Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Why would I try to do so in the first place?
Imagine someone telling you "you have to separate the product from the corporation. Yes, they lobby to permit slave labour and are directly funding the genocide in Palestine, but they make one fine chicken sandwich - and if you don't put down your silly objections to focus on that, you have failed as a human being".
Fuck that, fuck everything about that.
Art is political. Fiction doubly so. You cannot and should not try to rip art free from its cultural context, because that context is the perspective that gives it meaning in the first place.
And extra-splintery fuck the idea that the onus is on the audience to sweep everything under the carpet for horrible people.
We're in no danger of running out of art. We have an unlimited supply of artists just waiting for a break in the canopy to sprout up and grow into something new and exciting. If a handful of toxic assholes get canceled despite being popular, then so much the better.
I disagree. You can both admit that the company makes one damn fine chicken sandwich and still not buy it because they support slave labour. Them supporting slave labour doesn’t make it a bad chicken sandwich, just as them making a damn good chicken sandwich doesn’t stop them from supporting slave labour. It’s the method that’s important, not the reason itself.
First up, fandom is free advertising; fuck them I'm not promoting their product for them, even if I don't buy it.
But more than that, it's sending a message that the behaviour is something we're willing to condone, that we stand with the abuser rather than their victims.
Imagine telling a sexual assault survivor to just lie back and enjoy the masterful comic stylings of Bill Cosby, or at least to shut up and let you enjoy it, because they're ruining the funny.
Would that person have reason to consider you a friend or ally after that?
The Harry Potter IP, for instance, is just a giant anti-trans flag now, and the people who wave it around are picking a side. They can't pretend they're not; pinning the logo to their chest is explicitly endorsing the author's views, and spitting in the face of every trans person in their life.
I think you missed their point. They explicitly said that you can at something is a good product and just not buy it because fuck that company. Same point with artists, they can be talented shitbags, we avoid them for the shitbag part, no other reason.
Every work has the author's stank all over it, it can't not. It's seen through their eyes and spoken through their lips (or fingers I guess).
Once you know what it is, it will - and should - colour your perception. If it turns out to be something toxic, then you're allowed to be viscerally repelled by it. It's okay. It's not intellectual dishonesty to have an emotional-based opinion on art ffs.
Now if you let your opinions on engineering get affected by emotion, that'd be another matter. When deciding whether a bridge is safe to carry traffic, you absolutely should not let your personal feelings about the architect factor into the decision.
But this is art we're talking about. Entertainment. Works designed specifically for emotional impact, with no value outside of that. How you feel about them is the only valid criterion.
If a work squicks you out because the author is a piece of shit, that's a genuine, valid and authentic opinion - it's pretending otherwise that would be dishonest.
And in my experience, the ones shouting the loudest about the intellectual integrity angle tend to be fanbois with a huge emotional attachment to the work from their adolescence. Buncha simps, in other words.
Which fine, feelings are valid - but they should damn well own it. If nostalgia > victims, then have the balls to just say it, don't try to well-ackchewally it into some lofty principle, because it isn't.
That's the point though, that some people will use the 'but chicken sandwich is good' as a justification to overlook the other problems and still buy them. My ex and Hobby Lobby, for instance - she'd want to go there and shop for paints because they 'might have a sale', and I was just uh, no? Fuck Hobby Lobby.
Continue buying products direclty supports the company, that doesn't necessarily apply to art. Me simple enjoying a piece of art doesn't support the creator. Only when I buy or licence it.
The popularity of art can both increase it's value and promote the creator, making their other works more valuable.
Potentially, sure. But that also doesn't apply if you're enjoying it in private.
Privately inside your own head or from a book you already owned that you then proceed to never discuss, sure. But views, downloads (even pirated), word of mouth, all help promote the work.
What about when the artistis is dead and can no longer profit of his work by any means? Does that make the art "ok" again?
I think for a great many artists being remembered after their death is a significant part of making art. So if the artist like tried real real hard to remain in obscurity but was nevertheless discovered (a reverse-Van-Gogh if you will) then maybe.
Unrelated by I also think the artist, what they experienced, how and why they made it, are all implicitly part of the work.
We work really hard to deprive ourselves of our own culture. From 90 year copyrights, to allowing all this geolocking multiple streaming services, to digital text, and to self-censorship.
Is anyone going to claim that they are a better person because they never read Harry Potter? No, I don't support her bigotry I just don't know what we gain out of having less culture.
I totally agree. Ignoring the positive contributions from bad people just makes for an overall worse world.
My best practice is basically to try to ignore as much "celebrity news" as possible. Last I heard was that was "too woke" for making dumbledore gay, even there was nothing about it in the books. No idea what she did now to be a biggot ... and I don't really care.
They were great books and decent movies and her actions outside the fictional world won't change that.
Sure, but overlooking moral misgivings is the similarity. Just like I wouldn't tell someone 'hey, I love this sale at Hobby Lobby!' I wouldn't feel right about endorsing a star or director or artist or musician who was found to be a terrible person. The same applies to enjoying it in private - my knowledge about the creator would somewhat ruin my enjoyment of their work.
I don't think enjoying or even endorising a piece of art is equivalent to endorsing the people that produced it.
For example I will always enjoy Firefly and will keep recommending it to people, simple because it's an amazing show. What ever Joss Whedon has done doesn't change that. Hell, I wouldn't care if it was directed by Hitler and produced by Jeffery Dahmer.
That seems to be the topic here... some people do feel uncomfortable about works having a connection to a terrible person, others don't. Personally I do think about the creator of artistic works when consuming them or as a fan, and I don't really want to be thinking "huh, I wonder what Hitler and Dahmer were thinking when they made that decision". On the other hand, some people love thinking about awful people like serial killers.
I am a fat guy, there sandwich is only marginally better than the lowest end stuff, any fast casual local place is going to do it better. You can trust a fat man about fried meat.
Right except we can't apply this evenly. You can go right now to any big museum, see elegant wood carvings from like 800 years ago, and we know nothing about the artist except his name. How do you know he wasn't a murdering psychopath? You don't. What you do know is Rowling said some shit on Twitter. We are holding more modern work to a higher standard compared to older work simply because we can document the lives of modern artists better. If you can't enforce a moral principle with anything resembling consistent application I question how good it is.
Also comparing it to Chick-fil-A is bullshit.
A good moral principle is 'don't do things that needlessly harm people', but unintended consequences are everywhere. By delaying a passerby two seconds while you give a homeless guy $5, you might end up causing them to get hit by a garbage truck that would otherwise have missed them.
You can't enforce the principle consistently, but that doesn't make it worthless; you give it a good-faith, best-effort go, and that's all you can do. If your best efforts turn out to be disastrous, that's shitty, but life's unfair like that.
Also, whatever else was going on with the person 800 years ago, JK is right now causing ongoing harm in her relentless campaign of hatred for trans people. Waving her IP around is promoting her cause, and so harming more people, right now.
If nobody knows whether the 800-years-ago guy was a piece of shit or not, then promoting their work isn't supporting some piece-of-shit cause and harming people.
As for chicken sandwiches - without explaining why you think my analogy was inapt, calling it bullshit is no more of a slam-dunk rebuttal than if I called you a poopoohead.
Entity X makes product Y and does shitty horrible thing Z. By being a product-Y fanboi and promoting Y all over the internet, you're expressing approval for X and condoning Z (at least enough to cut them slack for it).
What difference does it make whether Y is a media IP or a food product?
Fine your analogy is in apt because you can get a fried chicken sandwich anywhere. It isnt exactly intellectual property.
Also you are muddling the difference between not being all knowing with not being consistent. Not the same thing at all.
Don't muddy the water: you were talking specifically about chick-fil-A, even though I was using it as a generic example of a product people might get attached to. The 'separate the art from the artist' crowd would have you ignore any unpleasantness on the part of the producer, so long as the product is enjoyable in isolation - and hold it a moral failing not to do so.
And your entire point was that you couldn't be consistent because you werne't all-knowing; not knowing the character of your 800-year-old artist is no different in this instance from not knowing the future: to perfectly apply the principle would require full knowledge of every situation where it could possibly apply (which is of course impossible). This does not, I contend, render the principle, or attempts to apply it as consistently as your knowledge allows, worthless.
Do better, and try again.