Is it possible to separate the art from the artist?
October 7, 2013 9:15 AM Subscribe
Please recommend me good writing (preferably academic but well written blog posts or whatever are good too) that explores the controversy around problematic creators and whether or not one should support their work. PLEASE DON'T try to answer the question itself, that would be chatfilter. (Though I welcome anyone's thoughts on this via memail.)
I'm asking about debates like "I liked Ender's Game but Orson Scott Card is a jerk so I feel guilty about supporting him by buying his book/a ticket to the film." How have people answered this question?
To keep this narrowly focused let me say I am NOT interested in whether one should consume problematic works in the first place if it is possible to do so without financially supporting their creators. (e.g. if I get Ender's Game out of a dumpster is that ok? If I read Mein Kampf is that ok because fascists don't make any money off it?)
I'm asking about debates like "I liked Ender's Game but Orson Scott Card is a jerk so I feel guilty about supporting him by buying his book/a ticket to the film." How have people answered this question?
To keep this narrowly focused let me say I am NOT interested in whether one should consume problematic works in the first place if it is possible to do so without financially supporting their creators. (e.g. if I get Ender's Game out of a dumpster is that ok? If I read Mein Kampf is that ok because fascists don't make any money off it?)
I'm guessing since you use it as an example that you've maybe already read this, but just in case you haven't: John Scalzi on Ender's Game Movie
posted by Grither at 10:19 AM on October 7, 2013
posted by Grither at 10:19 AM on October 7, 2013
Response by poster: Not to threadsit but that post GenjiandProust linked was a FPP on the blue that in part inspired me to ask this and I meant to include it in my question. Thanks for linking to it.
Unfortunately while very insightful it doesn't exactly get at what I'm asking; it eloquently discusses why it's both okay to like controversial things and imperative that one accept that those things are problematic, but doesn't directly solve the problem of "by supporting this artist I am enabling more badness (in my opinion) to enter the world." Again, my question here is not about the right of problematic work to exist, but rather the moral dilemma of supporting an artist whose work I may like but who holds problematic views and may actively use the proceeds from his/her art to further causes I as reader/viewer disagree with.
Shutting up now.
posted by Wretch729 at 10:30 AM on October 7, 2013
Unfortunately while very insightful it doesn't exactly get at what I'm asking; it eloquently discusses why it's both okay to like controversial things and imperative that one accept that those things are problematic, but doesn't directly solve the problem of "by supporting this artist I am enabling more badness (in my opinion) to enter the world." Again, my question here is not about the right of problematic work to exist, but rather the moral dilemma of supporting an artist whose work I may like but who holds problematic views and may actively use the proceeds from his/her art to further causes I as reader/viewer disagree with.
Shutting up now.
posted by Wretch729 at 10:30 AM on October 7, 2013
You might want to check out Susan Sontag's Regarding the Pain of Others and John Berger's Ways of Seeing.
posted by brookeb at 11:05 AM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by brookeb at 11:05 AM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I thought this blog post was a reasonable, thoughtful take on the specific "does paying to see Ender's Game count as supporting OSC's homophobia" issue, and the points he makes can be pretty easily generalized to the wider world of Assholes Making Art.
posted by Zozo at 11:16 AM on October 7, 2013
posted by Zozo at 11:16 AM on October 7, 2013
Your question seems mostly about "good work by problematic creators". I think it's also worth exploring the ethics of the work itself, rather than just the creators--so I would recommend The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction by Wayne Booth.
I believe anyone who wants to think seriously about literature should read this book. Although the academy has never stopped reading stuff by racist, sexist, dead guys (and writes endless reams about it), ethical criticism has been moribund since the 19th century. And if you're talking about consuming/experiencing art, it's worth thinking about how the art is affecting you--not just how your money affects the artist.
posted by Hypatia at 11:24 AM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
I believe anyone who wants to think seriously about literature should read this book. Although the academy has never stopped reading stuff by racist, sexist, dead guys (and writes endless reams about it), ethical criticism has been moribund since the 19th century. And if you're talking about consuming/experiencing art, it's worth thinking about how the art is affecting you--not just how your money affects the artist.
posted by Hypatia at 11:24 AM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Again, not quite what you are looking for, but "Guilty Pleasures: Art and Politics" is a lecture by China Miéville on liking art (both high and low) from a Marxist perspective, and what do you do when someone you find repellent makes something you like.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:44 PM on October 7, 2013
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:44 PM on October 7, 2013
Also perhaps not quite what you are looking for, but approaching the question from the other side-- what do you do if the person is admirable, but the art is bad?-- here are two things I thought of when reading your question: Ai Wei Wei is a terrible artist, but a wonderful dissident. And also, Salman Rushdie writes that the worst thing about being controversial is that no one actually looks at your work. Really, though, what do you mean by "problematic creators"? Could you give a little more detail?
posted by seasparrow at 4:08 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by seasparrow at 4:08 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
what do you mean by "problematic creators"? Could you give a little more detail?
Not to answer for the OP, but what leaps to my mind are people like Woody Allen (quasi-incestuous pedophile), D.W. Griffith (racist), and James Brown (woman-beater).
posted by Rykey at 11:16 AM on October 12, 2013
Not to answer for the OP, but what leaps to my mind are people like Woody Allen (quasi-incestuous pedophile), D.W. Griffith (racist), and James Brown (woman-beater).
posted by Rykey at 11:16 AM on October 12, 2013
Response by poster: seasparrow: Rykey is correct in describing what I mean. Other examples I had in mind might be Orson Scott Card (popular author but donates to and is publicly active in homophobic campaigns/groups) or the Penny Arcade guys (popular webcomic, they do good through Child's Play charity and PAX con fosters great sense of community but have also displayed stunning insensitivity/bullying in a series of incidents related to gender issues*). So I'm asking about cases where there is both artistic merit and perhaps even some unambigously positive ethical/political stances and in the same creator problematic ethical/political stances.
*re: dickwolves I know rape is not axiomatically a gender issue but it was the best umbrella category for the various PA-related internet fights I can think of right now.
posted by Wretch729 at 9:40 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
*re: dickwolves I know rape is not axiomatically a gender issue but it was the best umbrella category for the various PA-related internet fights I can think of right now.
posted by Wretch729 at 9:40 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:30 AM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]