With all the hate towards J.K Rowling (deserved) and lets say Kanye West for example, you can enjoy the art but can you really separate what they create from what they say?
You can, when you pirate their stuff so they don’t get money.
But then youre invested in it, you might talk and engage with the content fueling it and ultimately making the shitty person behind it richer. I had lot of likeness for certain wizards but I dont even like mentioning them now. Because the author turned out (more like I found) to be very shitty person.
in my opinion, no. an artist’s worldview informs their art, so things like racism/misogyny/ableism etc etc seep into the works they create. consuming media like that uncritically can be harmful by reinforcing biases, conscious or unconscious.
there’s also the more direct harm that can be done by financially supporting certain artists. jk rowling, for example, is funnelling any wealth she gets from the harry potter franchise into funding anti-trans organisations.
in my experience, people who want to separate art from the artist just want to continue uncritically consuming everything, without feeling guilt over the harm they could be doing by “voting with their dollar”.
an artist’s worldview informs their art, so things like racism/misogyny/ableism etc etc seep into the works they create.
I disagree with this part. People are extremely complex and not even internally consistent with themselves. I don’t think it’s a given that any and all bad qualities they possess are necessarily going to be present in art they create.
I agree that it doesn’t always seep through. That said, I think you need to be extra vigilant when experiencing art produced by someone like Rowling. That bias may appear in unexpected ways and they shouldn’t be given the benefit of the doubt.
This is my stance as well. I don’t want to knowingly consume something that was made by someone who held horrible views for their benefit OR my detriment. With almost unlimited media to consume out there, it seems so trivial to find someone with less problematic views who fills a similar niche. Rowling, Cosby, Chris Brown, etc all have contemporaries who have far less problematic views. And if one of those contemporaries are determined to have some similarly horrible views? We examine what biases may have snuck by us, throw them away, and move on. Humanity has no shortage of creative geniuses if you dig even an inch below the surface.
Yes, you can separate the art from the artist. No, you cannot separate the act of paying for art from the artist while they still live.
If the artist is constantly in the news reminding me what a POS they are IRL, then no, I can’t enjoy their works because that’s always in my mind. Otherwise, if they just fuck off into obscurity, then I can enjoy the works independently for what they are.
I struggle with it and am hypocritical about that.
Roman Polanski was convicted of a terrible crime, but I appreciate his work.
Weinstein’s production company made many of my favorite movies.
Kevin Spacey played some of my favorite characters.
EDIT:
And then there is Bill Cosby and OJ Simpson. I love the Naked Gun Movies and both are pure gold on screen.
Bill Cosby’s Chicken Heart routine is so fucking funny it was making me laugh my ass off until the mid 2010s… Now I when I ever I see the album it just makes me sad….
If you rewatch ‘LA Confidential’ and realize the Spacey was gay, it makes his crusade to find out who killed the hustler make a lot more sense.
edit = What I meant was that in the movie and original novel the Spacey character is straight. There were a lot of gay men at the time who would rather die than admit to being ‘queer.’ I saw the movie after reading the books, and took my interpretation from that.
deleted by creator
A gay cop in the 1950’s?
Read some history.
I the original novels there’s a closeted gay cop who kills himself after his secret comes out.
deleted by creator
I edited my original comment.
I read the books before I saw the movie. In the books, the character is straight.
However, on the show ‘Mad Men’ and in the novel 'The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay" there are characters so deeply closeted that they’d rather die than admit who they are.
That’s the kind of ‘gay’ I was thinking.
Fat Albert foils a neo-Nazi:
https://youtu.be/gk0d5mb4ov4?t=142 (cued, maybe watch for 40 seconds)
Hermione is a total transition goal, so sure!
I also wrote a HP fanfic where a trans squib connives her way into Hogwarts :p
The art itself has its own problems, eg slavery, protectors of the status quo, but the excellent sense of place/wonder will always be part of my childhood nostalgia :3
As long as you’re not supporting the artist financially, eg by pirating any media associated with it, I say enjoy what you like and condemn the artist as a separate person 🤷♀️
That’s assuming one buys the main industry line that pirating (necessarily) hurts the artists;
but if trans-friendly fanfics do well, that would seem to be a better revenge.
(example)
AO3 Search Results:
You searched for: Tags: harry potter, Harry Potter, Trans sort by: best match descending
2,590 Found ?
Yes, but only in this specific case;
- the artist is dead
- the people profiting from their works don’t have the same beliefs
- the content itself is innocent without the knowledge of the history of the artist
- any continued profits do not go towards funding advocacy groups for their shite beliefs
JK Rowling is 0/4 on that FYI
Yep, I wouldn’t be surprised when the old bag dies she donates all her money to something like “LGB without the T” or some other horrid hate group
Depends on how dead they are for me, honestly
If the artist in question is actively campaigning and spending their wealth to support the things I oppose that’s not great, but if they’re dead then it’s a lot easier to justify, since they’re not capable of hurting people, unless whoever owns the rights holds the same opinions
There’s also willful ignorance where if you like an artist’s work in a genre known for having problematic artists you simply choose to not look into them, so you don’t have to deal with the moral implications, which I admittedly am somewhat guilty of for music
Yes and it’s easy
Step 1: Steal the Art. Ensure that the artist does not materially/financially gain in any way from your enjoyment of their work.
Step 2: Talk Shit. Every time someone asks about the art/artist in question is an opportunity to explain in detail exactly why that artist sucks and how to steal their art. Ensure that they do not gain in any other way from your enjoyment of their work. Destroy their reputation so that others do not support them financially.
The best answer I can think of is it depends, and it’s always on a case-by-case person-by-person basis.
It’s like finding out that a famous painter whose art you really like did a murder suicide.
In some cases, that could actually add to the allure, even though it’s horrible.
But in the case of a musician that used their musical career to coax underage girls into performing sex acts for them, like the singers of the Lost Prophets, it’s a lot harder to separate the art from the artist.
Picasso was a real bastard, but his art is amazing
I used to think Dali was better, then I recently read how much of a bad person he was. Now I slowly look for alternatives.
I don’t really think so… Especially in an era of AI-generated slop that’s devoid of the human touch, it’s more important than ever to recognize the people who make things.
With that said, I do think that we should be able to accept flaws and imperfections in human creators. I think people should understand the fact that you can like someone’s creations without endorsing every aspect of them as a person.
For example, the number of zoomers who I’ve met that claim that “the Beatles suck” because they have a problem with John Lennon’s personal flaws is pretty wild to me. It’s cool if people dislike the Beatles, whatever! Did John always practice what he preached? Probably not… But, like, even knowing that he was a bad father to his first son and a bad husband to his first wife, that doesn’t really change the fact that his band was objectively one of the most influential musical acts of the 20th century. You don’t have to like the guy, the band, or even the songs, but to ignore their once-in-a-generation skill and cultural importance feels like willful ignorance to me.
Like many people, I love Jamaican music: reggae, dub, ska, dancehall, etc. At the same time, I’m not a rasta, nor do I totally agree to some of the religious and political ideologies that rastas have typically believed in (judeo-christianity, African zionism, ethnostatism, the ideas of Preston Garvey, the cult of personality around Haile Selassie, etc.). I choose to look at Jamaica, Rastafari, and the endless library of amazing music that they in the context in which it was created. I try to understand their point of view and relate to their experiences to the best of my ability, even if I don’t exactly believe in all of the things that they believe in. The Rasta’s music is a window into their world, their culture, and their perspective on life, and I love that music allows for that.
In other words, I think we should be able to judge the work and the person separately, with our understanding of one informing the other, but not dictating it. We shouldn’t expect artists and musicians to be any more perfect than any other human being. At the same time, it’s fine to judge creators by the things that they say and do outside of their work, and it’s understandable if someone has stances or a history of behavior that totally turn you off of their creative output.
If JK Rowling’s stance on trans people takes away from your ability to enjoy her work, or at worst becomes a personal attack against your identity (her attacks against trans people are active and relentless), then I think it’s perfectly understandable that you can’t enjoy Harry Potter anymore. I near read, and was never emotionally invested in, Harry Potter so it’s always been very easy for me to say “nah, fuck that shit”, especially when she made it her life’s work to attack trans people for simply daring to exist. I’m not trans, but empathy alone tells me that trans people should have a right to exist and define themselves as they see fit.
Graham Linehan (creator of some great Irish/British comedy shows that I love, like Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd) went down the same path of trashing trans people on Twitter, and I still watch and enjoy his shows for what they are, despite the fact that I think he’s an idiot and an asshole for making his anti-trans hate the molehill he wants to die on… I don’t like him for being that kind of person, but why don’t I hold it against him to the same degree that I judge Rowling? I guess probably just because I liked his work in the first place.
So, basically, I can enjoy works from flawed or controversial creators without totally divorcing their work from who they are as a person.
I think it’s okay to like Harry Potter but one should approach it with the awareness that Rowling’s prejudices had an impact on the work and try not to let it influence your views. For example, recognize that the pro-slavery stuff with the house elves is kind of fucked up.
I really want to watch the upcoming TV series. I was going to until a few days ago. I think it looks like a really good adaptation of the books. I hope I get to see it eventually. But I’ve recently decided I don’t want to watch it in a way that supports Rowling given the recent laws in the Untied States targeting transgender people. I don’t want to contribute to the hate and misinformation against transgender people. There’s also the fact that the studio will soon be controlled by Paramount and I don’t want to support them either.
Still, I don’t expect the show itself to be transphobic and I think it is therefore fine to watch the show if it doesn’t support Rowling. I might watch if it gets uploaded to YouTube or Rowling dies (not wishing her dead, just saying then I would be able to watch the series guiltlessly)
If they’re still alive and still benefitting from said art and still harming people, no. Any time, money, or attention you give to them enables them to hurt other people.
A couple years ago I saw a band I really liked live. They were really important to me because their music helped me get through the collapse of one of my past relationships. Then it came out that the singer had hurt multiple people in multiple cities on their tour. So now if I stream their music, or buy their merch, or even just listen to their music alone, it’ll be materially supporting a person’s ability to hurt other people.
It’s much easier to separate art from people who are no longer around to hurt other people. I don’t feel bad for appreciating Guernica or reading Infinite Jest because doing so doesn’t support the artists behind them causing harm.
Logically it’s pretty easy to demonstrate that you can. You could simply let someone experience a work of art, and never reveal any information about the creator. Boom, that person can experience the art completely independently of who the creator is, because they simply don’t have any information about the creator. In fact, that’s more or less how most people have experienced art for the majority of human history up until the past few generations.
No. Not as long as the artist gets benefits.
There are billions of meaningful ways to entertain yourself. Don’t be a sheep - it’s your world.
