Good Art vs Evil Artists - Essay Rejected; Discuss Here Instead

[Kasumi_Lee]

After waiting nearly a whole month while an essay on this very topic was stuck in pending limbo, it was finally rejected for the following reason:

"We do not publish works whose primary intent appears to be threatening, criticizing or targeting other Lit users, Lit authors or readers in general, or any identifiable real-life person."

It makes perfect sense to have a rule like this, which means that the content guidelines webpage is out of date, notwithstanding the fact that my rejected essay does not "threaten" or "target" any Lit user or any real-life person. Admittedly, it was inspired by an individual (whom I won't name) who sabotaged a discussion thread of mine while refusing to actually read the essay that the thread was supposed to be about; but just as the linked essay has almost nothing to do with the red herring, so the rejected essay has very little to do with this Lit user.

But is the rejection to do with this unnamed Lit user or the real-life people I mention in the essay? If it was the former, this suggests the rejection occurred after finishing only the second paragraph. I could cut out any reference to the Lit user and resubmit, but part of me doesn't want to wait another month only to find out it's also the latter. That would mean that pointing to the well-publicized crimes of real-life people (one of whom is a fugitive from American justice and another of whom is serving time in federal prison) also falls afoul of the rule.

The essay I tried to submit is about the possibility of separating good art from evil artists, which isn't always ethically feasible for reasons I go into in detail in the essay. There isn't enough space to post the whole essay here, and even if there were, the Lit forums are subject to the same content guidelines; so instead, I'll abbreviate the whole topic into three questions:

1) Does consuming a piece of art materially or financially benefit an evil artist or cause? e.g., live-action Mulan which was filmed in Xinjiang Province and included the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau (responsible for running the Uighur detention camps) in the film credits.

2) Does the piece of art embody an unsavory message that the evil artist endorses? e.g., Mel Gibson, a skilled director who made The Passion of the Christ which was widely criticized for containing antisemitic tropes; RnB singer R Kelly who has a gorgeous singing voice, but whose lyrics are dripping with misogyny and is now serving time in federal prison for crimes involving underage individuals.

3) If you can guarantee that enjoying a piece of objectively good art won't benefit an evil artist financially and doesn't contain any problematic messaging, does enjoying the artwork or even acknowledging its existence still make you complicit in somehow lessening the severity of the artist's crimes? e.g., Roman Polanski. Personally, I'm happy to watch Polanski's films, including Rosemary's Baby and The Pianist, but not happy to see him or his work feted publicly given that he's a fugitive from justice.

Regardless of the essay rejection, I'm hoping for a productive discussion with whoever is interested.

 

[SimonDoom]

My general rule is to separate the art from the artist. I thoroughly enjoy listening to the music of Wagner despite rejecting his anti-Semitic views. I watch the movies of Roman Polanski without any feeling of guilt, but like you I don't want to see him praised as a person in public; in fact, I find it somewhat detestable the way others in the film industry defend him. Same thing with movies produced by Harvey Weinstein. I deplore the man but enjoy the movies.

I don't know how else one can act in a principled way without hiding away in a cave and never watching or listening to anything. The truth is, in most cases you have no idea whether the artists whose works you watch or listen to are decent people or not. There are countless rock stars that we love who are probably horrible, abusive people who destroy hotel rooms and treat women abominably. I don't know, and I'm not going to take the time to find out. I'll just keep enjoying the art and reserving judgment on the artist until I know enough to render judgment. Then my judgment may be, "Bad man, good songs." I love the music of John Lennon, for instance, but from what I've seen and read he was a narcissistic, hypocritical, woman-abusing dick. I'm still going to enjoy "Strawberry Fields Forever."

A difference is when the art itself expresses objectionable views. Then it's fair game to object to. I haven't seen The Passion of the Christ, but I've read a lot about it, and I might agree with some of the objections to it. I'd have to see it to know.

 

[Kasumi_Lee]

I watch the movies of Roman Polanski without any feeling of guilt, but like you I don't want to see him praised as a person in public; in fact, I find it somewhat detestable the way others in the film industry defend him.

While researching my essay, I found a clip of him being awarded best director for The Pianist. I have no problem saying The Pianist is one of the best films I've ever seen, but my stomach disagreed with watching Harrison Ford announcing him as the winner and remarking wryly that the Academy accepts the award on his behalf. You can also see Harvey Weinstein towards the end of the video.

When he was awarded best director at the Cesars (the French Oscars), at least there was a protest walkout.

I haven't seen The Passion of the Christ, but I've read a lot about it, and I might agree with some of the objections to it. I'd have to see it to know.

It's been a while since I've seen the movie, and frankly I found the South Park parody episode The Passion of the Jew more entertaining, but I do know that one of the most controversial parts of the film was when the Jewish high priest repeats the infamous line calling for Jesus's blood to be "on the heads" of the witnesses and on their children. When Jewish groups protested, Mel Gibson refused to "wimp out" by cutting the scene completely, but did remove the subtitle translating it into English.

 

[AwkwardMD]

The rejection is almost certainly due to calling out real artists (R. Kelly, Mel Gibson, et al).

 

[Kasumi_Lee]

The rejection is almost certainly due to calling out real artists (R. Kelly, Mel Gibson, et al).

Well that sucks, because the former is literally a convicted and incarcerated felon whose crimes are all over the internet. If he can't be called out, no one can. I guess we'll have to make do with this SNL skit.

 

[Euphony]

Nostalgia plays a huge part.

People self identify with art (especially music) in formative parts of their lives. A rejection of the creator can feel like a rejection of a person's self, experiences, choices, who they turned into, etc.

A number of artists have expressed the concept of there being their (the creators) meaning, inspiration, ideas they wish to express and those of the fans, which can be recognized as having it's own meaning, influence, and value.

I prefer to be in the "let people like things" camp (so long as they aren't a harm to others or celebrate harming others.)

It seems nigh impossible to live in an interdependent capitalist society and also always vote you values with every dollar.

If you are doing charitable works otherwise and not perpetuating/celebrating the antisocial behaviors the artist is accused of, I view it as very much a net positive.

Human beings are often terrible. School kids, artists, CEOs, athletes, politicians, etc., etc.

You basically have to drop out of society completely or draw an arbitrary line which can be argued and questioned exhaustedly and to little benefit. (other than some's need to virtue signal)

 

[lovecraft68]

This again. I wonder why the OP thinks it will fly here if booted from the story file. But credit for giving it a go.

I can separate one from another if I just don't care for the person personally or they have done something stupid, but not awful etc

But supporting a rapist like Polanski, watching Taranetino movies even after he comes right out and says "Yeah, I knew women were being raped and abused, but said nothing" and there is a lot of accusations about him personally. That POS Ezra Miller went on a literal crime spree. Multiple offenses, arrests, various assaults and....look a lead role in a major movie, and people wonder why it flopped, guess some people have decency, just none in Hollywood. Oh, and Andy Warhol? Look up the story behind "Warhol's Frankenstein" But OMG that drawing a soup can!!!!!!

When someone has committed an actual criminal act, especially a violent crime, that "yeah, but...: goes out the window.

@SimonDoom and the rest can justify all they want, you're supporting a rapist, period.

I gave up football after watching for 40 years because there are more woman beaters and criminals on the field than in a correctional facility, but of course somehow none of them are ever guilty....yeah, okay. So, I decided I needed to weigh personal pleasure over what I believe in. Now I spend Sunday's doing anything but.

Because at the end of the day, the point of this topic is not just about the person who committed the crime, its about us and whether or not we choose to rightfully turn our backs on an animal, or put our entertainment in front of human decency and claim it's about "art"

No, its about your lack of conviction.

There are people in this forum who would bash someone for who they vote for, and boycott them, but accept someone who committed a crime.

If that's you, then do you, but don't make excuses and don't lie to yourselves or anyone else about what you 'stand for'. Imagine-using Polanski as an example- your kid saying to you "Hey, wasn't that movie directed by Polanski?" Your answer is "Yeah." They say "But didn't he rape someone? Isn't he hiding in another country because he'll go to jail here?" Well..."Wasn't the girl a minor?"

Now go on, tell your kid all about how its okay because its art.

No one's perfect, we can't always uphold everything we want to support-or condemn-because we're human. But again, when talking flat out despicable crimes where someone was hurt? Spare me the buts.

What you watch, read, support defines you, to others and yourself. Want to flock to Tarantino movies because he's just so cool and his movies or so good, go. But don't run your mouth that some politician did the same thing he did, but that person is wrong. Get in bed with pigs, get dirty.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Honestly, I don’t separate art from artist in a binary way. I consider the totality of the artist’s life as I know it, and am completely willing to change my opinion of a work as my knowledge of the artist evolves.

It’s an approximate continuum for me… cheat on a spouse? Probably not a big deal, unless your schtick is being a family friendly dad. Be a mean boss? Sucks, but I’d probably see the end product. Beat an innocent person, rape, or kill someone? Yeah, that’s a no.

I think the notion of separating art from artist only made sense when we didn’t find our way afterwards and when significant career/financial investments are made. It honestly always strikes me as a default position for guys who define themselves by the media they consume. I’m perfectly happy to say “I used to like ABC, but then I found out the creator raped his wife, so I don’t like it anymore.” I’m also happy to say, “I liked listening to XYZ, but I’d throw the creator into a hole if I could for his crimes.”

Films and major media pose an interesting question because they are not the work of a single person, but of a gestalt. Just because Polanski works on a film, does that make it irrevocably tainted for others? For his early work, I’d say no, so long as the others didn’t know. For his later work… honestly, I’m fine with letting it burn and be lost into the void. There’s always more stories to tell. It’s not like we have a dearth of pianists or holocaust movies.

As for the ability to enjoy a work without the creator benefiting in any way… from one perspective, that is impossible. The act of you watching/enjoying is the benefit, because you may then bring it up to someone else in your life or let it affect your life in somehow. It’s like quantum mechanics… merely by observing, you have affected the system. The question becomes if you think the small effect is OK. I generally think, “yeah, it is OK.”

 

[Kasumi_Lee]

This again. I wonder why the OP thinks it will fly here if booted from the story file. But credit for giving it a go.

Credit for at least engaging with the topic.

 

[SimonDoom]

I gave up football after watching for 40 years because there are more woman beaters and criminals on the field than in a correctional facility, but of course somehow none of them are ever guilty....yeah, okay. So, I decided I needed to weigh personal pleasure over what I believe in. Now I spend Sunday's doing anything but.

Because at the end of the day, the point of this topic is not just about the person who committed the crime, its about us and whether or not we choose to rightfully turn our backs on an animal, or put our entertainment in front of human decency and claim it's about "art"

How many of all those great hard rock musicians that you like so much and buy and listen to music from are in real life horrible people who abuse women? I'll bet some at least, and maybe many. We don't know. What difference does it make if you know? The only way you can be pure is not to listen to anybody's music. Obviously, you're not going to do that.

I think your argument about "support" is empty and silly. I think the more principled position is to live in the world and enjoy its fruits knowing that some of the farmers who produce it are bad people. If I find out they're bad, I'll condemn them for their badness, but I'm not automatically going to boycott the fruit. That's a judgment call. But you do it your way. You might check the degree to which you judge others a bit, however, and your self-righteous belief that only people who think the way you do have convictions.

No, its about your lack of conviction.

No. My conviction is different from yours. But it IS my conviction and I stand by it.

Now go on, tell your kid all about how its okay because its art.

I will. I have no problem doing this. They would probably agree with me.

There are people in this forum who would bash someone for who they vote for, and boycott them, but accept someone who committed a crime.

I don't ever do this, so you can leave me out of that group. Just as with the topic of this thread, I separate a person's politics from their art, unless their art reflects their politics, in which case I reserve the right to criticize the art but will refrain from assuming the artist is bad just because of their politics. I'm pretty tolerant of people's politics and am willing to engage with communists and fascists alike. Even Republicans and Democrats -- horrors!

 

[Kasumi_Lee]

Films and major media pose an interesting question because they are not the work of a single person, but of a gestalt. Just because Polanski works on a film, does that make it irrevocably tainted for others? For his early work, I’d say no, so long as the others didn’t know. For his later work… honestly, I’m fine with letting it burn and be lost into the void. There’s always more stories to tell. It’s not like we have a dearth of pianists or holocaust movies.

Rosemary's Baby came out years before Polanski committed his crimes, so I guess that's safe, although there is the dark coincidence of the film foreshadowing his crimes since Rosemary's rapist is literally the devil. As for The Pianist, like I said in my reply to @SimonDoom I'm perfectly happy to watch The Pianist but not that it was celebrated along with its criminal director at the Oscars.

I think The Pianist won those all those Oscars because the subject matter tugged on some very powerful heartstrings. I don't agree that merely enjoying the art somehow indirectly benefits the evil artist, but at a minimum we shouldn't give these individuals credit or attention beyond that.

 

[lovecraft68]

Credit for at least engaging with the topic.

I think its a good topic and think its something that should be brought up and discussed. I also think the site's rejecting of it is yet another sign of their fake 'free speech' mantra.

No one likes the mirror held up in front of them. This topic does that.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think its a good topic and think its something that should be brought up and discussed. I also think the site's rejecting of it is yet another sign of their fake 'free speech' mantra.

No one likes the mirror held up in front of them. This topic does that.

I don't go quite as far as you do in calling it a "fake mantra," because that implies they are acting in bad faith, and I'm not prepared to say that. But there's a lot of troubling inconsistency in the application of the rules. It's hard to say you stand up for free speech when you carve out a lot of exceptions to it and then apply the exceptions in ways that confuse people, thus prompting endless discussions in this forum among the people writing the stories.

 

[shelleycat1]

I don't think it is possible to know if an artist is good or bad without extensive research. For example, I read "So Disdained" by Neville Shute. It turns out the communists are the baddish guys, and the fascists are the good guys. The book was written in 1927 or so, I think. So times change and I cannot check out the biography (even if accurate) of every author. I think I will appreciate the art, and if I find out more, decide whether to follow that artist more. That's all I can do.

 

[Yarglenurp]

I don't go quite as far as you do in calling it a "fake mantra," because that implies they are acting in bad faith, and I'm not prepared to say that. But there's a lot of troubling inconsistency in the application of the rules. It's hard to say you stand up for free speech when you carve out a lot of exceptions to it and then apply the exceptions in ways that confuse people, thus prompting endless discussions in this forum among the people writing the stories.

But that’s life in general. There is rarely a hard-and-fast absolutist position that makes sense because there is always some new exception that, if left unchecked, would wreck the system. Our whole advantage as a species is that we’re able to innovate and come up with new balances and ways of being.

 

[ElectricBlue]

But is the rejection to do with this unnamed Lit user or the real-life people I mention in the essay? If it was the former, this suggests the rejection occurred after finishing only the second paragraph. I could cut out any reference to the Lit user and resubmit, but part of me doesn't want to wait another month only to find out it's also the latter.

Read the rejection notice more closely. It refers to the reference to the Lit user as being the problem, not the references to other real life people.

I'd remove the Lit identity reference and resubmit the essay, with a note to the Editor - which is the same as sending a PM to Laurel, only she's got the essay content in front of her, so the question about the real life people can also be answered.

But if you don't give Laurel the opportunity to consider your redaction of the Lit identity reference, you'll never know for sure. My advice, rather than guessing what her answer might be, is to address the precise words of the comment, and know what her answer actually is.

In answer to the broad theme of the post, yes, I can always separate art from the artist. If I don't, I must reject some astonishingly good film making, some astonishingly good main-stream writing, some of my favourite music, some of the world's recognised great art.

Is the power of Guernica diminished because Picasso might have been an asshole to his mistress? Is Led Zeppelin's Kashmir any less a rock classic because Jimmy Page fucked an under age groupie? I could go on, but won't bother. It's a moral high ground argument from the self righteous. What survives is the art, no matter what happens to the reputation.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Read the rejection notice more closely. It refers to the reference to the Lit user as being the problem, not the references to other real life people.

I'd remove the Lit identity reference and resubmit the essay, with a note to the Editor - which is the same as sending a PM to Laurel, only she's got the essay content in front of her, so the question about the real life people can also be answered.

But if you don't give Laurel the opportunity to consider your redaction of the Lit identity reference, you'll never know for sure. My advice, rather than guessing what her answer might be, is to address the precise words of the comment, and know what her answer actually is.

In answer to the broad theme of the post, yes, I can always separate art from the artist. If I don't, I must reject some astonishingly good film making, some astonishingly good main-stream writing, some of my favourite music, some of the world's recognised great art.

Is the power of Guernica diminished because Picasso might have been an asshole to his mistress? Is Led Zeppelin's Kashmir any less a rock classic because Jimmy Page fucked an under age groupie? I could go on, but won't bother. It's a moral high ground argument from the self righteous. What survives is the art, no matter what happens to the reputation.

I mean… yes? They’re pictures and sound combinations. We can just make more.

 

[SimonDoom]

I gave up football after watching for 40 years because there are more woman beaters and criminals on the field than in a correctional facility, but of course somehow none of them are ever guilty....yeah, okay. So, I decided I needed to weigh personal pleasure over what I believe in. Now I spend Sunday's doing anything but.

The example of the NFL offers a further reason why this approach makes no sense. It is not principled and it is not ethically or logically consistent.

The NFL is a large organization of men that contains some men who abuse women. I daresay so does every similarly sized organization on Earth. One can say the same thing with statistical confidence about any large religious congregation, or about any other sports organization, or any corporation or partnership, or any political party. There's no reason or evidence to believe that the NFL is worse on this score than other organizations. It just gets more publicity because it is an organization that consists of famous male athletes. I don't hold the NFL responsible for what Ray Rice did. He's guilty, not the NFL. As soon as the video showed up about what he did, his NFL career was over.

So, number one, if you boycott the NFL but give support to other large organizations, you're being inconsistent and hypocritical.

Number two, you're failing to take into account that most people in the NFL are NOT like that, and in fact many of them actively support good causes, so by withdrawing from supporting the NFL you are punishing the majority, and the good causes they represent, because of the sins of the minority. That makes no sense to me.

The same logic applies to a movie by Roman Polanski or by Harvey Weinstein. If I rent Chinatown on Netflix, a tiny percentage of the proceeds go to Polanski. A much larger percentage goes to all the other people and organizations involved with the making and distribution of the film, many of whom I assume are perfectly lovely people. Why should I punish them because Polanski is a bad apple?

In Harvey Weinstein's case, he's serving a long prison sentence, so I don't have to worry about him benefitting from the money I supposedly give him by watching his movies.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Read the rejection notice more closely. It refers to the reference to the Lit user as being the problem, not the references to other real life people.

I'd remove the Lit identity reference and resubmit the essay, with a note to the Editor - which is the same as sending a PM to Laurel, only she's got the essay content in front of her, so the question about the real life people can also be answered.

But if you don't give Laurel the opportunity to consider your redaction of the Lit identity reference, you'll never know for sure. My advice, rather than guessing what her answer might be, is to address the precise words of the comment, and know what her answer actually is.

In answer to the broad theme of the post, yes, I can always separate art from the artist. If I don't, I must reject some astonishingly good film making, some astonishingly good main-stream writing, some of my favourite music, some of the world's recognised great art.

Is the power of Guernica diminished because Picasso might have been an asshole to his mistress? Is Led Zeppelin's Kashmir any less a rock classic because Jimmy Page fucked an under age groupie? I could go on, but won't bother. It's a moral high ground argument from the self righteous. What survives is the art, no matter what happens to the reputation.

Wow… reading about Picasso… yikes. He wasn’t an asshole to his mistress, he was a raging abusive shitbag to multiple women. His popularity is sustained mostly as an asset appreciation vehicle for the wealthy.

Yeah, fuck that dude.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Wow… reading about Picasso… yikes. He wasn’t an asshole to his mistress, he was a raging abusive shitbag to multiple women. His popularity is sustained mostly as an asset appreciation vehicle for the wealthy.

Yeah, fuck that dude.

Good man, judge one of the world's greatest artists in ten minutes. That's selective reading, if ever I saw it, and illustrates perfectly the calibre and paucity of these "discussions". Now go read about why he painted Guernica, and the background behind that painting, and argue how fucking brilliant facism is.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Good man, judge one of the world's greatest artists in ten minutes. That's selective reading, if ever I saw it, and illustrates perfectly the calibre and paucity of these "discussions". Now go read about why he painted Guernica, and the background behind that painting, and argue how fucking brilliant facism is.

Yeah, I already knew about Guernica. I also note that Fascist Spain stayed in power long after he painted Guernica.

He can be anti-fascist and a shitbag at the same time. Seeing as Franco didn’t exactly topple from power, his picture doesn’t outweigh his extreme abuses of multiple women. Go back to worshipping domestic abusers.

 

[lovecraft68]

Rosemary's Baby came out years before Polanski committed his crimes, so I guess that's safe, although there is the dark coincidence of the film foreshadowing his crimes since Rosemary's rapist is literally the devil. As for The Pianist, like I said in my reply to @SimonDoom I'm perfectly happy to watch The Pianist but not that it was celebrated along with its criminal director at the Oscars.

I think The Pianist won those all those Oscars because the subject matter tugged on some very powerful heartstrings. I don't agree that merely enjoying the art somehow indirectly benefits the evil artist, but at a minimum we shouldn't give these individuals credit or attention beyond that.

The Pianist-I've never seen it-defines hypocrisy to the nth degree, and the kind I'm trying to drive home here.

When the #metoo movement started, and loudmouth Meryl Streep and others were pretending to care about sexual harassment and assault in the industry, I watched a You tuber play a bunch of their posturing BS, then showed a video of Streep and all the rest of them giving Polanski a standing ovation, knowing full well he couldn't set foot in the country, and why. Then they stand there talking about rape culture....Hollywood was, and still is rape and abuse central, including minors and when these things realized it was all pointing back at them....yeah, that movement died quick in tinsel town, didn't it?

It says it all.

As for Rosemary's Baby, I saw it in my early teens on VHS, so early eighties I guess, and thought it was a good movie, Mia Farrow was great in it. I think it deserves its rep as a classic in the genre. When I found out what he did, which was a few years later-remember-this is pre internet and as a kid I didn't really watch the news so it was some time before I found out what happened, I tossed the tape and I'll never watch it again. Even at that age, I wouldn't be able to see it and not think of him. Somehow I have managed to get by watching the thousands of other movies not created by a rapist.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I don't know how else one can act in a principled way without hiding away in a cave and never watching or listening to anything. The truth is, in most cases you have no idea whether the artists whose works you watch or listen to are decent people or not.

This part is true. Some people are very good at hiding who they are. But that doesn't preclude acting on information when we do know.

I have dozens of books by Neil Gaiman, I have stuff he's signed, I've watched/bought several of his shows and movies. I feel no guilt about that, because I didn't know what he was when I handed over my money. But now that I do know, I'm not going to keep putting money in his pocket.

 

[Justfantasies]

After waiting nearly a whole month while an essay on this very topic was stuck in pending limbo, it was finally rejected for the following reason:

It makes perfect sense to have a rule like this, which means that the content guidelines webpage is out of date, notwithstanding the fact that my rejected essay does not "threaten" or "target" any Lit user or any real-life person. Admittedly, it was inspired by an individual (whom I won't name) who sabotaged a discussion thread of mine while refusing to actually read the essay that the thread was supposed to be about; but just as the linked essay has almost nothing to do with the red herring, so the rejected essay has very little to do with this Lit user.

But is the rejection to do with this unnamed Lit user or the real-life people I mention in the essay? If it was the former, this suggests the rejection occurred after finishing only the second paragraph. I could cut out any reference to the Lit user and resubmit, but part of me doesn't want to wait another month only to find out it's also the latter. That would mean that pointing to the well-publicized crimes of real-life people (one of whom is a fugitive from American justice and another of whom is serving time in federal prison) also falls afoul of the rule.

The essay I tried to submit is about the possibility of separating good art from evil artists, which isn't always ethically feasible for reasons I go into in detail in the essay. There isn't enough space to post the whole essay here, and even if there were, the Lit forums are subject to the same content guidelines; so instead, I'll abbreviate the whole topic into three questions:

1) Does consuming a piece of art materially or financially benefit an evil artist or cause? e.g., live-action Mulan which was filmed in Xinjiang Province and included the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau (responsible for running the Uighur detention camps) in the film credits.

2) Does the piece of art embody an unsavory message that the evil artist endorses? e.g., Mel Gibson, a skilled director who made The Passion of the Christ which was widely criticized for containing antisemitic tropes; RnB singer R Kelly who has a gorgeous singing voice, but whose lyrics are dripping with misogyny and is now serving time in federal prison for crimes involving underage individuals.

3) If you can guarantee that enjoying a piece of objectively good art won't benefit an evil artist financially and doesn't contain any problematic messaging, does enjoying the artwork or even acknowledging its existence still make you complicit in somehow lessening the severity of the artist's crimes? e.g., Roman Polanski. Personally, I'm happy to watch Polanski's films, including Rosemary's Baby and The Pianist, but not happy to see him or his work feted publicly given that he's a fugitive from justice.

Regardless of the essay rejection, I'm hoping for a productive discussion with whoever is interested.

It’s certainly possible to distinguish between the value of a piece of art and the character of the person who created it. In fact it is desirable. But it is also possible not to judge these people at all, lest you be judged a Karen. Gibson is evil?? Oh come on.

 

[SimonDoom]

This part is true. Some people are very good at hiding who they are. But that doesn't preclude acting on information when we do know.

I have dozens of books by Neil Gaiman, I have stuff he's signed, I've watched/bought several of his shows and movies. I feel no guilt about that, because I didn't know what he was when I handed over my money. But now that I do know, I'm not going to keep putting money in his pocket.

I hadn't heard of any of those allegations before. I briefly scanned what you linked to and Googled allegations of wrongdoing. To be clear I haven't spent more than 5 minutes on the matter. You may have researched the matter at much greater length.

As far as I know, allegations have been made, but nothing's been proven or decided. I confess I don't know. In those situations, my attitude is to try to keep an open mind and to want to see evidence before I form my own judgment. The number of allegations makes a difference. If one person makes allegations that are denied by the other person, I don't know what to believe. If multiple people make similar allegations against a person, I'm much more likely to make a judgment. I don't know enough at this point to have any opinion, but you may feel you do.

I'll amend what I said to Lovecraft in this way. If you are personally satisfied that the evidence against Neil Gaiman is sufficiently compelling that you don't want to give him your money by buying his books, that's your right, and it's a legitimate exercise of your principles. Similarly, if Lovecraft is disgusted by the way the NFL has handled domestic violence committed by its players, he's entitled to withhold his support from the NFL. I think he's wrong, however, to fault others for not falling in line with the way he wants to handle the situation and accusing them of lacking "convictions." That's wrong. There's enough factual uncertainty and complication to allow different people to appraise situations differently and make different choices. I don't read your reply as an insistence that everybody should respond to Gaiman the way you do, but that your response is justified. Lovecraft's response reads more like, "You all lack convictions if you don't do what I do." There's a big difference between those two attitudes.