Is there an artist so horrible that no matter how hard you try that you cannot separate their art from them?
Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?
Tldr. Basically, he was a piece of shit tyrant edgelord who kept trying to push boundaries and didn’t quite understand humor. His show was only made good by everybody around him trying to rein him in and fix his fuck ups. Also for good measure, he’s a sex pest.
I once met Bob Camp in Atlantic City in 2015 and he told me this whole story. He said he hated JohnK and that he was possibly the most deranged person he had ever met. He then told me that the only thing that came out of this that was good in the end was SpongeBob.
Sick Little Monkeys: The Unauthorized Ren & Stimpy Story is the book that he referred me to if I wanted more details.
Didn’t know all this about him. Not surprised. It was so gross, God knows how it informed our development. It’s really uncomfortable to watch as an adult. And my goodness - did you watch the adult version when they brought it back years ago? Jfc
No. The artists I like are pretty much universally good people because they’re not wildly successful and had to mature in order to survive. I can’t think of a single artist I am a fan of who has done things that would cause me to question the integrity of their character or reassess their work.
Usually people who have this issue are ones who listen to shitty music or like shitty actors that only care about making money and being superior to others.
It’s no surprise to me that people like R Kelly pee on teenage girls, or Chris Brown beats women, or David Bowie has sex with underage girls. None of this surprises me because their creations and lifestyles reflect who they are as people. It’s always funny seeing their fans being met with cognitive dissonance, though.
I can’t really name any actors though because I already don’t like the vast majority of shit that gets pumped out of hollywood and I’m not exposed to it often. I’m sure people who are more familiar with their crap will have no problem thinking of examples, though.
Now, there are some examples where I won’t/can’t actively seek out their work, and would never contribute to them by buying anything at all, ever.
Cosby falls into that category, just as an example.
But, I have a complete separation as far as the work itself being valid/good despite the origins. Using Cosby as the example again, if I’m somewhere and one of his performances is on, I’m not going to care enough to change a channel or leave, or even say anything.
That’s pretty much anyone and everyone. I just don’t have that thing where a given item, piece of work, whatever, is “tainted” just because the person that made it is a piece of shit. I don’t form an association like that. It’s that I choose to not seek out some things as a matter of principle.
But, as a general rule, if they’re dead, I don’t care at all. And, if the person in question is only one person involved in a group effort, that group effort is fine by me. Like, if the guitarist of a band is a piece of shit, but everyone else is not, why would their work be a bad thing?
Now, this isn’t to say that I ignore any bad acts when interacting with a given work. Take van Gogh as an example. His excesses and disturbing behaviors are part of his work to an extent. It’s a thing where knowing the person’s flaws informs the interaction with the work. Kinda like “gee, I wonder how much of this work stems from the same root as the bad acts did?”
But, I can enjoy the work of people I personally despise with no issues. I just don’t have whatever it is that other people have that makes a thing tainted based on the creator.
Part of that is knowing how shitty humans in general are, and how hard it is to find any artist that didn’t/doesn’t have massive flaws. In music and painting in particular, you run into a shit ton of artists that were abysmal people. If I did have that whatever it is that causes a connection between the art and the artist’s flaws, I wouldn’t be able to listen to much music at all.
I never found anything he did appealing enough to even try to separate the art from the artist. He was always a dipshit. He used to call comedians like eddie murphy and told them that their act would shine a really bad light on black people.
That probably should have been more obvious to me then it was. I’m really sick and taking lots of cold medicine. Should probably stop commenting on anything for a while.
yeah kanye for me too. used to be my favorite artist, paid out the ass for tickets on multiple tours, knew all the words to his first like, six albums. haven’t listened to him in like a year and a half after the Alex Jones interview and Adidas stories came out. it’s not even virtue signaling, it’s just too much work to not think about all the horrible shit he’s done and said. i count myself extremely lucky that i never got a tattoo
Exactly, it’s laborious separating them. Even shit he’s just produced like Hov or Pusha T. My favorite songs come on shuffle in the car, vibin, 30 sec in… “oh shit… right… hmm… ugh… argghhh” next track
Well, one’s alive and the other isn’t. As long as the inheritors of MJ’s estate are decent people, I think it’s fine at this point. Still skeeves me out to listen to his stuff, though. Two verses in and my brain is popping.
You know that while he was incredibly strange, there were never any credible accusations right? There were a lot of people fluffing the stories trying to get a payout but there was never any evidence of wrongdoing.
As far as I’m aware none of MJs accusers still say he did anything, and nearly all of them say their parents pressured them to say stuff he didn’t do for a settlement. He was definitely a weird guy but you look at his upbringing and it was trauma after trauma by adults exploiting him for money.
If there is one accusation still active, sure. But every single case I’ve heard of, the family withdrew and admitted they were looking for a cash settlement.
Well to be fair one was found guilty in a court of law and the other (I don’t believe but feel free to correct me) didn’t even have a criminal case brought against him.
Not as if I'm a fan, but Eric Gill is/was a prolific, respected and internationally renowned artist. You'll his work across the UK, perhaps most notably on the BBC's broadcasting house.
Also designed the Gill Sans typeface, which I think everyone's heard of or even used. Used all across the world on signage or stores.
Here's why I have a hard time taking his works at face value:
Although the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography describes Gill as "the greatest artist-craftsman of the twentieth century: a letter-cutter and type designer of genius", he is also a figure of considerable controversy following the revelations of his sexual abuse of two of his daughters and of his pet dog.
Her books already had some questionable shit in them but witnessing that shockingly venomous transphobia really recontextualizes everything. I used to re read the Harry Potter saga every few years, but never again now, this whole, very nostalgic for me franchise is forever ruined now.
I looked up all her tweets, and I don’t see much to disagree with.
If you go to Thailand, trans men are called ladyboys and if you ask them if they are women, they say, no, I’m a ladyboy. There’s nothing wrong with having the opinion that trans women will not be real women. She’s not saying she hates trans people, just that they will never be the same as biological women.
What is a human? What is knowledge? What is virtue? What is justice?
We have known for 2500 years that some words are very difficult to define in such a way that every single edge case is handled, it is complete, and short. The most famous example, 2500 years ago, was an academy defined human as a featherless biped. The next day someone released a plucked chicken.
For those words that are very difficult to define we develop criteria and gradually alter the criteria as time goes on, mostly based on the idea of ordinary language.
Just because one group that has a passing resemblance to another group says something doesn't mean that it applies to every group with a passing resemblance. Especially when the group is from a completely different culture.
Yes, but Thailand is not the entire world, nor was it even the target audience of those tweets.
In the west, when you transition to another gender, it is because you want to identify as that gender. Thus when you say shit like 'trans women aren't real women' you're denying the identity of thousands of women worldwide.
I think that’s the point. That culture matters and there’s not a one-size-fits-all interpretation or response that satisfies all of them.
People in the west want to believe their culture is the best and all others should follow, but that simply isn’t how the world works. That won’t stop them from getting mad over it, though.
We are talking about a western author broadcasting on a western platform in a western language, often directly in response to other westerners or western ideas of transsexuality. Makes it pretty clear who the target audience and culture is.
This may come as a shock to you, but a lot of westerners don’t believe in transexuality either.
Hey, we’re talking about one right now!
This is what I mean by thinking your culture is the best and all others should follow. Do you think Rowling would be justified if she tweeted in Thai? Lol. If not, then she isn’t unjustified for engaging with westerners.
Try to understand your way of life is not the only, or even the best, way of life.
It's never been about proving trans and cis folks of the same gender are "identical", no one is arguing that, obviously there are some physical, biological differences. Differences that trans folks are painfully aware of, and that take a lot of time and effort to mitigate for many them to feel like themselves.
It's just about being accepted as, being seen, and talked to as the gender of your choosing.
People like Rowling who argue against the existence or the rights of trans folks overwhelmingly do so out of ignorance, fear, or simply malice. It's not a philosophical question, it's not up for debate whether trans people "exist", if you don't believe in them then you're just objectively, provably, scientifically wrong.
And if you agree they exist and still want to make their lives miserable, then you're just an asshole.
It’s never been about proving trans and cis folks of the same gender are “identical”, no one is arguing that
Speak for yourself, I see people arguing it all the time.
if you don’t believe in them then you’re just objectively, provably, scientifically wrong.
Yeah, just like if you don’t believe homosexuality is a mental disorder in 1952 then you are “scientifically wrong.” Soft sciences aren’t ‘objective’ like hard sciences, which is why they are currently having a reproducibility crisis.
Do you believe in otherkin? I’m sure they would react identically as you towards people who don’t see them the way they want to be seen.
Bringing up otherkin is plain what-about-ism, so it proves nothing. So much for some second-class Republicans who tried to push the narrative that schools now add special sandboxes instead of toilets to accomodate them. Reproducibility crisis that is an utter joke, especially when you defend the science-denialist position. All major medical organizations recognize the existence and validity of the trans experience. The one's who don't are the ones who are usually the science deniers on a range of topics. Scratching homosexuality (like after Kinsey studies) and trans identity from mental disorders was not a politically motivated decision, but reflected development of scientific thought about sex and gender, for instance 1600 biologists condemned Trumps idea that he could define biological sex on the basis of chromosomes and external genitalia at birth, Scientific American has published that biological sex is a spectrum, and that trans girls belong to high school women sports because there is no scientific basis for exclusion. It also deemed theories like "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" as pseudoscience. So are you reading actual medical organizations or Dawkins Institute shit, because some of them are militant anti-trans agitators, not advocates of science. It is clear from what you write that you read all the wrong things and formed an ill opinion. 4) And most important, cis and trans might not be identical but neither are people within trans and cis categories. Trans people aren't identical to their birth gender either. And in the end of the day it doesn't even matter, respecting a trans personality has nothing to do with their biological sex, binary or not, fluid or not. It is an ideological stance (fascism) to not respect people who are not cis and/or straight. Even if it is a hairy, 200-lib pre-HRT bulky trans woman it is still a woman in the eyes of the law, like it or not. Source: Scientific American Trans girls belong to female Sports https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/ Scientific American visualizing sex as a spectrum https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ 1600 biologists condemns Trump anti-transgender proposal https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46067559 American Psychological Organization advocates for trans youth https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/07/advocating-transgender-nonbinary-youths World Helath professional Association advocates for transgender adults and youth https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc And as of the last point, if you are out to misgender trans people on the basis of your dogmatic chromosomal determinism and half-baked scientism, here is what happened in the past: “if part of the belief necessarily will result in the violation of the dignity of others, that is a component of the belief, rather than something separate, and will be relevant to determining whether the belief is a protected philosophical belief,” which is from https://criticallegalthinking.com/2021/06/29/not-a-nazi-but-forstater-v-cgd-europe/ .
I am in the west and don’t think we have the best in every way culture. The more I travel the more I am aware of where we have plenty of room for improvement. I prefer living here, most people given the choice would as well, but that doesn’t mean best.
Oh I know all about that podcast trust me, it doesn't change my opinion about Rowling in the slightest, and it's far from being a good way to "understand this affair".
If you're genuinely curious, I highly recommend ContraPoint's video about that very podcast, as well as her other video about Rowling.
Her vehement and vocal hatred for trans people is pretty strange to me. She just won’t let it go, no matter the fact that her very vocal opinions on the topic are destroying her own legacy.
I get that people are entitled to their opinions. But most people keep their thoughts to themselves if they start getting a lot of backlash. But she just keeps picking at it and making things worse for herself. I don’t know if it’s some sort of resentment born out of deeply hurt feelings, or unbridled arrogance that as a very rich and successful person people need to accept her opinions. Or maybe both. But it’s not working and she’s doing more harm than good, including to herself.
Can I recommend reading/listening to Ursula K. Le Guin's Earth Sea books?
They're also coming of age books about a young wizard, which almost certainly heavily inspired Rowling (although AFAIK she never admitted it), but the author is far less problematic. Also arguably much better books, so they're more enjoyable to read for adults too.
Another great choice is The King Henry Tapes by Richard Raley. It’s a take on HP, but the magical kid from a dysfunctional family is a juvenile delinquent with a foul mouth. One of my favorite series.
And the cherry on top is this. You may notice a bit of misogyny built into a first couple books in the series, which is surprising given that Ursula is a woman. She not only noticed, admitted, and confronted that patriarchal slant, but corrected it by writing later stories in the same world that reversed that course. Those stories end up being much better than the foundational works in the series. I have become an instant fan of any author that can confront the flaws of their earlier writings and deliberately alter course to do better in their life and their writing.
Yeah, I actually read her last book in the series first, (it’s a distant sequel, very far removed from the rest of the series), and I can attest to the fact that she grew tremendously. I went back and read the first book, and was surprised at how different the last book was.
After hearing from Maria Schneider, and confirmed by Bertolucci, how he and Brando treated her filming the rape scenes in Last Tango my Brando crush instantly withered on the vine. She was only 19.
I’m convinced he’s not all there. Dude was talking about what he’s going to do when he gets out of prison. He doesn’t seem to understand they’re going to wheel him out on a trolley.
I'm making the point that babies cannot be fucked, only raped, which obviously isn't "inherent" to the person who said "he fucked babies" which minimises the reality of the "scenario" as you call it (more minimisation, why do you do that? To preserve your own comfort of course!). Words matter, and if you think pointing that out is "splitting hairs" (when you're literally the only one making a load of fuss over this valid distinction), then again, you're the one with the problem here (and taking issue with someone pointed out that babies can only be raped, not "fucked" is definitely a problem that needs addressing, like seriously - imagine being the person dying on the hill to defend the use of "fucked" to describe baby rape.. 🤦♀️).
Lemmy sucks. This isn’t a you thing. Nobody IRL would ever spend the energy debating you on this. And of course a follow-up of “whoa relax don’t get triggered bro”
There is no understanding that words matter round these parts at all. This place is a dangerous bubble bc it started as a place where one assumed everyone was on the level. So if you were the outlier opinion, maybe it really was you: I’d challenge myself and question my opinions. Now, if I’m downvoted, I dig in and entrench.
The point is that we should try to stop using euphemistic language around rape. It happens all the time, and it lessens the impact of the act for the reader. We should be explicit.
Omfg. I’m a big slippery slope, legal precedent, kind of guy. But this demands capital punishment if not castration/sterilization. Just make them laws for one day for this dude. www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-25108439
I honestly believe that if you’re convicted of shit like this the band should be able to sue to have your rights to royalties and any songwriting/producing credits revoked. Even if they have to surrender any monetary outcome to the victims or their families.
I know I loved the band growing up and the band have tried to separate themselves from the singer, but how can you? The music is still good but it can’t avoid leaving a bad feeling knowing he used the fame generated by the shared music for such heinous thing
It would make it a bit easier for people who can if you knew that the scumbag wasnt getting royalty cheques anymore.
Ian Watkins is a fucking extreme example, but imagine putting in a dozen years of your life and career, your art and passion into a band and its catalogue only for the lead singer to make it absolutely radioactive.
Add comment