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?
Very boring answer but JK Rowling.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I always thought harry potter was boring as shit. Never got through a movie, never read a book.
But the people who I did see reading the books in class were the ones who definitely would take issue with Rowling's transphobia.
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.
Try the Mage Errent series by John Bierce. It's a full fantasy world with a hard magic aystem that's about kids going to magic school.
same
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.
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.
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.
A major issue is that she isn't loyal and has her own opinions on the matter.
Independents are seen as enemies in the eyes of tribalists. Eventually, they become enemies.
Kanye. Piece of shit narcissist through and through.
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
It was always funny watching him talk about Jesus in his songs as though his lifestyle didn't promote everything Christ went against.
And of course, the next generation sucked it up like a sponge.
Apparently Kanye has copied some great music, and we'll know for sure if he ever releases some.
Kanye West. Maybe he was never 'all there' mentally to begin with, but the guy was clearly a role model to a lot of young people and utterly destroyed his own legacy.
Yep, I was a young person that loved Kanye back in high school when Graduation was the CD I had on me all the time.
Can’t listen to it anymore. It’s ruined. :{
I honestly wonder what happened to this guy. It was like a switch was hit and suddenly he was spouting nonsense and getting in trouble.
Lost Prophets. Lead singer fucked babies.
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.
Hmm not a lawyer but I wonder if there might be some old law about this. Kinda feel like there is one since it's retroactive.
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. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-25108439
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.
whenever I see a meme with art from stonetoss (a neo-nazi) in it, I have a visceral response
Damn, source on the neo nazi thing? It's usually just memes that I've seen with his content, now I'm wondering what he really draws about.
Here's a video covering it by Thought Slime
Hitler
That guy is literally Hitler.
Heard he killed Hitler though
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.
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.
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?
John Kricfalusi, creator of Ren & Stimpy. That man is a demon.
The Rick & Morty guy kind of ruined his show, too.
New season with replaced voice actor is really good.
What he do?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kricfalusi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Happy_Joy_Joy:_The_Ren_and_Stimpy_Story
Tldr. Basically, he was a piece of shit tyrant who kept trying to push boundaries and didn't quite understand humor. And 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.
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
"DJ" Khalid. I've heard that he's actually a very talented musician. I've never been shown proof that the claims are true.
Following is also proof that he can read
I've heard he's a crappy musician but he's good at getting clashing personalities to work together.
He like Mozart^2
I mean I can't and won't watch any Tom Cruise aka a bunch of 'classics', for a similar reason.
For me he is the perfect counter example. I despise that cunt as much as the next guy, but god damn he is a good actor.
He also signs on to REALLY GOOD scifi scripts that might not have gotten as much budget without his name.
Same. Guy gives me the creeps. As do far too many others from Jack Nicholson to James Franco (not sure why those came to mind first, and I was going to continue listing, but honestly there are just too many, some, like Russel Brand it was obvious way before any public allegations were made, so there are those as well, where we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop. There are also those who I can't stand seeing/hearing because they're bigots, so I really could be here all day).
I'm not claiming any purity by the way, there are far too many to flat out avoid them all, but some simply make my skin crawl more than others, and I just don't need to consume something that makes me feel that way. ¯(ツ)/¯
Ian Watkins, lead singer of the band Lostprophets. Never read the court transcripts of his crimes, they really are that horrible and will ruin you for some time.
Exactly who I thought of.
I still listen to Michael Jackson but I won’t listen to R Kelly.
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.
Loved Michael Jackson music so fucking much. Can’t stomach it anymore.
But the first few moments of Billy Jean…
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.
Ian Watkins. Leaf singer of Lost Prophets.
Convicted baby rapist.
Roman Polanski and by extension Jack Nicholson
Wait, what's up with Jack Nicholson?
Polanski's known crime happened AT Jack Nicholson's home. Nicholson tooooootally didn't know about any of it.
Marlon Brando
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.
Not even a fan of marlon brando, but i think i'll pass on reading into it.
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.
That's the pokemon TCG font, also notably
Eh, not really.
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.
George W. Bush
What art had he done?
Underground bukkake performance stuff
Terry Goodkind.
Can't separate the work from the author since both are pretty bad.
It takes a special kind of person to require a pinned "please don't celebrate deaths" reminder on Reddit when you die...
Goodkind
So he was neither, then?
No. He was a misogynistic piece of crap that wrote morally questionable material that was also disrespectful to his assistants, illustrators and fans.
Allegedly, the "good" and the "kind" were stolen during the Great Battle of the Terry's, where one Terry used the "good" to build a Temple, while the other Terry with a meteor sword used the "kind" to empower actual quality fiction.
God. Sword of Truth was one of the first books I read when I was trying to get back into reading (I think I got it in some bundle)… And at first it was like, cool, I like wizards, great… and then it got really fucking weird and rapey and I was embarrassed to have read that book. I didn’t look into the author at all, but I would be so incredibly unsurprised for them to turn out to be a terrible person.
Bill Cosby.
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.
Adolf Hitler.
NGL If I were rich Id probably buy one of his paintings just to hang it in the least used guest barhroom.
Id never mention that it was a "Hitler" or why I had it. Id just like to have his failure be something my least favorite relatives have to stare at while they take a shit. My own personal fuck you to the cunt.
I certainly won’t listen to Gary Glitter’s music
Except sporting teams keep using Rock and Roll part 2 in stadiums.
Rammstein is terrible. Clear cut allegations of systematic exploitation and lawyers who tried to silence big newspapers.
The perfidy of victim blaming should be enough to never listen to this band! Additionally their music sucks...
Bono. U2 is pretty mediocre to begin with, but with that asshole in front singing Id rather listen to Miley Cyrus.
Eh, I used to think like that, there was a time when it was popular to hate on U2. But really there are a lot of legitimate assholes out there who are actively making the world a worse place. His philanthropy is aggressive and attention seeking but the receipts are there and I'd much rather have someone channel all this energy and platform into pro-human rights than anti which is becoming increasingly popular these days.
I like U2, but obviously people have different opinions. However, when some dude worth 3/4 billion (no idea what the rest of the members are worth) asks an audience full of people who just paid an absurd ticket price propping up his hundreds of millions to wave their cellphone lights in the air and tells them how rich they are and how they give more money to whatever causes it really is tone deaf. I’m all for supporting a good cause, but that’s just stupid.
You're right. And Bono still sucks lol
What did he do? And what’s wrong with Miley Cyrus?
I'd almost say it's the opposite... U2 is a decent band, but nothing too special. Bono has a strong reputation as a philanthropist doing good for the worlds charities.
U2 sucks. I said it. Singer of my band in HS tried so hard to turn me.. at least 3 mix tapes and I def found some less popular songs I liked. But I'm just not a fan. I change the station after a dramatic sigh when they come on. They don't rock. I like that Batman twist me bang me something me song. Desire is fun. Sunday Bloody Sunday is emotionally tied to historical events, can't sleep on it. Mysterious Ways is amazing and brings back positive feelings from those days (was it in a mixtape infomercial?). But besides the several songs I like, they suck... Shit.. did I just talk myself out of hating them? Was I just an angsty little shit and South Park nailed the coffin?
I like both Bono and Miley. I actually like both music and their personalities at least the projected personalities. I don't feel like they are trying to hide anything and they seem to want the world good
Kristian Vikernes
I know he used the Papyrus font for his book, but c'mon. It's free.
Foo Fighters used to be real down with the whole AIDS denialism, even financially supporting it.
I know David Grohl is an internet sweetheart, but every time I see anything Foo related, I just immediately wonder how many people died pointless and preventable deaths because they believed the denialism Foo Fighters pushed.
To be fair, it wasn’t Dave’s idea or something he supported. It was bassist Nate Mendel’s message that they were, admittedly, amplifying. Even the info on their website had a disclaimer that listed it as “being displayed at the request of Nate Mendel”.
I think they all regret being involved in amplifying that message too, including Nate. In the 20 years since they initially broke support with the people involved, they’ve played several shows in support of HIV/AIDS awareness groups, fundraised for Elton John’s AIDS Foundation, and every tour they do now has some kind of fundraising or auctions to support AIDS education or LGBTQIA+ rights.
It feels like they know now, in hindsight of course, that it was harmful and have at least tried to do more good to make up for it. Mendel was even quoted saying that the only reason he did it was because he thought he was helping people, not hurting them.
To be fair, it wasn’t Dave’s idea or something he supported.
And yet he kept mendel in the band, and had the message plastered on their website.
Thats not something you get to handwave away with even the grossest incompetence claim.
Mendel was even quoted saying that the only reason he did it was because he thought he was helping people, not hurting them.
I mean, yeah. he likes his career, of course he says that.
Wow t.i.l.
Im a firm believer you can like the art and not the artist but if i had to pick it would be the wizard of oz. Honestly what the director did to the actors/actresses on wizard of oz really zaps the magic out of the movie for me.
Maybe John Wayne Gacy, otherwise I accept the art for its own merit.
I wouldn't say the horribleness of a person is ever something that makes someone inseparable from their art. The art and the person just don't necessitate each other. That said, I'm pretty sure someone might make a case for Nero, he burnt people on living candles and called it "art" and would lock people in concerts to hear him perform (if we assume the historical records are true). Relatedly, Saddam Hussein wrote a lot of fanfiction about defeating America with negative undertones that would make a Wattpad writer cringe.
if we assume the historical records are true
This is actually a pretty big assumption for some of the more outlandish claims. When you dig in a bit, you find many of them are kind of repetitive tropes and generally come from Senatorial-class writers about emperors whose policies were less friendly to that class.
Not to say they couldn't have happened, and even in those days better to exaggerate than to invent from whole cloth, but it seems like an unusually large number of "bad" emperors had the same kinks as each other or the same traits that the literature had always considered "unmanly."
Officially no. Realistically yes.
Gary Glitter... so many sporting events still play this pedophile's music.
Generally all of them. Every time I consider this question about an artist, I try and consider if I was the victim in the crime. Would I be okay hearing, seeing, or listening to this any longer? If the answer is no, then it’s no for me.
I want to live empathetically and have to put my money where my mouth is.
Proko
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.