the LGBTQ+ community:

Thank you! This is awesome to find. I hope some day he...returns to a state where I can just choose to ignore his prickliness. That first clip is wonderful—I'd've been thrilled to see that in 2005.

I'm sorry I misunderstood your post initially - I do see now how you started with Kanye as the starting and why he was the easiest to talk about.

Don't be sorry. And I actually went back and modified the original post with an altered version of my reply as it was clearly needed. Thanks for prompting me to articulate myself better.

[marodi]

Finally someone started a thread like this! I've been thinking about doing it for a long time but I could not find a good title for it. Am I'm very lazy.

May I suggest moving it to Speak your Mind, though? I don't have much to say on this subject about musicians but movies, oh boy. And we haven't even started with writers and painters and sculptors etc.

Heck, nobody has mentioned Charlie Chaplin yet.

[Jinsai]

Well, I guess I agree with @marodi that this issue crosses every artistic medium, maybe in unique ways. It's not really about music or film specifically.

That said, if they decide that it should stay in the Music board, I feel that's a good choice too, considering that I guess music is primarily the unifying aspect behind this board and its approach to art. Whatever they decide.

I do think it's been a good discussion. I feel sure we've had it before, maybe in the previous incarnation of the board, but I feel like this is a good thing to go over

[onthewall2983]

ah yeah, that's true. I actually saw Manson do that once at a concert, while wearing something that was kinda like a thong he tapped the security guard on the head with his junk. I was pretty shocked, the security guard just rolled his eyes and stepped away. I'm not sure how frequently he did that sort of thing, but it's strange. I mean, it clearly is unavoidably sexual in nature, it's uninvited... the theatrics of it are what make it "unique" in a way. In some way, the assault is maybe amplified by the fact that it's done in front of a huge crowd and you just have to stand there and take it.

Yeah, that's pretty awful. I've heard some stories that are worse, and one of them in particular I am inclined to believe, so... whatever, fuck him I guess. I'm pretty much over listening to his music anyway. Most of it hasn't aged very well for me, and some of it is flat out embarrassing. I guess I still think Portrait, Antichrist, and Mechanical Animals are good albums for what they are, even if I think I'm kind of over listening to music like that. It doesn't hurt my approach there to consider what an asshole he is.

I've never liked his music or his shtick. His voice is like a rusty door, his lyrics suck and I've never discerned much musical value from it. The late 90's were so loathsome for rock music it only ages worse and worse given society's overdue intolerance of the kind of antics people like him and Durst and others seemed to revel in and endorse.

[Sesquipedalism]

I've never liked his music or his shtick.

See, this makes it easy for you. I find it easy to write off Kiss, instead of asking A) do I need to consider Gene Simmons when talking about his art or B) is it better, ethically, to not discuss his art at all? Essentially, a lack of interest allows me to both avoid the ethical implications and look like I'm considering them.

The true test of this is when it's hard. I put Michael Jackson and Prince to the side, most of the time, and I kind of like them. But I'm still a big Bowie fan. And, in the case where it matters to me—I like his music and his shtick—I'm asking A) do I need to consider David Bowie's sexual misconduct when talking about his art and B) is it better, ethically to not discuss Bowie's art at all?

And let's say I decide that A) I do need to consider it and B) it is better, ethically, not to discuss his art at all, will I then act in accordance with my conclusions or make no change, implicitly admitting that it is unethical to engage, but I'm doing it anyways because it feels good to me?

And if so, what the hell conclusions do I draw from that?

Think about an artist you do like whose behavior makes him/her/them ethically suspect and run the test on yourself.

[Jinsai]

I don't know how important it is that it's "easy for" someone to reject a shitty artist. I mean, for instance, I have no problem saying that The Lost Prophets made shitty music, I'd never heard of it before the controversy, and I think it's garbage. That opinion exists completely outside of how everybody obviously feels about the lead singer, who is clearly a monster.

I don't know what I'd feel if I actually liked their music... but their music doesn't feel like something IMPORTANT to me. Even if you liked it, it's pop bullshit. Nobody's going to go out on a limb to really defend the artistic merit there. Or maybe they will, but they'll be told to piss off resoundingly. Just like if someone tried to say "hey, some of Hitler's paintings are pretty good!"

[Magnetic]

I have a big argument here for people supporting artists and thinking it's of no consequence. My father told me to always follow the money.

When Strange Planet was picking up on social media, the creator Nathan W Pyle was outed for supporting March for Life, which is a pro-life organization. And then in the backlash came his response: he only talked about democratic or republican voting. There are plenty of republicans that are pro-choice. And I'm guessing there are some democrats that are pro-life? The language is evasive. He said publicly that he was involved with March for Life.

I have an uncle who is a March-for-lifer, and there's definitely involvement there. If you march, it's safe to assume you donate. Voting is one side of things, and donating money is another. If he's marching, I'm assuming he's donating. We live in an era where we're more informed. If he came out and said, I believe prolife, but I don't fund it, fine. But he didn't. So I'm going to assume that when he makes money, and wants to donate to charities for tax breaks, that's where his money will go. And therefore I will not support him.
If his hard-earned dollars are going to a prolife movement, which will fund legislature against women having rights over their own bodies, then that's a no-deal situation for me.

So every time a friend brings up these 'cute and funny' strange planet comics, this is my response.

[Krazy]

Not aware of what Prince did, anyone mind spilling the beans? Googling it doesn’t help since every bit seems to be about Prince Andrew.

As for the subject it should be up to the individual IMHO. If it bothers you then stay away from whoever it may be. If it doesn’t, or people are oblivious to it since they don’t follow the persons news or what not, then don’t let it consume you either.

[Jinsai]

Not aware of what Prince did, anyone mind spilling the beans? Googling it doesn’t help since every bit seems to be about Prince Andrew.

All I know is that he got really religious and preachy when he became a Jehova's Witness.

[piggy]

I've personally never been able to separate the art from the artist.

I dumped all of my Morrissey/Smiths stuff and have never looked back. I can't even listen to The Smiths simply because I get angry as soon as I hear that voice.

I've come to a place of compromise with Prince. I didn't like how he ended up in later years, but I appreciate his music and his private philanthropy enough to just own a best of compilation.

I grew up listening to The Mamas & The Papas, but haven't been able to handle them at all for years because of what John Phillips apparently did.

When Beck "came out" as a Scientologist in 2005, I lost respect for him and couldn't enjoy his music. Now I listen to it a little bit again because of his "I was never involved with Scientology" thing, facetious as it was, since I couldn't help missing my favorite albums of his.

With Bowie, I have to chalk it up to being young, horny, drugged-up and decadent. Not that it makes things any better, but there was an entire subculture during that time of mothers actually pimping out their adolescent daughters to rock stars in exchange for "sugar daddy" treatment. Bowie just didn't think to say no, I guess.

My newest issue on this front is Billy Corgan. I was never a Smashing Pumpkins fan growing up, but after years of seeking out albums with cool guitar sounds, I thought I was depriving myself of something by not owning the first two SP albums. I bought them around Christmastime last year, but I get that little pang of embarrassment listening to them.

[Lerxto]

Not aware of what Prince did, anyone mind spilling the beans? Googling it doesn’t help since every bit seems to be about Prince Andrew.

As for the subject it should be up to the individual IMHO. If it bothers you then stay away from whoever it may be. If it doesn’t, or people are oblivious to it since they don’t follow the persons news or what not, then don’t let it consume you either.

Try Sinead O'Connor. I don't believe her, btw.

[Sesquipedalism]

Not aware of what Prince did, anyone mind spilling the beans? Googling it doesn’t help since every bit seems to be about Prince Andrew.

As for the subject it should be up to the individual IMHO. If it bothers you then stay away from whoever it may be. If it doesn’t, or people are oblivious to it since they don’t follow the persons news or what not, then don’t let it consume you either.

All I know is that he got really religious and preachy when he became a Jehova's Witness.

There's a summary of some of it in the original post. He did get preachy, but it became more than that when he started to refuse to work with people outside his narrowed field of approval. And I know more than a few people from the queer community that not only felt betrayed, but felt basically campaigned against when someone who'd been more or less a gay icon used his considerable influence to speak out against marriage equality, at a time when it was a hot button issue.

Another case that came up: Prince.

I mentioned that I'll still listen, from time to time, but hadn't bought since '92 "because I refuse to forget his weird about-face decade-and-a-half against marriage equality, or that time he refused to work with an old a bandmate unless she quit being a lesbian and a Jew (and then, years later, increasingly irrelevant, decided to do a self-promo one-off with her again)."

Prince was gave an incalculable assist to the queer community at a time when they really needed it. But he eventually converted to being a Witness, spoke against marriage equality, told his former friends and colleagues to renounce their sexuality and religion as evil, and suggested that his god was right to wipe out Sodom & Gomorrah because "people were just sticking it wherever." He was on that trip for at least a decade. So, I didn't buy his records. But I still occasionally spun his old ones. And I've never told a DJ to not play anything from his catalogue. Then he died. Do I now feel okay buying them? Every year, there's at least one long Prince set on Pride. Is it ethical to get down when they play "Kiss"? Does it matter that what he did for the queer community when he was at the height of his popularity very much outweighs the shit he pulled during his least relevant decade? Do my answers weigh less because I've never really liked Prince and thus find it easier to forget about him in ethical protest?

[Sesquipedalism]

I have a big argument here for people supporting artists and thinking it's of no consequence. My father told me to always follow the money.

This is true but, as I was saying, was more about the ethics of commerce. If you don't support the artist and you know he/she/they speak with their wallet, it's a pretty clear decision you need to make: Don't fund that artist. Hell—we do this every day with any business. Do I or don't I shop at WalMart or Home Depot? And so on.

The bigger question—and the one I don't know that I have an answer to—is that, when the commerce is stripped out of it, does one need to consider the artist? In 100 years, say, maybe pro-choice/pro-life won't be an issue. At all. Say they've solved it and found a 100% church-approved method for only planned conceptions to take place. Whatever. So Strange Planet guy's pro-life charities are all defunct. And he's not there to fund them, regardless. I don't know if the comics reflect his beliefs. Let's say they don't; let's say there's no overt pro-life or pro-choice commentary in his art. It's 100 years from now. Do I need to consider the artist when viewing the art?

And if not, what makes that so much different than viewing the comic today, so long as you're not funding him?

I'm not claiming to have an answer here. This is just the mess we're in.

[Sesquipedalism]

I don't know how important it is that it's "easy for" someone to reject a shitty artist. I mean, for instance, I have no problem saying that The Lost Prophets made shitty music, I'd never heard of it before the controversy, and I think it's garbage. That opinion exists completely outside of how everybody obviously feels about the lead singer, who is clearly a monster.

I don't know what I'd feel if I actually liked their music... but their music doesn't feel like something IMPORTANT to me. Even if you liked it, it's pop bullshit. Nobody's going to go out on a limb to really defend the artistic merit there. Or maybe they will, but they'll be told to piss off resoundingly. Just like if someone tried to say "hey, some of Hitler's paintings are pretty good!"

Pop music matters, at least at the moment. And who knows for how long. In the Elizabethan era, Shakespeare wrote some silly little plays—a lot like a lot of silly little plays of the era and, to many, they were very much considered lowbrow popular fodder.

And this pop bullshit matters outside of commerce—outside of choosing whom we fund—because we pay attention to it. Attention matters. I can't imagine it's more ethical to divorce the artist from his/her/their work in cases where the art is not terribly popular. Where would one draw the line?

[Sesquipedalism]

I've personally never been able to separate the art from the artist.

I dumped all of my Morrissey/Smiths stuff and have never looked back. I can't even listen to The Smiths simply because I get angry as soon as I hear that voice.

I've come to a place of compromise with Prince. I didn't like how he ended up in later years, but I appreciate his music and his private philanthropy enough to just own a best of compilation.

I grew up listening to The Mamas & The Papas, but haven't been able to handle them at all for years because of what John Phillips apparently did.

When Beck "came out" as a Scientologist in 2005, I lost respect for him and couldn't enjoy his music. Now I listen to it a little bit again because of his "I was never involved with Scientology" thing, facetious as it was, since I couldn't help missing my favorite albums of his.

With Bowie, I have to chalk it up to being young, horny, drugged-up and decadent. Not that it makes things any better, but there was an entire subculture during that time of mothers actually pimping out their adolescent daughters to rock stars in exchange for "sugar daddy" treatment. Bowie just didn't think to say no, I guess.

My newest issue on this front is Billy Corgan. I was never a Smashing Pumpkins fan growing up, but after years of seeking out albums with cool guitar sounds, I thought I was depriving myself of something by not owning the first two SP albums. I bought them around Christmastime last year, but I get that little pang of embarrassment listening to them.

I totally get you and do the same thing. Out of curiosity, does this approach not feel, to you, like the Blue Laws section above? It feels like Wheel of Fortune judgment to me which is why I keep picking the scab, so to speak.

[Magnetic]

And if not, what makes that so much different than viewing the comic today, so long as you're not funding him?

Because right now, in this day and age, clicks are revenue. What seems like harmless likes in FB or twitter *DOES* generate revenue for the artist. I'm sure you understand that? Or do I need to break that down?

Believe me, I had to break it down over social media to a friend of a friend, and I was finally able to break through and explain this to him.
What we think is harmless clicks....is no longer.

AND the other things....
This isn't just about abortion. It goes the full gamut to women's health. When you support March for Life, these places are looking to not only eradicate abortion, but to defund places like planned parenthood which provide birth control and health services to women. So YES, this is a big deal NOW. And it will affect policies now, which will continue to echo throughout society for a couple of decades. Please do no try to simplify this by extending time. This is relevant now, in how our society makes money and how it affects women's healthcare.

[allegro]

I almost included Wagner in the original essay. I should have. You're definitely not alone there and I turn him off because my brain tells me I should do so to be in the clear because of what he still means to so many people today. But the question remains.

If a god came straight down from heaven and decreed we should all listen to Wagner's music because his art has nothing to do with him, I think I'd stand against this god and say, "Tell you what? I'll play it when there's no chance a Nazi will hear it and have his heart warmed, 'kay?" So even if I were ethically cleared and indeed mandated, I'd stand unethically against him?

This conversation drives me mad. I can't win.

On the other hand, my husband loves Wagner and is able to reconcile Wagner because Daniel Barenboim, a Jew, has reconciled Wagner. So, for my husband, if Barenboim was able to separate the art from the artist, then my husband can, too.

I, however, cannot yet do that. I adore Barenboim. I respect him beyond words. I guess I’m just not as sophisticated as Barenboim.

As far as Kanye, I am a white woman. Kanye is a black man. Kanye is highly respected by black people, in spite of his goofy Trump transgressions. Because black people are a hell of a lot less cancel culture. And they get, for the most part, what Kanye was trying (however inelegantly) to say: That black people shouldn’t be expected to vote for Democrats. That black people should have the freedom to vote, first, and then vote for whomever they want. Kanye was focused on the 13th Amendment during this time:

Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

And how Section 1 of the 13th Amendment never really outlawed slavery; it just moved slavery into prisons. And he’s right about that.

And he tried to be clear about how he didn’t vote for Trump but that he thinks he and all “super businesspeople” are cut from some same cloth, likely because he didn’t understand that Trump isn’t Walt Disney (another flawed man) or Steve Jobs (another flawed man); Trump is full of shit.

Kanye was used by Candace Owens and Blexit because Kanye is naive and wants better things for black people. Black people understand this. He’s unfairly characterized as supporting Trump.

Kanye wrote that he felt used and that he was distancing himself from all politics. Then he immersed himself in his “Sunday Services.” Since then, Chance the Rapper and Rhymefest (Chicagoans) are protecting Kanye and are pals with him, again.

[Sesquipedalism]

Because right now, in this day and age, clicks are revenue. What seems like harmless likes in FB or twitter *DOES* generate revenue for the artist. I'm sure you understand that? Or do I need to break that down?

Believe me, I had to break it down over social media to a friend of a friend, and I was finally able to break through and explain this to him.
What we think is harmless clicks....is no longer.

AND the other things....
This isn't just about abortion. It goes the full gamut to women's health. When you support March for Life, these places are looking to not only eradicate abortion, but to defund places like planned parenthood which provide birth control and health services to women. So YES, this is a big deal NOW. And it will affect policies now, which will continue to echo throughout society for a couple of decades. Please do no try to simplify this by extending time. This is relevant now, in how our society makes money and how it affects women's healthcare.

Okay. I'm sorry I seem to have angered you by using this example as an example.

First of all, I understand that clicks are revenue. I consider that funding.

Second of all, I certainly understand the importance of the issue in the moment and over time—that's why we're having this discussion. I understand that all of these things matter and are not inconsequential.

Third of all, the time factor is a real part of the issue of divorcing art from artist. You quoted the last sentence of the post, after a good long buildup which I had thought would make it clear that I'm asking for a broad ethical question. Would it ever be ethically okay to view these comics and, if so, when? If it's okay someday, and it's not an issue of commerce ​(direct pay, clicks), but an issue of art & artist, what makes "someday" different than "today, but no one else finds out about it"?

[allegro]

Because right now, in this day and age, clicks are revenue. What seems like harmless likes in FB or twitter *DOES* generate revenue for the artist. I'm sure you understand that? Or do I need to break that down?

Believe me, I had to break it down over social media to a friend of a friend, and I was finally able to break through and explain this to him.
What we think is harmless clicks....is no longer.

AND the other things....
This isn't just about abortion. It goes the full gamut to women's health. When you support March for Life, these places are looking to not only eradicate abortion, but to defund places like planned parenthood which provide birth control and health services to women. So YES, this is a big deal NOW. And it will affect policies now, which will continue to echo throughout society for a couple of decades. Please do no try to simplify this by extending time. This is relevant now, in how our society makes money and how it affects women's healthcare.

I totally concur.

I get migraines. Bad migraines. Having the right pillow is really important to me, because neck pain is a migraine trigger for me.

So, some years ago, my Mom bought me a MyPillow. I love it. I can launder it in the washer and dryer, which is also great for my allergies.

But, I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER MYPILLOW!! Because it’s since came out that the MyPillow guy is a March for Life asshole who donates a shitload of money to MFL and wants to totally eradicate Planned Parenthood.

If this stupid pillow didn’t help my migraines (and it wasn’t bad for landfills), I’d get rid of it.

[Sesquipedalism]

And how Section 1 of the 13th Amendment never really outlawed slavery; it just moved slavery into prisons. And he’s right about that.

And he tried to be clear about how he didn’t vote for Trump but that he thinks he and all super businesspeople are cut from some same cloth

Absolutely. I was lucky enough to be exposed years ago to things that are currently trending like The New Jim Crow and 13th—actually, I think it was a discussion about Kanye's "New Slaves" that brought 13th to my attention. Which sort of goes to my feeling that pop music matters, attention matters, and so does the use an artist makes of his/her/their platform.

Kanye wrote that he felt used and that he was distancing himself from all politics.

Being that my issue with him was that he was allowing his considerable platform and influence to be directed towards something that I feel is unethical, I'm glad to see that he's at least pausing for a moment to contemplate his utility. I should be clear, though, that I'm not of the "shut up and dribble" school of thought; I fully support Kanye's right to talk politics—even uninformedly, even if he's being less than careful, absolutely if he disagrees with me. It's America, after all. But, saying what he was saying and allowing his influence to be so directed, I felt his behavior was unethical, and I wasn't about to financially support him.

That's why I felt like he was the easiest one to tackle.

On the other hand, my husband loves Wagner and is able to reconcile Wagner because Daniel Barenboim, a Jew, has reconciled Wagner. So, for my husband, if Barenboim was able to separate the art from the artist, then my husband can, too.

I, however, cannot yet do that. I adore Barenboim. I respect him beyond words. I’m guess I’m just not as sophisticated as Barenboim.

Agh. See, this is such a thorny fucking issue. I've seen things like this before and I've been right where you are—"I guess I'm not quite clever enough to get there myself yet." Barenboim, a Jew, has reconciled Wagner. (I'm excited to read that piece. Thank you.) But I'm not a Jew. Do I therefore get to Barenboim's reconciliation as "permission" for me to indulge? Would that be the same as asking Anthony Rapp if it's okay for me to watch American Beauty?

These aren't pointed questions suggesting I have an answer. I honestly don't know.


EDIT:

So, some years ago, my Mom bought me a MyPillow. I love it. I can wash it in the washer and dryer, which is also great for my allergies.

But, I WILL NEVER BUT ANOTHER MYPILLOW!! Because it’s since came out that the MyPillow guy is a March for Life asshole who donates a shitload of money to MFL and wants to totally eradicate Planned Parenthood.

As a side note, I discovered this week that I've been sleeping in a bed with two MyPillows for five years. I had no fucking idea. They were a gift.

[Magnetic]

Okay. I'm sorry I seem to have angered you by using this example as an example.

First of all, I understand that clicks are revenue. I consider that funding.

Second of all, I certainly understand the importance of the issue in the moment and over time—that's why we're having this discussion. I understand that all of these things matter and are not inconsequential.

Third of all, the time factor is a real part of the issue of divorcing art from artist. You quoted the last sentence of the post, after a good long buildup which I had thought would make it clear that I'm asking for a broad ethical question. Would it ever be ethically okay to view these comics and, if so, when? If it's okay someday, and it's not an issue of commerce ​(direct pay, clicks), but an issue of art & artist, what makes "someday" different than "today, but no one else finds out about it"?

I appreciate how you responded to my reply. I completely appreciate your sensitivity and acknowledgment.

And my apologies: I did glaze over your full and final point:
As an advocate for women right now, I don't know how these things will play out 3-4 decades from now.

My initial thought is that, for this particular artist, I don't think this will stand up 40 years from now as fundamental art of the age. This isn't something that will be in museums as "the best memes of 2018-2019 era." For Strange Planet itself, it's easy for me to say this is a cash grab/ profession for a pro-life supporter, and this will be one and done.

There is art that is much more than a modern meme. The Wagner argument is huge in my mind. Highly difficult to separate. For me...there are better artists to embrace with no ill politics associated.
I guess in a way, it's ok to listen to artists that no longer benefit financially....but I'm always going to say, "yah but...." in my head. It sucks the enjoyment away.

[burninglard]

To answer the the question I think it’s up to you as a individual. If you like an artist work then that is your right and choice. Now how I feel personally is different. If I like an artist and they turn out to be a piece of shit I probably will stop supporting them all together.

[piggy]

If this stupid pillow didn’t help my migraines (and it wasn’t bad for landfills), I’d get rid of it.

Dude. Get yourself a solid latex pillow. They are the SHIT. I have one and while I don't get migraines much, it totally fixed my fucked up shoulder from side sleeping. If that sounds like it might be beneficial to you, here are a couple of links:

https://www.hollandersleepproducts.c...w&lang=default
https://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/sto...d=latex-pillow

[piggy]

I totally get you and do the same thing. Out of curiosity, does this approach not feel, to you, like the Blue Laws section above? It feels like Wheel of Fortune judgment to me which is why I keep picking the scab, so to speak.

To me, it doesn't feel random. I go through more of a micro-judging process on a fairly detailed case-by-case basis. Like your "convicted in a court of me" approach, but with a jury of 12 more versions of me or something. I'm a woman and not to generalize, but some of us tend to analyze shit to within an inch of its life, LOL. But I have a small number of artists on my radar that I consider problematic, so I don't spend that much time thinking about it overall.

[SchwarzerAbt]

I don't know how important it is that it's "easy for" someone to reject a shitty artist. I mean, for instance, I have no problem saying that The Lost Prophets made shitty music, I'd never heard of it before the controversy, and I think it's garbage. That opinion exists completely outside of how everybody obviously feels about the lead singer, who is clearly a monster.

I don't know what I'd feel if I actually liked their music... but their music doesn't feel like something IMPORTANT to me. Even if you liked it, it's pop bullshit. Nobody's going to go out on a limb to really defend the artistic merit there. Or maybe they will, but they'll be told to piss off resoundingly. Just like if someone tried to say "hey, some of Hitler's paintings are pretty good!"

I was a big fan around 2004, when Start Something came out. I saw them play at a festival and they were one of the best acts there, despite playing in broad daylight in the early afternoon. Their music was filled with positivity, in contrast to most other bands of the screamo scene from which they emerged. It helped me to retain some optimism in a personal time of uncertainty.

They also introduced me to the concept of the straight edge. While I did never consider it for myself I found it an astonishing decision to make to persue this lifestyle and had much respect for this.

Their later albums turned into generic stadium rock territory and I kind of lost interest. So as you can imagine I was shocked to find out later Ian Watkins had turned into an active pedophile drugged up on cocaine. It was the opposite of what the band stood (for me) for in the first place.

I am not sure what happened in the meantime. My guess is that Watkins had always known something was wrong with him and deliberately refrained from using alcohol and other drugs. The larger than life rockstyle life (although they had this status probably only in Wales) could have given him a false sense of invincibility. Paired with the offering of all kinds of drugs that surely comes along with this lifestyle lead him to lose all sense of self control he might have wanted to retain earlier.

Whatever it was that lead to his downfall, his actions are more than inexcusable. So while he may have been another person at the time, I can not listen to this band's music anymore. Although there is no hint of these crimes in the lyrics of Burn Burn or Last Train Home all positivity is sucked out of these songs by the events that followed. And it is a good thing that myself as a person and society as a whole decide 'this is so far against all of our morals that we completely refrain from listening to this artist ever again'. Even if the music meant a lot to me. It's that bad.

Regarding Marilyn Manson it is a little different, as sex and violence have always been lyrical themes of his. And at least starting with GAoG it was also about how evil he is. So is it that surprising he actually does evil things in real live? Is it fair to boycott him when he has been kind of honest about this all along? Are we kind of complicit with him because we liked his music, even though it was always there in his lyrics? Or is it foolish to go into a relationship with this man, even after he put out videos like 'saint' and not expect to get hurt? I don't know... It's still inexcusable to rape someone. But as long as that is only speculation it is unfair to dismiss one artists work completely.