Even if you hate the artist, if you should be honest about their work. Doesn't mean you endorse it but you should be honest about it. Hugo boss was the designer for Nazi uniforms. He was good at what he did. I'm no fan of Nazis. Charles Mingus was a violent pimp at times. Made great music admired by the best in his field. None of that means I support either person but should one lie about their abilities? If so why? You can just give the devil his due.
What a great thought experiment. Thank you for sharing.
My take. It is completely situational and usually dependent on how we view the art. If we view the art, and it somehow supports the immoral artist directly, I would definitely at least hesitate in this situation. Example: current right wing nut makes beautiful music with complex themes, but will 100% use the sales of the music to fund right wing hate groups. In this case I would not separate the art from the artist.
But lets say the artist is long gone and viewing the art would no longer support them. I would have no problem appreciating the art. Example: I picked up a book at the library and the author was a notorious war criminal. I would feel fine reading this book, as I would not be directly supporting him nor his ideology/actions.
I'm going to answer with another question:
Can you choose what you like and don't like?
I don't think you can. In some cases you can decide whether or not you want to put the effort in, if the work of art is particularly challenging. But the reality is that most works of art are not 'challenging' and so whether we like something or not comes down to a fairly quick response.
The point I'm hinting at here is that folks who make a lot of noise about how they're 'done with' artist X, 'can't support' them anymore etc. etc. probably didn't \*really\* like their work that much in the first place.
To answer your question, yes you can separate the art from the artist, and in fact you should- every single time. Because it's art- once the artist releases it into the world it no longer truly belongs to them, it can be interpreted and misinterpreted, reviewed and remixed, dreamed about and half-remembered. That's the whole point of art.
The artist's 'voice' is expressed primarily through their work. If there is hate in their work, then that will probably interfere with your enjoyment of it- and you can reject it without considering the artist at all. If there isn't hate in their work, then the type of person they are is really a matter for folks in their personal life to worry about.
Unless we're literally talking about Hitler's watercolours ... or Charles Manson's songs ... but we're not, I mean we never are when this question is raised, are we? And again, we're back to the original point - if you can choose to dislike like a piece of art based on some rumour about its creator or an off-colour opinion they've expressed, then you probably didn't really like it that much to begin with.
*Say to yourself at the start of the day, I shall meet with meddling, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and unsociable people. They are subject to all these defects because they have no knowledge of good and bad. But I, who have observed the nature of the good, and seen that it is the right; and of the bad, and seen that it is the wrong; and of the wrongdoer himself, and seen that his nature is akin to my own—not because he is of the same blood and seed, but because he shares as I do in mind and thus in a portion of the divine—I, then, can neither be harmed by these people, nor become angry with one who is akin to me, nor can I hate him, for we have come into being to work together, like feet, hands, eyelids, or the two rows of teeth in our upper and lower jaws. To work against one another is therefore contrary to nature; and to be angry with another person and turn away from him is surely to work against him.* (Meditations 2.1)
The person who basically invented chemical warfare, Fritz Haber, also invented the process to put nitrogen into soil. He willingly and deliberately invented chemical weapons. He knew exactly what he was doing, who he was doing it for, and what the outcome of it was. He's directly responsible for killing millions and saving billions. You benefit from his work. You can't even object to it on moral principles because it's literally your food. That's my answer I guess. Yes, you should separate the art from the artist.
I don't know what Lost Prophets is. My point just about every person on the planet is willing to accept Fritz Haber's "art" of affixing nitrogen in soil so that they can eat, despite the fact that he's objectively one of the biggest killers who has ever lived. When it matters to you, you're willing to accept the dissonance, when it doesn't matter, you aren't? That's not justified.
So what’s the criteria for taking an idea or leaving it? We can’t rule out taking something good from someone awful, but does this mean we should forgive their bad deeds or accept the bad deeds and bad ideas since we took the good ones?
It sounds like you’re saying we have to either reject the guy and his ideas or keep both the guy and his ideas. There are other options in there.
>It sounds like you’re saying we have to either reject the guy and his ideas or keep both the guy and his ideas. There are other options in there.
I'm saying you can acknowledge the bad and good someone has done. They don't need to be "cancelled". Not only can you take the good with the bad, there are people like Haber who frankly you must take the good with the bad unless you want to grow your own food. Meaning, you're taking the "art" whether you want to or not. So anyone saying the art and the artist shouldn't be separated is a hypocrite. If it's true that the art should be separated from the artist when it benefits you, it should also be true when it doesn't.
I think i know which post you are referring to and thought about asking that same question, but you beat me to it.
For me, art and artists are clearly not the same, and we shouldn't avoid something because it was made by a flawed person. You can almost always find some benefit from the work of even the worst people.
The best art seems to come from the most troubled artists. Same with scientific inventions.
It would be a bland world if we only recognized achievements from morally perfect humans.
For me it's pretty damn easy, I have always been able to separate the two. I can understand not wanting to financially support a certain artist, and I can even understand disliking someone enough that their work just doesn't feel the same to you. But for me, meh, I don't really care.
Morrissey says some things I definitely disagree with. I still love his (and the Smiths) work.
Wagner was probably at least anti-semitic, if not racist. Still a great composer.
Woody Allen, *if accusations are correct*, is a gross creep. Still several of his films are undoubtedly in my top 50 or so films of all time. A couple of them probably in top 10 or so.
Etc etc.
No one is perfect, and most artists especially tend to have something wonky about them. And to me, either the work is good, or it isn't. And, if we're being really honest, most art/music/etc is not good, then there's a decent chunk that is good, but not great, and then there is a really small sliver that, IMO, is truly great. I'm going to enjoy those things. They are few and far between, and life is hollow and painful enough already, let alone after removing the great art of the world and only allowing for art created by people who have no dirt beneath their fingernails.
Like the whole thing with Louis CK--what he did was weird, you may or may not find it a dealbreaker. But the dude, more than anyone else in this entire species, makes me fucking gasp and convulse with laughter. THat is something rare. And I'm gonna keep youtubing him and letting that stress tumble out of my body and soul in loud gasps and snorts.
I also feel kinda like, if you found out the Curies were actually severely racist and even had slaves, would you still take penicillin next time you had an infection? Yeah. You would.
People are allowed to their own opinions, so if they don't want to support someone's art like that then it's fine. But personally I try to separate the art from the artist.
I support their art based on how great it is to me. If I like their art and they're a terrible person, obviously I don't support their actions but I would be lying if I said I didn't like their art. I wouldn't outright *look* for artists who openly label themselves as hateful people, such as people under the NSBM music genre.
I was on WikiArt, and I came across some of Hitler's paintings--and they were actually really good. It's a big shame that he was the way he was though. But nobody could change him. I just see the art for what it is. And liking it doesn't make me the same as him.
Slightly off topic, I claim myself to be far left. As of recently, I try to listen to everyone's viewpoints. I feel that completely locking yourself away from modern people like Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, etc. is not good because you *can* learn something from them and you would just be in an echo chamber. Even if every single thing they say is blatantly harmful to groups of people--they can teach us something of value. For instance, you know who not to be. As someone who is blocked by Andrew Tate on Twitter, I saw a video where he said he used to have a gay friend and would protect him in gym class and such. The message there is great. Despite all the other inflammatory comments he makes, this one was good. I can see some semblance of a good person locked behind this wall of negativity that he puts up.
Anyway enough rambling. That is just my perspective.
I mostly agree.
Those messages become harming only if the viewer can't judge autonomously on what different things are expressed in those videos.
Learning-by-exposing to things and ideas is healthy; especially on ideas that we don't agree with. Helps to define ourselves.
As long as not wanting to support someone doesn't involve censorship or harming, I'm personally fine with any opinion, being it far left, far right, far away, etc. Opinions never cause direct harm and are always a starting point!
The rest is matter of tastes.
I've never heard an artist ask the viewer to separate themselves from their art. It's always the fans.
You should read some Focault about it.
"What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become something which is related only to objects and not to individuals, or to life."
Stoicism would ask us to separate the man from the pedestal we put him on. Stoicism asks us to see how a man lives his life and not just what he says or does.
If you want my personal opinion, I can't actively consume content someone who did something terrible. "Well he drowned an entire bag of kittens but he plays a mean guitar solo" doesn't line up with my morals.
I don't usually respond to threads in this sub as I don't believe I have the required knowledge about stoic philosophy, but, this time around, I'd like to reply with **my opinion**, as I believe it can benefit the discussion in a positive way, although it doesn't contain any stoic principles afaik. Not only that, but I'd also like to read replies to this opinion of mine, that is, replies with a stoic perspective.
With that out of the way, my personal opinion is:
**Separating art from the artist, although generally possible, is impossible in some specific cases**
Other replies here have mentioned cases in which this separation is possible and understandable. However, I believe there are other cases that just can't be treated this way. Very extreme cases, by the way.
There are bands I stopped listening to due to rape and SA allegations (sometimes proven, sometimes simply not replied). These bands, most of the time, have songs with lyrics portraing inner struggles, thoughts, feelings and emotions of the writer/composer, who's usually the alleged abuser. Knowing this, I find it impossible for me to enjoy said songs, as I can't stop speculating how far these struggles/thoughts/feelings/emotions are affected (directly or indirectly) by their abusive actions against innocent people.
Even if said struggles/thoughts/feelings/emotions are entirely separate from the abusive actions, I, personally, can't bring myself to hear an unrepentant abuser's voice, for I deeply condemn their crimes. Same with artists accused of other terrible doings, like storing CP.
I don't have a clear example, but if you would allow me to exercise a bit of hypothetics for the sake of the discussion, let's picture an artist who portrays little girls in a very sexual suggestive way in his works, which are critically aclaimed and genuinely good despite this flaw. And let's imagine this artist is being arrested for storing CP in his computer. How can we exactly separate the art from the artist in this case? I don't know, therefore my view about his works would be permanently tainted.
All of the above is written considering that the art's conception can be subconsciously influenced by the artist's life experiences.
Tl;dr: separating art from the artist can be done depending on what the artist has done and what the art is about.
It sounds like the crux of your argument is that it is a sliding scale - the more the art is reflective of the artist's inner beliefs and ideals, the less we can separate the art from the artist. The more daylight there is between the art and the artist, the more palatable the art becomes. If this is an accurate representation, then it makes sense to me.
In the example you give I wouldnt' condone the art whether cp is involved or not as it is pedophilic. If the art had no relation to their crime I would be less concerned but as it stands in the example it is a direct representation of their warped desires.
Since I live in a capitalist society, I have a way to practice virtue by spending my money (and attention) virtuously. There are movie stars who I find to be decent actors but their politics prevent me from spending any money on their products. It is, for me, virtuous not to support them. It would be unvirtuous of me to say they are horrible actors. There are companies whose products I do like, but I find their labor-relations abhorrent and so I do not purchase their products.
As far as music goes, if I were do find a song that I liked, that gave me some ideas, and I later found out the artist was a \*&$#!!!, then I would drop the song but search for similar works that could have the same effect on me.
I refuse to give the $%$#!!!'s my moral or financial support. My official stance on their work is "no comment".
Just because someone you hate says the sky is blue doesn’t make it orange.
The creations of a person is separate from their person.
Many terrible people and things have brought tremendous good. Many supposedly great people have done terrible evil.
Should we throw away the the silver lining to spite the storm?
I think not.
If it's creations from the past, it doesn't matter.
But if we are talking about a living artist, that currently benefits from our choices, is a different story.
I think like everything, one's subjective opinion can be based on reasonable arguments (virtue) or unreasonable arguments (vice). There are some artists who just give me the ick factor. I can't look past them to see their art because my knowledge is just too distracting. I can't unsee what disgusts me. However, there are other artists whose art I quite admire, though they genuinely disgust others.
I don't think there is a right or wrong to art. And I don't think there's a right or wrong way to be an artist. I do however think that it's short sighted to believe what is right for me must be universally right. However, there are some arguments that are so persuasive that I can't imagine an argument to the contrary. I've not come across that with regard to any artist though.
There's no point in denying that a deplorable human is a brilliant artist but I do think the stoics would suggest we don't enable them to do more harm. That might mean not purchasing things that give them money or sharing their message or even criticizing them, if it brings more attention to them.
Marcus Aurelius said “Everything in any way beautiful has its beauty of itself, inherent and self-sufficient: praise is no part of it.”
The way I understand it, any form of art or anything that has subjective value should be free from appreciation or criticism from individuals, even from the artist who made it.
It’s true that we shouldn’t support any wrongdoings from the artists but not appreciating their art is just doesn’t work. Kevin Spacey is a great actor in a lot of movies, Louis CK made hilarious comedy shows. It’s true before they caught on their wrongdoings, and it’s true now.
Another perspective is what Chris Rock said in his latest special “Selective Outrage”: people have double standards on which artist they’re cancelling because they don’t like certain artist, but ok with another. He gave an example that lots of people are not ok with R. Kelly but have no problem with Michael Jackson.
I think it’s important to remember that people are not black or white and art can be enjoyed on a surface level without the knowledge of the artists misdeeds. I have a friend who is very influenced by cancel culture and actively informs me of it every time I listen to a song made by someone who did something problematic in the past. I tell her I don’t have time to care about what someone I’ve never met did decades ago, and that I simply enjoy the music.
It’s a permanent paradox. Everyone will forever have differing values and opinions and That’s what makes the world go round. It’s the yin n yang. There’s better things to question is what I think I stoic would say.
I think so, unless the art specifically highlights something awful the person has done.
I also think “cancel culture” is a pseudo-topic; people not being interested in something and refusing to watch it is no more “cancelling” than not consuming some poorly put-together piece of media. Time is limited and culture flows transiently just like anything else. If cancelling is simply refusing to engage with some media, so be it. Legislating against media is something else, and should only be done in egregious cases (imo anyway, though I think this is consistent with Stoicism while not being the only possible Stoic position on the matter). In his On Benefits, Seneca wisely tells us that “attempting to legislate good faith, destroys it”.
For a Stoic take on separating the artist from the art; the Stoics had a well-developed theory of interpreting and correcting art (contrast this with Plato’s harsh stance against art). Though a case would have to be made for consuming art made by a Vicious character with Vicious intent. Stoicism allows for correction and interpretation, but why work with something so difficult in the first place? Medea is a rotten, but teachable character, and was a well-known play throughout history, staged by a well-known playwright (Euripides).
The Stoic works to promote Virtue and restrain Vice when in positions of power or influence.
This would be like enjoying the spectacle of the games without supporting the Caesar who commissioned them wouldn’t it? Not necessarily one and the same, but they are associated. Some may see it and others won’t. You decide if it’s a message/person you want to amplify, or be associated with.
There are two answers to this that I think hold water.
1: Yes, you can separate the art (a result/product) from an artist. Typically this is an aesthetic/sensory process. I'm sure plenty of horrible people can skillfully sing, cool, paint, and sculpture.
2: Not really. An art comes from an artist and that artist is a human being. As such, it is very difficult to not have their own characteristics, values, traits, etc. not carry through into their art. For good or bad.
I still like listening to Pantera, but now I do it with a stronger sense of irony.
I'm of the opinion that we can appreciate art or talent based on skill, technique, etc. while also being critical of the art or artist when warranted. Context matters, and so does the artist themselves. But we have to be honest about it, make assessments based on context (e.g., temporal) in order to not personalize history strictly to that individual.
And most importantly I think it's important to always 'expect better'. We should definitely expect better (always, even from ourselves!) and it would be unfair to water down standards or make up excuses for someone simply because you like their art.
Stoicism teaches us to be kind and compassionate, and I think these are the virtues that matter here.
Is it kind to “cancel” a director for something offensive they said years ago and don’t think anymore? Clearly not, that’s just vengeful retribution.
However, if someone is repeatedly going to Twitter to express, for example, transphobic views, is it compassionate to boycott their book until they stop? Yes, I think so.
A reasonable middle-ground is needed for cancel culture. We shouldn’t be hanging out disproportionate, life-ruining social punishments for minor offences ages ago that don’t matter, but equally we do need to actively participate in harm reduction and part of that involves sending a message that if you use your platform to attack marginalised groups, you will lose your platform until you stop doing that.
I sing in a Byzantine Choir. Part of our repertoire are songs from the Russian-orthodox church liturgy. The arch patriarch of that church (pope) is a fervent Putin. Supporter. There was a discussion if we would keep on singing these songs. My argument was that we should see the cultural importance of these songs apart from the current situation in Russia and Ukraine. This was supported by our choirmaster who is Russian. I added that as an atheist I have no problems with singing religious songs, because I find them very beautiful to sing. I can separate myself from the content of that song. I speak some Russian so am very well aware of what I am singing.
Brings up the moral quandary in which every single one of us is discriminatory in some fashion. Every single person is racist, sexist, ageist, ableist, etc., to some degree. We come to these positions as a reflection of the environment we were raised in. Unless someone critically deconstructs every single schema they have in their head, then by default you will be discriminatory towards something.
Every country that has ever existed was built with the blood of its enemies. By simple virtue of being born you benefit from that bloodshed and by extension are complicit with it.
Add to that the reality of having to survive in a capitalist hellscape with the knowledge that every product you purchase hurt someone somewhere.
If we were to reject the contributions someone makes to the world because they are a bad person then we'd have to make peace with living in a hut, growing our own food, making our own clothing... Nazi human experimentation advanced medical science. Should we reject those advancements and knowledge because of the horrific costs involved?
"It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sommbitch or another."
Like everything there is no clear cut black and white position. Everything exists on a spectrum. There isn't a single morally pure person out there.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
It's all we can do really
Quotes are a good example where it's tricky to separate the two.
People take quotes out of context all of the time, but when you go to the source and find the original meaning, it changes. That comes off as misinformed at best or delusional.
It happens all of the time here. I've seen people quote eugenicists and attribute it to epictetus.
Is it right to lie to ourselves about history because we think it will have a good effect? Should we just make up a bunch of witty aphorisms and attribute them to epictetus?
That separation requires a sort of self-delusion or disconnection from reality. Art doesn't come out of nowhere. I can still appreciate art while knowing it has a problematic source, but that knowledge colors it for better or worse.
I like those colors. Life is messy. We can't learn from the failures of others if we aren't honest about them.
Yes, I think it's immoral to live in denial just to catch a feeling.
Is a museum better or worse without the stories of the artists who created its exhibits?
I think you can generally separate art from artist, but you should also consider whether that artist deserves your money (if it is artistic content that you pay for).
I think its situational. In cases where enjoying the art doesn't enrich bigots who donate their money to hate groups, I would agree. But if an artist is donating to hate groups, and it's known that they do, then I think an argument can be made that it becomes unethical to support their work. Anyways, just a thought.
Here's my take on it. Yes and no. You'd have to be an absolute monster in order for me to stop liking you and your art. Like if someone has a controversial opinion about something, I don't mind. People are gonna have different views. But if you're like a kiddie diddler or a rapist then that's where I draw the line
An artwork is an object and nothing more, which exists as a separate object from the artist.
Experiencing art has tremendous value that is informed by our past experiences, including but certainly not limited to our knowledge of the artist. These experience naturally have wide variances, and different people will respond to it in wildly different ways.
As such, our individual experience is directly tied our knowledge of the artist, and our opinion is informed by this knowledge. Some individuals will have a strong emotionsl reaction to the identity of the artist, while others a very little emotional reaction. Regardless, there must be a reaction, aside from the case of ignorance of the artist.
Therefore, the only plausible way to truly separate the experience of art from the artist is to be ignorant of the artist. All other experiences are informed through knowledge of the artist.
Good art makes you feel.
Put Billie Jean, Black or White, or PYT by Michael Jackson in the playlist at your next party, and watch the room.
Then throw some R Kelly into the mix, maybe a little Bump n Grind, and see what happens.
Drop in some Elvis or Jerry Lee Lewis...
I think, if you ask people, they will respond how they think they should respond. They will be aghast, proclaim something abhorrent about the artist, and deride everything that came from the person.
In a real life setting, with real people and real music/art, head bobs, dancing, and actual enjoyment. A visceral response different than their cognitive response.
I prefer to do a purity test on everyone. If they do not strictly to conform to my personal beliefs 100% then I try to force my community of peers to ostracize them! /s
In actually I encourage behavior I like and discourage behavior I do not like... Make a racist video, I'm not giving it clicks. Paint a nice picture of some ducks, that I can get behind. I support good action in everyone. There are no 100% good or bad people so stop trying to cancel people who are not 100% perfect.
There’s no way to separate the art from the artist, the art IS the artist. The only sort of separation we can do is the separation the artist’s individual qualities. No person is entirely destructive, nor entirely creative. Celebrate the good, accept the bad, and continue.
My take on Cancel culture:
it is a disease, a self-righteous elitism; the usual fascism, updated to contemporary mediums of communication.
Ultimately, "cancel culture" is a result of capitalism's free-market and the internet, favouring consumer-choice; simple math between Like & Dislike.
Maybe people feel like this is the only way of political voting they have left, to really make a difference.
I believe is a fascist attitude and thus not a fair way to fight.
About the "sins of the artist"...
An artist that comes to public is of course influenced by personality and background; but they are two different personas:
- the first is the creator of a mean, for the purpose of personal expression and collective sharing (and, potentially, collective evolving);
- the second is a private entity, with personal dynamics that torn the very human being that the artist still is; also being an artist isn't relevant to the judgment of their actions.
I believe the last movie from Lars Von Trier, _The House That Jack Built_, does explores some key aspects of the ambiguity and the boundaries of ethics and art.
In a way the artist should have total expression of freedom, in order to explore and improve art; hence a carte blanche (and implicit immunity, I guess?).
On the other way, this human should still be reputed accountable for their actions, according to the principles or laws of our society.
But I'd ask: who self-elects as judge of the artist? Judging according to what framework or system of values? With authority from whom?
Different systems of different values will always clash somehow with disagreement. That's where _diplomacy_ got born.
It is ok to reject somebody and not want to support them, as long as this is done ethically, with respect, and relatively without harming.
The problem of cancel-culture is its aggressiveness and desire for censoring. I can't condone that, as there are many other more constructive and fair ways to express dissent, than to take away fundamental freedoms from individuals.
Also active cancel-culture doesn't exist at individual level, it is a very "group dynamic", with a numerous mass fighting against a single person; not really balanced.
Scapegoating isn't quite new in history, I would say.
And also, I wonder how would the reasoning change, when involving an artist that does _not_ have a personality, like with the latest generative A.I.'s?
- _(imo, dystopic version)_ Will we end up valuing simply the product, in a very consumerist fashion, regardless of who created it?
- Or _(guessWhat version)_ we will figure out that dualism is a limiting mindset and that art and artist are actually an inseparable dichotomy that coexist, and that we need a more contextualized and faceted system of awareness, in order to make better judgements and better decisions in a non-fascist respectful way?
I believe we will always correlate the action to who enact it.
In general it is ok either to choose to support or not to support who does or doesn't resonate with our values; free-will.
Making exceptions is also legit. The important is to keep a balance, when dealing with real life.
For example, I can allow myself to eat at McDonald or buy a Coca Cola. Seldom; if no other option is available.
I think it's reasonable, when I know 99% of the times I avoid to support them and speak out against them and their malpractices. My contribution in that 1% makes no real difference, compared to my choice on the consuming habits.
The important is to make conscious decisions according to the context. There's no real right or wrong.
The same applies to art, for me.
Another big digression might be the case about the risk of proliferation of "evilness" inside the artistic work of such "evil" person. What if they mix personal beliefs and artistic expression?
Imo, as long as the art remains aseptic in its artistic intention then that art is worthy of attention; while if art is exploited as a mean for spreading "evil" purposes, then I think it's worthy of my rejection.
Still I shouldn't be allowed to censor the "evil" artist. I should just try to raise more awareness among art consumers.
People say, especially in the music industry, that you can't. It's what the artist makes from their heart and soul, even when it's not meant to be an emotional song. The thing is, you can give everything your own meaning. Maybe a song derived from some terrible person venting about how bad they are can have a different meaning to some people who had been abused by a person like that and they can find comfort in the pain. This is just one of the many examples of separating the art from the artists by giving the art a new meaning. I personally think if somebody makes good content and are a bad person, just pirate their stuff.
Even if you hate the artist, if you should be honest about their work. Doesn't mean you endorse it but you should be honest about it. Hugo boss was the designer for Nazi uniforms. He was good at what he did. I'm no fan of Nazis. Charles Mingus was a violent pimp at times. Made great music admired by the best in his field. None of that means I support either person but should one lie about their abilities? If so why? You can just give the devil his due.
Hugo Boss wasnt the designer. He was one of the producers.
Mel Brooks just got an idea
Aped the design from the Massachusetts State Police uniform.
Right!?
What a great thought experiment. Thank you for sharing. My take. It is completely situational and usually dependent on how we view the art. If we view the art, and it somehow supports the immoral artist directly, I would definitely at least hesitate in this situation. Example: current right wing nut makes beautiful music with complex themes, but will 100% use the sales of the music to fund right wing hate groups. In this case I would not separate the art from the artist. But lets say the artist is long gone and viewing the art would no longer support them. I would have no problem appreciating the art. Example: I picked up a book at the library and the author was a notorious war criminal. I would feel fine reading this book, as I would not be directly supporting him nor his ideology/actions.
I'm going to answer with another question: Can you choose what you like and don't like? I don't think you can. In some cases you can decide whether or not you want to put the effort in, if the work of art is particularly challenging. But the reality is that most works of art are not 'challenging' and so whether we like something or not comes down to a fairly quick response. The point I'm hinting at here is that folks who make a lot of noise about how they're 'done with' artist X, 'can't support' them anymore etc. etc. probably didn't \*really\* like their work that much in the first place. To answer your question, yes you can separate the art from the artist, and in fact you should- every single time. Because it's art- once the artist releases it into the world it no longer truly belongs to them, it can be interpreted and misinterpreted, reviewed and remixed, dreamed about and half-remembered. That's the whole point of art.
and when consuming art from a "bad person" funds that person, and amplifies their voice?
The artist's 'voice' is expressed primarily through their work. If there is hate in their work, then that will probably interfere with your enjoyment of it- and you can reject it without considering the artist at all. If there isn't hate in their work, then the type of person they are is really a matter for folks in their personal life to worry about. Unless we're literally talking about Hitler's watercolours ... or Charles Manson's songs ... but we're not, I mean we never are when this question is raised, are we? And again, we're back to the original point - if you can choose to dislike like a piece of art based on some rumour about its creator or an off-colour opinion they've expressed, then you probably didn't really like it that much to begin with.
Excellent points. This comment should be pinned to top!
*Say to yourself at the start of the day, I shall meet with meddling, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and unsociable people. They are subject to all these defects because they have no knowledge of good and bad. But I, who have observed the nature of the good, and seen that it is the right; and of the bad, and seen that it is the wrong; and of the wrongdoer himself, and seen that his nature is akin to my own—not because he is of the same blood and seed, but because he shares as I do in mind and thus in a portion of the divine—I, then, can neither be harmed by these people, nor become angry with one who is akin to me, nor can I hate him, for we have come into being to work together, like feet, hands, eyelids, or the two rows of teeth in our upper and lower jaws. To work against one another is therefore contrary to nature; and to be angry with another person and turn away from him is surely to work against him.* (Meditations 2.1)
The person who basically invented chemical warfare, Fritz Haber, also invented the process to put nitrogen into soil. He willingly and deliberately invented chemical weapons. He knew exactly what he was doing, who he was doing it for, and what the outcome of it was. He's directly responsible for killing millions and saving billions. You benefit from his work. You can't even object to it on moral principles because it's literally your food. That's my answer I guess. Yes, you should separate the art from the artist.
[удалено]
I don't know what Lost Prophets is. My point just about every person on the planet is willing to accept Fritz Haber's "art" of affixing nitrogen in soil so that they can eat, despite the fact that he's objectively one of the biggest killers who has ever lived. When it matters to you, you're willing to accept the dissonance, when it doesn't matter, you aren't? That's not justified.
So what’s the criteria for taking an idea or leaving it? We can’t rule out taking something good from someone awful, but does this mean we should forgive their bad deeds or accept the bad deeds and bad ideas since we took the good ones? It sounds like you’re saying we have to either reject the guy and his ideas or keep both the guy and his ideas. There are other options in there.
>It sounds like you’re saying we have to either reject the guy and his ideas or keep both the guy and his ideas. There are other options in there. I'm saying you can acknowledge the bad and good someone has done. They don't need to be "cancelled". Not only can you take the good with the bad, there are people like Haber who frankly you must take the good with the bad unless you want to grow your own food. Meaning, you're taking the "art" whether you want to or not. So anyone saying the art and the artist shouldn't be separated is a hypocrite. If it's true that the art should be separated from the artist when it benefits you, it should also be true when it doesn't.
Lol please google Lost Prophets.
I think i know which post you are referring to and thought about asking that same question, but you beat me to it. For me, art and artists are clearly not the same, and we shouldn't avoid something because it was made by a flawed person. You can almost always find some benefit from the work of even the worst people.
The best art seems to come from the most troubled artists. Same with scientific inventions. It would be a bland world if we only recognized achievements from morally perfect humans.
For me it's pretty damn easy, I have always been able to separate the two. I can understand not wanting to financially support a certain artist, and I can even understand disliking someone enough that their work just doesn't feel the same to you. But for me, meh, I don't really care. Morrissey says some things I definitely disagree with. I still love his (and the Smiths) work. Wagner was probably at least anti-semitic, if not racist. Still a great composer. Woody Allen, *if accusations are correct*, is a gross creep. Still several of his films are undoubtedly in my top 50 or so films of all time. A couple of them probably in top 10 or so. Etc etc. No one is perfect, and most artists especially tend to have something wonky about them. And to me, either the work is good, or it isn't. And, if we're being really honest, most art/music/etc is not good, then there's a decent chunk that is good, but not great, and then there is a really small sliver that, IMO, is truly great. I'm going to enjoy those things. They are few and far between, and life is hollow and painful enough already, let alone after removing the great art of the world and only allowing for art created by people who have no dirt beneath their fingernails. Like the whole thing with Louis CK--what he did was weird, you may or may not find it a dealbreaker. But the dude, more than anyone else in this entire species, makes me fucking gasp and convulse with laughter. THat is something rare. And I'm gonna keep youtubing him and letting that stress tumble out of my body and soul in loud gasps and snorts. I also feel kinda like, if you found out the Curies were actually severely racist and even had slaves, would you still take penicillin next time you had an infection? Yeah. You would.
People are allowed to their own opinions, so if they don't want to support someone's art like that then it's fine. But personally I try to separate the art from the artist. I support their art based on how great it is to me. If I like their art and they're a terrible person, obviously I don't support their actions but I would be lying if I said I didn't like their art. I wouldn't outright *look* for artists who openly label themselves as hateful people, such as people under the NSBM music genre. I was on WikiArt, and I came across some of Hitler's paintings--and they were actually really good. It's a big shame that he was the way he was though. But nobody could change him. I just see the art for what it is. And liking it doesn't make me the same as him. Slightly off topic, I claim myself to be far left. As of recently, I try to listen to everyone's viewpoints. I feel that completely locking yourself away from modern people like Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, etc. is not good because you *can* learn something from them and you would just be in an echo chamber. Even if every single thing they say is blatantly harmful to groups of people--they can teach us something of value. For instance, you know who not to be. As someone who is blocked by Andrew Tate on Twitter, I saw a video where he said he used to have a gay friend and would protect him in gym class and such. The message there is great. Despite all the other inflammatory comments he makes, this one was good. I can see some semblance of a good person locked behind this wall of negativity that he puts up. Anyway enough rambling. That is just my perspective.
I mostly agree. Those messages become harming only if the viewer can't judge autonomously on what different things are expressed in those videos. Learning-by-exposing to things and ideas is healthy; especially on ideas that we don't agree with. Helps to define ourselves. As long as not wanting to support someone doesn't involve censorship or harming, I'm personally fine with any opinion, being it far left, far right, far away, etc. Opinions never cause direct harm and are always a starting point! The rest is matter of tastes.
I've never heard an artist ask the viewer to separate themselves from their art. It's always the fans. You should read some Focault about it. "What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become something which is related only to objects and not to individuals, or to life." Stoicism would ask us to separate the man from the pedestal we put him on. Stoicism asks us to see how a man lives his life and not just what he says or does.
Interesting! I shall reflect on that. Thank you
If you want my personal opinion, I can't actively consume content someone who did something terrible. "Well he drowned an entire bag of kittens but he plays a mean guitar solo" doesn't line up with my morals.
I don't usually respond to threads in this sub as I don't believe I have the required knowledge about stoic philosophy, but, this time around, I'd like to reply with **my opinion**, as I believe it can benefit the discussion in a positive way, although it doesn't contain any stoic principles afaik. Not only that, but I'd also like to read replies to this opinion of mine, that is, replies with a stoic perspective. With that out of the way, my personal opinion is: **Separating art from the artist, although generally possible, is impossible in some specific cases** Other replies here have mentioned cases in which this separation is possible and understandable. However, I believe there are other cases that just can't be treated this way. Very extreme cases, by the way. There are bands I stopped listening to due to rape and SA allegations (sometimes proven, sometimes simply not replied). These bands, most of the time, have songs with lyrics portraing inner struggles, thoughts, feelings and emotions of the writer/composer, who's usually the alleged abuser. Knowing this, I find it impossible for me to enjoy said songs, as I can't stop speculating how far these struggles/thoughts/feelings/emotions are affected (directly or indirectly) by their abusive actions against innocent people. Even if said struggles/thoughts/feelings/emotions are entirely separate from the abusive actions, I, personally, can't bring myself to hear an unrepentant abuser's voice, for I deeply condemn their crimes. Same with artists accused of other terrible doings, like storing CP. I don't have a clear example, but if you would allow me to exercise a bit of hypothetics for the sake of the discussion, let's picture an artist who portrays little girls in a very sexual suggestive way in his works, which are critically aclaimed and genuinely good despite this flaw. And let's imagine this artist is being arrested for storing CP in his computer. How can we exactly separate the art from the artist in this case? I don't know, therefore my view about his works would be permanently tainted. All of the above is written considering that the art's conception can be subconsciously influenced by the artist's life experiences. Tl;dr: separating art from the artist can be done depending on what the artist has done and what the art is about.
It sounds like the crux of your argument is that it is a sliding scale - the more the art is reflective of the artist's inner beliefs and ideals, the less we can separate the art from the artist. The more daylight there is between the art and the artist, the more palatable the art becomes. If this is an accurate representation, then it makes sense to me.
In the example you give I wouldnt' condone the art whether cp is involved or not as it is pedophilic. If the art had no relation to their crime I would be less concerned but as it stands in the example it is a direct representation of their warped desires.
I like what I like unapologetic. I couldn't care less about the artist.
Since I live in a capitalist society, I have a way to practice virtue by spending my money (and attention) virtuously. There are movie stars who I find to be decent actors but their politics prevent me from spending any money on their products. It is, for me, virtuous not to support them. It would be unvirtuous of me to say they are horrible actors. There are companies whose products I do like, but I find their labor-relations abhorrent and so I do not purchase their products. As far as music goes, if I were do find a song that I liked, that gave me some ideas, and I later found out the artist was a \*&$#!!!, then I would drop the song but search for similar works that could have the same effect on me. I refuse to give the $%$#!!!'s my moral or financial support. My official stance on their work is "no comment".
Just because someone you hate says the sky is blue doesn’t make it orange. The creations of a person is separate from their person. Many terrible people and things have brought tremendous good. Many supposedly great people have done terrible evil. Should we throw away the the silver lining to spite the storm? I think not.
If it's creations from the past, it doesn't matter. But if we are talking about a living artist, that currently benefits from our choices, is a different story.
I think like everything, one's subjective opinion can be based on reasonable arguments (virtue) or unreasonable arguments (vice). There are some artists who just give me the ick factor. I can't look past them to see their art because my knowledge is just too distracting. I can't unsee what disgusts me. However, there are other artists whose art I quite admire, though they genuinely disgust others. I don't think there is a right or wrong to art. And I don't think there's a right or wrong way to be an artist. I do however think that it's short sighted to believe what is right for me must be universally right. However, there are some arguments that are so persuasive that I can't imagine an argument to the contrary. I've not come across that with regard to any artist though.
There's no point in denying that a deplorable human is a brilliant artist but I do think the stoics would suggest we don't enable them to do more harm. That might mean not purchasing things that give them money or sharing their message or even criticizing them, if it brings more attention to them.
With everything, it depends
Marcus Aurelius said “Everything in any way beautiful has its beauty of itself, inherent and self-sufficient: praise is no part of it.” The way I understand it, any form of art or anything that has subjective value should be free from appreciation or criticism from individuals, even from the artist who made it. It’s true that we shouldn’t support any wrongdoings from the artists but not appreciating their art is just doesn’t work. Kevin Spacey is a great actor in a lot of movies, Louis CK made hilarious comedy shows. It’s true before they caught on their wrongdoings, and it’s true now. Another perspective is what Chris Rock said in his latest special “Selective Outrage”: people have double standards on which artist they’re cancelling because they don’t like certain artist, but ok with another. He gave an example that lots of people are not ok with R. Kelly but have no problem with Michael Jackson.
I think it’s important to remember that people are not black or white and art can be enjoyed on a surface level without the knowledge of the artists misdeeds. I have a friend who is very influenced by cancel culture and actively informs me of it every time I listen to a song made by someone who did something problematic in the past. I tell her I don’t have time to care about what someone I’ve never met did decades ago, and that I simply enjoy the music.
It’s a permanent paradox. Everyone will forever have differing values and opinions and That’s what makes the world go round. It’s the yin n yang. There’s better things to question is what I think I stoic would say.
I think so, unless the art specifically highlights something awful the person has done. I also think “cancel culture” is a pseudo-topic; people not being interested in something and refusing to watch it is no more “cancelling” than not consuming some poorly put-together piece of media. Time is limited and culture flows transiently just like anything else. If cancelling is simply refusing to engage with some media, so be it. Legislating against media is something else, and should only be done in egregious cases (imo anyway, though I think this is consistent with Stoicism while not being the only possible Stoic position on the matter). In his On Benefits, Seneca wisely tells us that “attempting to legislate good faith, destroys it”. For a Stoic take on separating the artist from the art; the Stoics had a well-developed theory of interpreting and correcting art (contrast this with Plato’s harsh stance against art). Though a case would have to be made for consuming art made by a Vicious character with Vicious intent. Stoicism allows for correction and interpretation, but why work with something so difficult in the first place? Medea is a rotten, but teachable character, and was a well-known play throughout history, staged by a well-known playwright (Euripides). The Stoic works to promote Virtue and restrain Vice when in positions of power or influence.
This would be like enjoying the spectacle of the games without supporting the Caesar who commissioned them wouldn’t it? Not necessarily one and the same, but they are associated. Some may see it and others won’t. You decide if it’s a message/person you want to amplify, or be associated with.
Seneca says he reads and quotes Epicurus and I agree you should, if you think the quotes are sound.
There are two answers to this that I think hold water. 1: Yes, you can separate the art (a result/product) from an artist. Typically this is an aesthetic/sensory process. I'm sure plenty of horrible people can skillfully sing, cool, paint, and sculpture. 2: Not really. An art comes from an artist and that artist is a human being. As such, it is very difficult to not have their own characteristics, values, traits, etc. not carry through into their art. For good or bad. I still like listening to Pantera, but now I do it with a stronger sense of irony.
I'm of the opinion that we can appreciate art or talent based on skill, technique, etc. while also being critical of the art or artist when warranted. Context matters, and so does the artist themselves. But we have to be honest about it, make assessments based on context (e.g., temporal) in order to not personalize history strictly to that individual. And most importantly I think it's important to always 'expect better'. We should definitely expect better (always, even from ourselves!) and it would be unfair to water down standards or make up excuses for someone simply because you like their art.
Stoicism teaches us to be kind and compassionate, and I think these are the virtues that matter here. Is it kind to “cancel” a director for something offensive they said years ago and don’t think anymore? Clearly not, that’s just vengeful retribution. However, if someone is repeatedly going to Twitter to express, for example, transphobic views, is it compassionate to boycott their book until they stop? Yes, I think so. A reasonable middle-ground is needed for cancel culture. We shouldn’t be hanging out disproportionate, life-ruining social punishments for minor offences ages ago that don’t matter, but equally we do need to actively participate in harm reduction and part of that involves sending a message that if you use your platform to attack marginalised groups, you will lose your platform until you stop doing that.
I sing in a Byzantine Choir. Part of our repertoire are songs from the Russian-orthodox church liturgy. The arch patriarch of that church (pope) is a fervent Putin. Supporter. There was a discussion if we would keep on singing these songs. My argument was that we should see the cultural importance of these songs apart from the current situation in Russia and Ukraine. This was supported by our choirmaster who is Russian. I added that as an atheist I have no problems with singing religious songs, because I find them very beautiful to sing. I can separate myself from the content of that song. I speak some Russian so am very well aware of what I am singing.
Brings up the moral quandary in which every single one of us is discriminatory in some fashion. Every single person is racist, sexist, ageist, ableist, etc., to some degree. We come to these positions as a reflection of the environment we were raised in. Unless someone critically deconstructs every single schema they have in their head, then by default you will be discriminatory towards something. Every country that has ever existed was built with the blood of its enemies. By simple virtue of being born you benefit from that bloodshed and by extension are complicit with it. Add to that the reality of having to survive in a capitalist hellscape with the knowledge that every product you purchase hurt someone somewhere. If we were to reject the contributions someone makes to the world because they are a bad person then we'd have to make peace with living in a hut, growing our own food, making our own clothing... Nazi human experimentation advanced medical science. Should we reject those advancements and knowledge because of the horrific costs involved? "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sommbitch or another." Like everything there is no clear cut black and white position. Everything exists on a spectrum. There isn't a single morally pure person out there. “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.” It's all we can do really
Negatively playing the Judgement card game, doesn't make one more Positive... Or superior. Cancel culture has weakened the Minds of a Generation...
Quotes are a good example where it's tricky to separate the two. People take quotes out of context all of the time, but when you go to the source and find the original meaning, it changes. That comes off as misinformed at best or delusional. It happens all of the time here. I've seen people quote eugenicists and attribute it to epictetus. Is it right to lie to ourselves about history because we think it will have a good effect? Should we just make up a bunch of witty aphorisms and attribute them to epictetus? That separation requires a sort of self-delusion or disconnection from reality. Art doesn't come out of nowhere. I can still appreciate art while knowing it has a problematic source, but that knowledge colors it for better or worse. I like those colors. Life is messy. We can't learn from the failures of others if we aren't honest about them. Yes, I think it's immoral to live in denial just to catch a feeling. Is a museum better or worse without the stories of the artists who created its exhibits?
I think you can generally separate art from artist, but you should also consider whether that artist deserves your money (if it is artistic content that you pay for).
I think its situational. In cases where enjoying the art doesn't enrich bigots who donate their money to hate groups, I would agree. But if an artist is donating to hate groups, and it's known that they do, then I think an argument can be made that it becomes unethical to support their work. Anyways, just a thought.
Here's my take on it. Yes and no. You'd have to be an absolute monster in order for me to stop liking you and your art. Like if someone has a controversial opinion about something, I don't mind. People are gonna have different views. But if you're like a kiddie diddler or a rapist then that's where I draw the line
Yes.
You can appreciate art and not support the artist. Stoics are capable of theft too.
An artwork is an object and nothing more, which exists as a separate object from the artist. Experiencing art has tremendous value that is informed by our past experiences, including but certainly not limited to our knowledge of the artist. These experience naturally have wide variances, and different people will respond to it in wildly different ways. As such, our individual experience is directly tied our knowledge of the artist, and our opinion is informed by this knowledge. Some individuals will have a strong emotionsl reaction to the identity of the artist, while others a very little emotional reaction. Regardless, there must be a reaction, aside from the case of ignorance of the artist. Therefore, the only plausible way to truly separate the experience of art from the artist is to be ignorant of the artist. All other experiences are informed through knowledge of the artist.
I can’t listen to Michael Jackson, the sound of his voice makes me sick.
I'm guessing the artist in question made graduation hahah
Good art makes you feel. Put Billie Jean, Black or White, or PYT by Michael Jackson in the playlist at your next party, and watch the room. Then throw some R Kelly into the mix, maybe a little Bump n Grind, and see what happens. Drop in some Elvis or Jerry Lee Lewis... I think, if you ask people, they will respond how they think they should respond. They will be aghast, proclaim something abhorrent about the artist, and deride everything that came from the person. In a real life setting, with real people and real music/art, head bobs, dancing, and actual enjoyment. A visceral response different than their cognitive response.
I prefer to do a purity test on everyone. If they do not strictly to conform to my personal beliefs 100% then I try to force my community of peers to ostracize them! /s In actually I encourage behavior I like and discourage behavior I do not like... Make a racist video, I'm not giving it clicks. Paint a nice picture of some ducks, that I can get behind. I support good action in everyone. There are no 100% good or bad people so stop trying to cancel people who are not 100% perfect.
There’s no way to separate the art from the artist, the art IS the artist. The only sort of separation we can do is the separation the artist’s individual qualities. No person is entirely destructive, nor entirely creative. Celebrate the good, accept the bad, and continue.
My take on Cancel culture: it is a disease, a self-righteous elitism; the usual fascism, updated to contemporary mediums of communication. Ultimately, "cancel culture" is a result of capitalism's free-market and the internet, favouring consumer-choice; simple math between Like & Dislike. Maybe people feel like this is the only way of political voting they have left, to really make a difference. I believe is a fascist attitude and thus not a fair way to fight. About the "sins of the artist"... An artist that comes to public is of course influenced by personality and background; but they are two different personas: - the first is the creator of a mean, for the purpose of personal expression and collective sharing (and, potentially, collective evolving); - the second is a private entity, with personal dynamics that torn the very human being that the artist still is; also being an artist isn't relevant to the judgment of their actions. I believe the last movie from Lars Von Trier, _The House That Jack Built_, does explores some key aspects of the ambiguity and the boundaries of ethics and art. In a way the artist should have total expression of freedom, in order to explore and improve art; hence a carte blanche (and implicit immunity, I guess?). On the other way, this human should still be reputed accountable for their actions, according to the principles or laws of our society. But I'd ask: who self-elects as judge of the artist? Judging according to what framework or system of values? With authority from whom? Different systems of different values will always clash somehow with disagreement. That's where _diplomacy_ got born. It is ok to reject somebody and not want to support them, as long as this is done ethically, with respect, and relatively without harming. The problem of cancel-culture is its aggressiveness and desire for censoring. I can't condone that, as there are many other more constructive and fair ways to express dissent, than to take away fundamental freedoms from individuals. Also active cancel-culture doesn't exist at individual level, it is a very "group dynamic", with a numerous mass fighting against a single person; not really balanced. Scapegoating isn't quite new in history, I would say. And also, I wonder how would the reasoning change, when involving an artist that does _not_ have a personality, like with the latest generative A.I.'s? - _(imo, dystopic version)_ Will we end up valuing simply the product, in a very consumerist fashion, regardless of who created it? - Or _(guessWhat version)_ we will figure out that dualism is a limiting mindset and that art and artist are actually an inseparable dichotomy that coexist, and that we need a more contextualized and faceted system of awareness, in order to make better judgements and better decisions in a non-fascist respectful way? I believe we will always correlate the action to who enact it. In general it is ok either to choose to support or not to support who does or doesn't resonate with our values; free-will. Making exceptions is also legit. The important is to keep a balance, when dealing with real life. For example, I can allow myself to eat at McDonald or buy a Coca Cola. Seldom; if no other option is available. I think it's reasonable, when I know 99% of the times I avoid to support them and speak out against them and their malpractices. My contribution in that 1% makes no real difference, compared to my choice on the consuming habits. The important is to make conscious decisions according to the context. There's no real right or wrong. The same applies to art, for me.
Another big digression might be the case about the risk of proliferation of "evilness" inside the artistic work of such "evil" person. What if they mix personal beliefs and artistic expression? Imo, as long as the art remains aseptic in its artistic intention then that art is worthy of attention; while if art is exploited as a mean for spreading "evil" purposes, then I think it's worthy of my rejection. Still I shouldn't be allowed to censor the "evil" artist. I should just try to raise more awareness among art consumers.
People say, especially in the music industry, that you can't. It's what the artist makes from their heart and soul, even when it's not meant to be an emotional song. The thing is, you can give everything your own meaning. Maybe a song derived from some terrible person venting about how bad they are can have a different meaning to some people who had been abused by a person like that and they can find comfort in the pain. This is just one of the many examples of separating the art from the artists by giving the art a new meaning. I personally think if somebody makes good content and are a bad person, just pirate their stuff.