I do my best to avoid art from controversal figures, but more importantly I avoid financially supporting them. Sometimes that’s difficult, because they have been involved in so many things and that involvement isn’t always obvious, but I try.
One of the recent, easier examples is J.K. Rowling, whose stance as a self-proclaimed “TERF” has caused me to avoid her Harry Potter franchise except for the books and movies I already own (although I have still not had interest in those lately as a consequence of her stance). This is an easy case to avoid because it’s (usually) obvious what she benefits from and what she doesn’t, there is no guesswork or Googling. If it says “Harry Potter” in the title it is probably financially benefitting her
I mainly separate her and the work she’s connected to now because she has so much money that I feel it doesn’t really matter if she gets more from the franchise anymore. She’s a multibillionaire. She can keep contributing to whatever hate funds she wants to and still end up with more money at the end of the year because of her investments.
That’s a reasonable take, for sure, and it makes a lot of sense.
However, it is a bit of a rationalization to explain to yourself why you support her. It is analogous to not voting because you don’t think you’ll sway the election, that your vote doesn’t matter, in the sense that if enough people do it it does begin to have an impact.
Also, it isn’t about not giving her a lavish lifestyle, it is more about sending a message that her brand of hate isn’t welcome or tolerated. While she will make millions off of investments, if she sees that her bottom line was hurt because of her words she may, ideally, re-think them. Perhaps reflect on them, in a perfect world.
Admittedly, in reality she probably will only dig in deeper and feel victimized. But at least I’ll sleep better at night
Full agree, also the sins of the artist can sour the art in my mind. The art and the artist aren’t the same but they are linked. Understanding that is an important tool for media consumption. It doesn’t define what the art says, but it provides a lens through which to see it, and that lens may reveal ugly sides. Lovecraft’s xenophobia for example shows that it’s not just the horrors of a thassalophobe in New England afraid of what all could be beyond perception, but also a fear of that which is different and what you don’t understand as written by a xenophobic racist.
I do my best to avoid art from controversal figures, but more importantly I avoid financially supporting them. Sometimes that’s difficult, because they have been involved in so many things and that involvement isn’t always obvious, but I try.
One of the recent, easier examples is J.K. Rowling, whose stance as a self-proclaimed “TERF” has caused me to avoid her Harry Potter franchise except for the books and movies I already own (although I have still not had interest in those lately as a consequence of her stance). This is an easy case to avoid because it’s (usually) obvious what she benefits from and what she doesn’t, there is no guesswork or Googling. If it says “Harry Potter” in the title it is probably financially benefitting her
I mainly separate her and the work she’s connected to now because she has so much money that I feel it doesn’t really matter if she gets more from the franchise anymore. She’s a multibillionaire. She can keep contributing to whatever hate funds she wants to and still end up with more money at the end of the year because of her investments.
That’s a reasonable take, for sure, and it makes a lot of sense.
However, it is a bit of a rationalization to explain to yourself why you support her. It is analogous to not voting because you don’t think you’ll sway the election, that your vote doesn’t matter, in the sense that if enough people do it it does begin to have an impact.
Also, it isn’t about not giving her a lavish lifestyle, it is more about sending a message that her brand of hate isn’t welcome or tolerated. While she will make millions off of investments, if she sees that her bottom line was hurt because of her words she may, ideally, re-think them. Perhaps reflect on them, in a perfect world.
Admittedly, in reality she probably will only dig in deeper and feel victimized. But at least I’ll sleep better at night
In addition to this, money is power, money is speech. The more money she has, the more weight she has to throw behind her bigoted ideology.
Full agree, also the sins of the artist can sour the art in my mind. The art and the artist aren’t the same but they are linked. Understanding that is an important tool for media consumption. It doesn’t define what the art says, but it provides a lens through which to see it, and that lens may reveal ugly sides. Lovecraft’s xenophobia for example shows that it’s not just the horrors of a thassalophobe in New England afraid of what all could be beyond perception, but also a fear of that which is different and what you don’t understand as written by a xenophobic racist.