>And then it all went bad. The Daily Telegraph, following up on biographical discrepancy in a BBC documentary, uncovered proof that Patrick O’Brian…was not Patrick O’Brian.

About 15 years ago, I decided to know as little as possible about the musicians/artists/writers whose work I was consuming, because I didn't want my enjoyment of their work to be influenced or spoiled by what I knew about them (even superficial things, e.g., how they looked).

I remember mentioning that to a co-worker, when discussing a band I had just learned about and enjoyed, and he pointed out that by insisting on maintaining ignorance, I could be funding a very bad person. I figured if the person was bad enough, the information would get to me somehow.

▲

JoeDaDude 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The "human connection to the artist" is believed to be important by some, but I disagree. People tend to create an image of a musician and are too often disappointed because, for example, they disapprove of the musician's lifestyle (the expression sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll exists for a reason), or because of disagreement with the social or political causes the musicians support. Occasionally, fans follow an artist for their commitment to their art later to discover they sell out, like their style changes to pursue mass appeal, or they sell their work to become a jingle for sugar pops or similar.

I think it is best to appreciate an artist's creation and leave it at that. To quote a film, I think it is best to "separate the art from the artist".

▲

Nursie 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't, especially when the artist flows into the art.

Take H.P. Lovecraft. Very big name in supernatural horror, created Great Cthulu and various other tropes that survive and are influential to today. Famously misogynistic and racist. Particularly on the racism side it's not really even fair to say he was 'of his time', it seems to go beyond that.

And it's all there in the fiction. Fear of the other, racist tropes about clothing and appearance and mistrust of women. The works are pretty amazing, he spins an atmosphere so well. His ideas of horrors beyond time and space are well realised (with a lot of emphasis on what is not seen) and his dreamy fantasy sequences really work and draw me into a dreamlike state. But they're all run through with racist stereotypes about people (or demons) with darker skin or racialised features.

Does this mean no Cthulu for anyone? I don't believe that's a good answer either, but I also don't believe one should consume the art in ignorance.

(And I very much enjoyed reading Lovecraft Country a few years back)

	▲	magarnicle 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The interesting thing about Lovecraft is that, despite all those racist tropes you mentioned, he actually tried to make horror that wasn't about fear of falling down the evolutionary ladder. This idea was absolutely everywhere for at least 100 years, and Lovecraft definitely perpetuated it sometimes. But he did actually try to find horror in completely different ideas. So, despite his own extreme personal racism, he probably managed to shift the culture away from at least one very racially-loaded trope.
	▲	the_af 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Some authors are indeed very hard to separate from their work, and Lovecraft is one of them. I still enjoy reading him, but I always struggle reading his passages about mongrels, halfbreeds or dark skinned people being evil or deceitful, because that's what he truly believed. So yes, it flowed into what he wrote. A much less odious -- and better! -- writer who I also had trouble with was Jack London, who also wrote some racist descriptions of blacks and Native Americans, doubly troubling because he was a socialist.

▲

bigstrat2003 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> he pointed out that by insisting on maintaining ignorance, I could be funding a very bad person.

I don't consider that to be something worth worrying about. On the contrary, I find the obsession that some have with moral purity and not ever supporting the wrong type of person to be a serious mark of immaturity. Every person, without exception, is a collection of both good and bad traits. I believe that the adult thing to do is to encourage and reward the good, while discouraging and punishing the bad. When I support an artist's work, I do not thereby endorse everything that person does. I think that the desire to reduce everyone to "good guy" or "bad guy" (and acting towards them accordingly) is literally the sort of thing one would expect from a child, not an adult who has learned to have some nuance in thinking.

▲

tecoholic 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Someone pointed it out to me that, if a person does something bad and faces the consequences by law, then that should be the end of it. Applying a personal punishment individually like avoiding anything they have involved in, is pointless or even unfair.

It can’t apply to all scenarios. But that struck me as an important thing to consider. Sometimes people get out of the consequences by using the riches they accumulated by being bad.

▲

Nursie 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the desire to not have to be accountable for ones choices and their effect on the world is also childlike, personally.

One of the powers we have in this capitalist world is to decide where our money goes. If there's a decent chance it'll end up perpetuating something I find massively objectionable, it's my choice not to fund that.

Beyond that it's not just about reducing everything to good or bad, it's also about understanding the context of the works you're consuming. Sometimes the author's life, prejudices and mores seep into the work, and put a new spin on the characters and scenarios.

▲

teddyh an hour ago | parent [-]

> One of the powers we have in this capitalist world is to decide where our money goes. If there's a decent chance it'll end up perpetuating something I find massively objectionable, it's my choice not to fund that.

“I believe that almost everyone fails to completely understand how badly they need the people they can’t stand.”

— Jason K. Pargin: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3GzrYI8Tj4>

▲

Nursie an hour ago | parent [-]

“It's not easy being green.”

- Kermit The Frog: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRZ-IxZ46ng>

Eh, I'm not watching a video to see a quote from someone I've never heard of and have no particular reason to value.

And whatever he might have to say, I'm not reliant on the work of a specific author, which is the context here.

Nor do I buy into "you can't survive without relying on/funding some people you disagree with therefore you shouldn't seek to act consistently with your own ethics in any regard" as a philosophy.

	▲	teddyh an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Eh, I'm not watching a video to see a quote from someone I've never heard of and have no particular reason to value. Your loss. > Nor do I buy into "you can't survive without relying on/funding some people you disagree with therefore you shouldn't seek to act consistently with your own ethics in any regard" as a philosophy. But what exactly is your ethics here? Is it that nobody should rely on people who have done something bad? If it is, then how should these condemned people live? And if not, would you then happily allow other people to rely on them, without decrying those people, as well?

▲

SanjayMehta 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> he pointed out that by insisting on maintaining ignorance, I could be funding a very bad person

Does your friend use a smartphone?

He could be funding very bad people.

https://voiceofenvironment.com/2019/06/21/conflict-minerals-...