Depends. Usually I can separate them, nut for exampme on michael jackson I cant but think about his kiddie ticklings when I hear his music. Still good music though
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
106 points (92.7% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26831 readers
2133 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
For me it's materially based. Are they alive and profiting from my listening to them? Then I avoid it. Are they dead or is the money going somewhere not horrible? Fine I guess. Like imagine buying or supporting Nicki Minaj knowing she used that money to harass rape victims. You can seperate all the art you want, if you paid her you paid for that.
If supporting the art, supports the artist, who actively supports a bad cause, I do not. JKR and anything that furthers the anti-trans movement can go screw. If someone co-opts something, then it's trickier, but I expect the original artist to help when they can and support them directly, like Marvel's Punisher.
I have some fingerpaints on display that objectively aren't very good art. If they were yours, they'd already be composted, but I like the little girl who made them.
But also I often enjoy and recommend books and music by people I probably wouldn't get along well with if we met. In some cases I might prefer not to support their cause financially, but usually I don't even know much about the artists or their views. Sometimes they'll keep their private lives private, or I just never bothered to look them up, or they've been dead for many years.
The personal is political.
Usually not.
Do I cherry pick? Depends on the severity.
I am strict about it. Entertainment is a luxury that I can choose to avoid for any reason. I love HP, but i have chosen to black list it. Just as i have Kanye West. I do not separate art from the artist. This notion doesn't even make sense to me. The art comes from the life and experience from the artist no matter how talented. It's not an on/off switch where the artist switches themselves off when creating their art.
I'm a graphic designer myself and I can tell you that when I create designs, my personality, my uniqueness, my influence, my outlook, me, myself, and I all go into that design, even if they are subconsciously. Therefore, that design is not a separate entity, it is me in a sense.
I'm curious how "strict" strict is. My guess is the problematic person needs to be the main creative force behind that particular thing? The Harry Potter movies: void those, or is the fact it's an adaptation add enough additional people to the mix that's it's sufficiently separated from the originals?
I include HP movies and any other HP licensed products as strict. Only because JK Rolling is financially benefiting from them and they are still from her work.
My phone is made possible because children lose limbs mining the cobalt, just because I outsource the misery I cause doesn't mean I'm a good person.
That being said, I'm less likely to buy their merch or go to their shows. But damn, if you told me Michael Jackson was alive, in his prime and doing a show, I'd be there so goddamned fast.
Yep, was scolded on reddit for "making a post about an antisemite" when I mentioned Mel Gibson in a list of some 10 odd other actors I liked (I even mentioned in the post that I was only refering to his acting, not his personal character). Guess by the internets rules, Mad Max is no longer a good movie?
I don't separate them. To still partake in the art helps boost their popularity and their message.
I also can't claim to support a group while boosting their biggest antagonist. I also see this spreading into the AI area.
If I see authors using AI cover art, I blacklist them. AI voices for characters in games? I'll swerve. I can't claim to support a community of artists and then shoot them in the foot at first opportunity.
What about collective works where only one person is problematic? The Cosby Show for example. It's watching The Cosby Show boosting its popularity and message? The message of that show is arguably a good one too, so that doesn't seem like a bad thing, and hundreds of other people made that show.
One bad apple ruins the bunch.
Cosby was the titular character. His actions reflect on everyone. The supporting cast and crew did good work and were paid (hopefully fairly) for it, and I hope their efforts will always be remembered but the work is also tainted now.
One thing I'm unsure of is if Cosby wrote any of the shows. If so, his creeping shadow gets worse because he's a hypocrite. If not, then it's unfortunate to the writers.
There will never be a black or white answer in this but I have to draw lines somewhere. I don't demonize the supporting cast, only the titular one.
The cast can and should denounce Cosby in cases like that but.. again, Apple and the bunch.
If someone has been shitty in the past and has changed their ways, I’ll support. If someone has made wonderful art and has done a heel-turn, using their fame and fortune to platform some regressive, shitty ideas, I’ll pass.
I can appreciate art from any artist, but I will not patronize an artist that is trash.
I'll still listen to the song or whatever media but won't promote them.
If they're dead and didn't kill people I think I'm fine separating art fron artist when needed
More specifically, if they were a not great person, nobody directly associated should be making money from the art I consume
Depends on the crime. If it's bad enough their music is just ruined for me. Listened to a couple artist before only to find out the groomed or touched kids, just can't listen anymore without thinking about that.
I usually don't care. Any political views, racism, sexism and whatnot opinions like JK Rowling on trans I couldn't care less. But...
- Gender based violence I'll will need to be really good for me to like.
- Child molesters will give me an uncanny feeling.
Murder somehow ok though. I'll listen to Snoop Dogg and enjoy it to the fullest.
Almost always. But I cannot with Michael Jackson and the singer from Lost Profits. They are just horrible imo.
Depends on the quality of music, the crimes, and the credibility of everyone involved. I love Michael Jackson, but I don't really listen to him much anymore because a) heard it all to death, and b) he's definitely a creep. Hard pass on all R Kelly music of course. Pass on Motley Crue. Kind of bored of Red Hot Chili Peppers. Kind of bored with Aerosmith. Kind of bored with Iggy Pop. Kind of bored with Led Zeppelin.
Damn. Seems like everyone was banging underage kids in the 60s-90s.