Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

corran132 t1_j3xz45o wrote

To me, there are two sperate questions. Those being, the consideration of art already consumed, and the desire to consume new art.

Take, for example, Kevin Spacey. Let's say, in my 20's, that I loved 'the usual suspects'. Watched it 1,000 times. Then I learn what he did. What does that doe to my love of that art?
Well, maybe I can separate the person from the art, and maybe I can't. That's each person's decision. But I can recognized that, in this case, my judgement is clouded by some amount of nostalgia. Perhaps I can get a flash of my memories of just enjoying Spacey's performance before I knew about his troubling history. And perhaps not. As it happens, while the above is hypothetical, I still find myself fondly remembering 'Baby Driver' despite his part in it, and have re-watched it a few times after I heard the accusations.

On the other hand is the desire to consume new art. Say, in this case, that Spacey has a new movie come out. Do I go see that in theaters? He is likely to act well in it, and I did enjoy it as an actor, so there is a chance I enjoy it. But by seeing it in theaters, I am spending my time and money, and tacitly saying to the movie industry that 'despite what he is alleged to have done, I am still willing to pay to see this artist.' In doing that, I am actively contributing to an industry that has shown itself more than happy to sweep abuse under the rug in the name of profit. Is that okay? Should I be saying 'yes, I know he's a POS, but he's also a really good actor and I'm paying him for that, not his personal life.'

Put it another way (and this is an imperfect analogy, but I think it tracks)- say my last partner was abusive, but we had good days. Is it wrong for me to miss the time they took me out on a date, and we had fun? In my mind, no. For a time we were happy, and it can be comforting to remember that we stayed so long because they teased you with light amongst the clouds. But do those good memories mean that I should get back together with them? God no, they broke my arm, and would have done worse except the neighbors called the cops. It's not wrong to miss what we had, but it would be to try to create it anew.

We are a tribal people. I think a lot of the resistance and anger around this question comes from 'person whose art I like did a bad thing, people are attacking the author, people are now attacking the art too, I like that art, therefore I must stand by the artist'. I think there is a lot of power in saying 'I did/do like this art. It was a big part of me. But I now recognize that the artist has done/said things that I can't agree with, and I won't be supporting them going forward.'

Ultimately, this all comes down to personal beliefs. Personally, I will never judge someone for an emotional attachment forged to a toxic piece of media, provided that attachment was forged before that person knew it was toxic. But I will judge people for continuing to support a toxic product once they have become aware of it's problems.

110

jebbybakes t1_j3zi65t wrote

what if the artist still is able to earn a royalty off the media? Does that change it for you?

10

pestilenceinspring t1_j3znkk1 wrote

We could pirate the material. Why let them earn anything from their art? We could just make the art public property, give the royalties to the victims, anything beneficial to others and not the artist, because why should someone immoral profit from their art, especially if there was no punishment, or a just punishment?

10

kreiggers t1_j3zpks8 wrote

But there are other people that earn (and some even deserve) the income from art - Kevin Spacey didn’t make a movie on his own, other cast members, etc. same goes for music

14

Ivy_lane_Denizen t1_j419dj7 wrote

Thats unfortunate, but movies and other media projects fail all the time for a plethora of reasons, Im not responsible for helping them succeed in the first place. Additionally most of these other people rarely get paid based on how well the products sold.

1

pestilenceinspring t1_j3zpu1d wrote

Then specifically take his ends and the others can keep theirs. We can create solutions as we think and go. Problem solving should be ever evolving in my opinion.

0

Knale t1_j3zsuqq wrote

How exactly do you recommend pirating media so that only one member of an enormous cast and crew is affected?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

7

BlessedBySaintLauren t1_j3ztm9k wrote

I mean if they have an active civil suit against them for payment then the royalties will go to the victims and not the artist.

For example O.J Simpson

5

pestilenceinspring t1_j3ztmkg wrote

It's just a suggestion, take if you will or won't. I mean hell, some people refuse to watch a show with a "tainted" actor, or those programs aren't aired by many channels or streaming platforms, like the cosby show for example. Some people thought it was unfair because the other actors hadn't done anything triffling and they deserved those royalties. But on the one hand, they have other royalties and roles, or they take on other jobs after acting. I'm not saying it's fair, but its hard to work out royalty payments if viewers won't touch a movie or show or whatever with a ten foot pole.

3

tbryan1 t1_j40w394 wrote

It just seems contradictory when you apply the logic of the "non-separatists" to anything else. For example you can't like any product because people had to suffer/die in the production of that product. The computers we are both on involved slavery, exploitation, destruction of ecosystems, poisoning of water ways, caused entire regions of peoples to develop birth defects, cancers, brain abnormalities......

​

You can look at any product and find some kind of harm or ethical problems, so I don't understand why people fixate on just art.

4

corran132 t1_j41kh3y wrote

To a point, I agree with you. It's very difficult to be an ethical consumer of anything under an exploitive capitalist system.

For me, it comes down to two things.

  1. Art is different. You may connect with you computer or with your clothes, but art is intended to engage you emotionally. Art is also generally sold, at least in part, on the reputation of the artist (starring X!). Apple is not trying to have Steve from Bangladesh as a reason to buy the product in the same way that Knives out is trading on the name of Daniel Craig.
  2. Just because it's basically impossible to be an ethical consumer doesn't mean we can't try. With art, it's generally easier to know (at least, currently) who is a massive POS. I'm sure this computer was made with some incredibly inequitable conditions, but tracking down which companies did which is difficult. On the other hand, a Woody Allen movie is trading on his name, and the accusations against him are public knowledge.

This is all to say that we are meant to have a deeper connection to art, and as such I don't think it's unreasonable that we try to hold it to a higher standard. Additionally, since Art trades on the name of the artist, it's reasonable (to me) that the artist's conduct plays a larger roll in the appeal of the movie.

0

tbryan1 t1_j41wxuu wrote

  1. (A) I would argue that there is no difference between art and any other tangible object. The meaning behind art is derived from reality, so actual objects will always have the compacity to be "art". The no true Scotsman fallacy is at play here. (B) your analogy about how art is pointing at 1 individual and using them for branding while companies aren't is a bad analogy in my opinion. It is more accurate to compare the star a actor with representatives and CEO's which are synonymous with the branding of a company. What I mean is when a movie says "come see billy in the new movie", you change it to "come see billy the rapist", so you ought to make that same leap with companies. Blood diamonds are a popular example.
  2. This is where I part ways because I call BS when people want to be ethical some times well more like less than .00001% of the time. There is a name for it but I don't want to be rude. The argument here isn't equivalent either. An artist abuses someone in the past outside of the move what ever, compared to an artist actively raping someone on set. That's the difference between drama cycles and businesses do to the fact that business models have exploitation baked in.

​

(conclusion) I consider old presidential speeches to be art do to the historical element that has been introduced "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" as an example of something that's so unimaginable in todays world. I say this because there are some really bad people that gave speeches

1

corran132 t1_j42ue1b wrote

I'm sorry, I don't really follow your conclusion.

If the word you are thinking of for me is 'hypocrite', then that's fair. I recognize that this is not entirely intellectually consistent. The problem is that, in my eyes, being entirely intellectually consistent leads to one of two outcomes.

  1. Nothing matters, consume what you want. All businesses do shitty things, so don't worry about it.
  2. Completely disengage with society. All businesses, all governments, everyone does shitty things, so withdraw from all of it.

The problem is, I don't think either of these are actually helpful outcomes.

In the latter case, unless you found some commune and call forth followers to the woods (in which case, your own actions enter into the equations) you are never going to change anything.

In the former, nothing gets better because you cast aside that 'better' means anything at all. Everyone sucks, so who cares who sucks more than others?

What I am trying to outline is what I call 'doing my best'. I can choose, if/when I want to buy something for my partner, not to buy blood diamonds. I can choose not to consume (and support) media by people who are POS's. I can try to educate myself on how to support elected candidates that will push for better working conditions. Does my consumption sill cause harm? Absolutely, but I can try to make that as small as possible.

Because it is easier to find information on which art is made by problematic actors (but due to celebrity gossip and the high profile nature of the individuals), and because people have such an emotional attachment to art, it is the avenue of consumption that is most affected by people trying to be ethical consumers. Maybe it shouldn't be any different, but it is.

1

tbryan1 t1_j457fwq wrote

The word wasn't "hypocrite" it was "virtue signaling" which isn't inherently bad, however it denotes a completely different type of framework for your ethics. I'm not arguing for the negative or that you are a bad person or anything, just that there is deception in your framing. You are framing it from an "ought" position that is grounded in ethical principles, but they are never adhered to like ever. You are trying to claim all the virtue of holding this ethical position that you never use which is dishonest.

I can't know your mind but from the outside looking in you are utilizing a type of moral egoism which explains why you are able to ignore this dilemma 99.9999% of the time. Though there are many forms of egoism they are all willing to tolerate immoral/harmful behaviors so long as you incur a commensurate benefit. This puts people in a compromised position so they seek out instances where they can be ethical or virtuous to gain a type of moral currency to protect against the scales not balancing in their favor. This last thing is where the deception is introduced because we want to present a grounded ethical position that's virtuous not some egocentric motivation. The principled you make your position look the worse it makes everyone else look if they don't follow it so you are gaining moral currency while causing other people to lose theirs. This is on reason we even in an egocentric model you still seek external moral protection.

2

Joelsax47 t1_j410wn2 wrote

Well spoken. I dislike Tom Cruise as a person because of all the scientology bullshit he spews, but that doesn't keep me from enjoying his movies. Friends of mine think the same thing.

3

Luklear t1_j4070bo wrote

I disagree with your conclusion. I don’t think a piece of media can be toxic via the moral standing of its creator. If the content itself is toxic, then sure. To separate the art from the artist is to analyze and experience the thing itself in the moment, not the information attached to it such as it’s origin.

Now if we’re talking about supporting someone bad by buying their stuff then sure, you shouldn’t do that. I just wouldn’t frame it as the piece of fiction itself being bad. Consider piracy.

Take a great piece of fiction, say, Crime and Punishment. Now let’s say that it was actually written by Adolf Hitler. Will that shape your subjective experience of it, potentially even making it completely unpalatable to you? Yes. However, does that make it a worse piece of art? I don’t think so.

2

aaeme t1_j41cp4t wrote

>I don’t think a piece of media can be toxic via the moral standing of its creator.

I think it's fair to say Mein Kampf wouldn't be half so toxic if it wasn't for its author (for his actions and infamy) and yes if Crime and Punishment had been written by Hitler it would be tainted.

>a worse piece of art

What does that mean? How is that not 100% subjective?

0