I would say it’s not possible. The art IS the artist. The art only is what it is because the artist is who they are. But a lot of people seem to be very comfortable with the idea of separating the art from the artist. What say Lemmy?
I would say it’s not possible. The art IS the artist. The art only is what it is because the artist is who they are. But a lot of people seem to be very comfortable with the idea of separating the art from the artist. What say Lemmy?
I see this discussion a lot with a lot of compelling arguments for either take. over time, this has become my take. it will be bad but hear me out.
depriving bad people of money for their work is good. but enjoying good work from bad people is important. if you don’t want to pay them then don’t, but don’t deprive yourself of art and education based on moral standards that (since we’re being honest) will always be in flux as you change and grow. decentralize moral purity from your personal journey. centralize making informed decisions and embracing complexity.
it’s a bad take but honestly I really don’t like the concept of trying to be a good person as it pertains to consumption. there really isn’t such a thing as good consumption. and in my thirties I’m pretty okay with whatever criticism that earns me.
I fully agree with your take regarding art but for different reasons apparently. I do think your way of approaching this makes you a good person. Specifically because you are willing to consume the art of a ‘bad’ person just because of the chance they make something good. It shows you’re trying to build an inclusive community, even if you disagree with someone. So it makes me wonder, why do you think being a good person ‘pertains to’ (forces?) consumption?
Again, I agree that there is no good consumption (in the capitalist sense). But I can absolutely see good deeds one can do without even getting close to consuming resources. An example would be holding the door open for the person behind you. Or am I misunderstanding you somehow?