Jump to content
maryjanewhatsername

Separating the Artist from the Art

Recommended Posts

maryjanewhatsername

As I was listening to my music playlists, I realized that some artists, creators, or other public figures are just complete dick heads even though they make or do something super awesome. My question to you is, do we excuse said behavior in order to enjoy the art, or do we boycott it in order to not support further stupid ideas?

Just as a little food for thought. Feel free to discuss specific celebrities and to agree/disagree respectfully. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emilie

Depends on who they are and what they did. Usually if an artist has done something “boycott worthy” my enjoyment of their music has been ruined. I never got into sticky fingers because of the controversy around them

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maryjanewhatsername
4 minutes ago, Emilie said:

Depends on who they are and what they did. Usually if an artist has done something “boycott worthy” my enjoyment of their music has been ruined. I never got into sticky fingers because of the controversy around them

I would definitely say I'm the same way about Kat Von D. I got rid of all of the makeup I had of hers because of her most recent bullshit:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/eleanorbate/kat-von-d-nazi-anti-vaxxer-accusations-video

Her video was horseshit too, and I just can't stand for neo nazis. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hermione

I mean getting rid of stuff you've already bought doesn't affect anything, only not buying more would. There's some times where someone has done something bad enough that just listening to them/having things associated with them is spoiled but it depends, they have to do more for me to get to that point than they would for me to just not spend money on them.

Kat Von D has recently made it clear she never meant to put out an anti vax message (she'd only spoken about her own child) and is listening to her doctor/has become more educated about it so just sounds like she was ignorant about it before. And the neo Nazi thing is based on an unproven accusation about an anti-semitic note made by a disgruntled ex employee that she's always denied, plus views of her now ex husband. Pretty shaky ground to condemn her on I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeJennsitized
6 hours ago, Emilie said:

Depends on who they are and what they did. Usually if an artist has done something “boycott worthy” my enjoyment of their music has been ruined. I never got into sticky fingers because of the controversy around them

Basically this. It's not always about making a statement and declaring a boycott (though this can be good to reinforce the idea that being a shithead has consequences), sometimes it's just finding something out and then that's all you think about when you listen to the music, so getting rid of that isn't a big deal for you in contrast. For example, I had no problems at all getting rid of all my Lostprophets CDs and deleting them off my library because of what Ian Watkins had done. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adorkable

This can be very interesting. The big question is why would you consider boycotting someone? Are you boycotting because their beliefs are different from yours or because they did or said something heinous and you don't want to contribute to them?

I will use the Kat Von D example. While I think not vaccinating your children is irresponsible it is by no means illegal. So why boycott her products? Is it because you don't want to support someone with different beliefs than you? That is perfectly fine, it is a personal choice. But where does the boycott end? Do you not go to any businesses that support Donald Trump because you don't? Do you not listen to an artist that is not pro-life because you are? Their beliefs are not illegal, just different from your own.  I personal would not boycott someone simply because their beliefs differ from my own. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am entitled to disagree. 

Now when you get into people that have committed a crime, then it gets a bit different. For example, I would not support the people involved in the college scandal. I used to be a huge fan of Kevin Spacey, but if he ever gained a career again, I would never see a movie of his. 

It really just comes down to personal preference on what you think is too much.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeJennsitized
2 minutes ago, Adorkable said:

This can be very interesting. The big question is why would you consider boycotting someone? Are you boycotting because their beliefs are different from yours or because they did or said something heinous and you don't want to contribute to them?

I will use the Kat Von D example. While I think not vaccinating your children is irresponsible it is by no means illegal. So why boycott her products? Is it because you don't want to support someone with different beliefs than you? That is perfectly fine, it is a personal choice. But where does the boycott end? Do you not go to any businesses that support Donald Trump because you don't? Do you not listen to an artist that is not pro-life because you are? Their beliefs are not illegal, just different from your own.  I personal would not boycott someone simply because their beliefs differ from my own. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am entitled to disagree. 

Now when you get into people that have committed a crime, then it gets a bit different. For example, I would not support the people involved in the college scandal. I used to be a huge fan of Kevin Spacey, but if he ever gained a career again, I would never see a movie of his. 

It really just comes down to personal preference on what you think is too much.   

I think the main thing is not wanting to contribute to their success. Opinions don't have to be illegal, they just, for me, have to be promoting oppression or harm to someone or a group for no other reason than who they are. Sometimes we have to work with people or interact with family etc with harmful beliefs, but this is because sometimes you don't get the luxury of picking and choosing. But where I do have the option, and the information available to me, I'll choose to not support it.

Your favourite colour or fruit is an opinion I'll happily overlook, but if you have the opinion that gay people are second class citizens who shouldn't have the right to get married or adopt? I'll have a problem with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adorkable
30 minutes ago, DeJennsitized said:

I think the main thing is not wanting to contribute to their success. Opinions don't have to be illegal, they just, for me, have to be promoting oppression or harm to someone or a group for no other reason than who they are. Sometimes we have to work with people or interact with family etc with harmful beliefs, but this is because sometimes you don't get the luxury of picking and choosing. But where I do have the option, and the information available to me, I'll choose to not support it.

Your favourite colour or fruit is an opinion I'll happily overlook, but if you have the opinion that gay people are second class citizens who shouldn't have the right to get married or adopt? I'll have a problem with that.

I agree with that, which is why I said it is a personal choice. 

"It really just comes down to personal preference on what you think is too much"   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hermione

Yeah it's not so much whether it's illegal or not, it's just how much it bothers you really. If someone just disagrees with me about something it probably won't affect whether I buy or enjoy using their product. But if it's a harmful opinion that can have real world impact it might make me not want to give them money and further their success, depending on the individual example, although I might still own their product or watch or listen to them if the offensive thing they've said/done doesn't happen to be bad enough that it's all I think of when I see them. Only in the most extreme cases would I be put off someone enough to not even want to own or see/listen to their stuff even though I'm not giving them money, when you know someone's done something really awful it just isn't pleasant to look at or listen to them.

Btw Kat Von D isn't even saying she's not vaccinating her child now, she said she won't say but that she's now talked to her doctor and got more educated about it. So it's really a stretch to call her an anti vaxxer at this point. Bit of a difference between being an anti vaxxer telling people not to vaccinate their children and just being uneducated about whether she should do it or not herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bully Hoe
5 hours ago, Hermione said:

Btw Kat Von D isn't even saying she's not vaccinating her child now, she said she won't say but that she's now talked to her doctor and got more educated about it. So it's really a stretch to call her an anti vaxxer at this point. Bit of a difference between being an anti vaxxer telling people not to vaccinate their children and just being uneducated about whether she should do it or not herself.

She didn't say she was vaccinating her child either though. All she said was that she won't make it public anymore after the (deserved) backlash she got for saying she wouldn't be "injecting our baby with specific chemicals and toxins". So she's  still an anti-vaxxer who just won't publicly talk about it anymore, and imo that's more than enough to condemn her. Her uneducation on the topic is actively harming people and risking their lives, especially her baby's but not only. There are people out there who depend on mass immunity to even go out of the house and socialize. But I guess the possibility of having an autistic child (which has been 100% disproven) is worse than having a dead child? It's literally not a stretch at all to call her an anti-vaxxer. She said she wouldn't vaccinate her child, then made a video after people started boycotting her about how she won't publicly talk about it anymore but never said she would vaccinate her child now. Yeah she says she's educating herself, but that's also the exact same thing she said when she wouldn't vaccinate: "I already know what it’s like to make life choices that are not the same as the majority. So your negative comments are not going influence my choices — actual research and educating myself will — which I am diligently doing." 

Not vaccinating children or yourself may not be illegal in some countries but remember that legal =/= morally right. There are laws that are unjust and should be broken, just as there shouldn't be a law forcing you to do the right thing. It's dangerous and actually life-threatening, people have already died from completely preventable diseases. That's more than enough for a boycott. 

12 hours ago, Hermione said:

And the neo Nazi thing is based on an unproven accusation about an anti-semitic note made by a disgruntled ex employee that she's always denied, plus views of her now ex husband. Pretty shaky ground to condemn her on I'd say.

Again, no. It's not an "unproven accusation", experts have concluded that there was a 99% chance that the handwriting was indeed hers. The disgruntled ex-employee was actually her employer who was personally handed the note from her when she left the show Miami Ink, which was witnessed by another employee. Just because she says "lol i didn't do it" doesn't mean that she's innocent or that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that she did. What more does one need to believe it?

If you look at all of that as isolated incidents, sure it doesn't mean she's a nazi. But the fact that she wrote this note, the fact that she was engaged to a known neo nazi (or someone who at least glorifies it), the fact that she named her eyeshadow "Selektion" (which is a word Nazis used for the process of selecting jewish people for the death chambers... awkward coincidence, right?), the fact that her German / Italian grandparents by the noble name "von Drachenberg" moved to Argentina at a very suspicious timing and the fact that she made a highly dodgy post about her concealer "doing all the hard work for you *brown skinned emoji*" with a picture of her holding it up in front of a cotton-field surely are a lot of coincidences that somehow fit together.

If someone wants to boycott her for completely valid reasons, let them. If you don't want to, good for you. I still think it's funny though how far people will go to defend the actions of someone who once collaborated with Billie just so they can feel good about buying the products and will rationalize every single shitty thing in order to make it look less bad. :) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beerjeezus

A little surprised no one has brought up Michael Jackson yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhiteTim
1 hour ago, Beerjeezus said:

A little surprised no one has brought up Michael Jackson yet.

He was found not guilty FBI raided his house several times and found zero evidence he was stripped search and his private part did NOT match the description one of the boys said he had all of the accusers after being an adult have said they were told by their parents to say he did it the two who are in that documentary testified in court he didn’t and have only switched when they were denied employment in the Las Vegas event 

I’m not saying he has never molested but right now there’s no evidence that points that he ever did and the only 2 accusers are shady people 

I’d never would have my kid around him not alone 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bellie

I heard people having this argument about the French band "Noir Désir", the singer Bertrand Cantat who killed his girlfriend Marie Trintignant. He's still alive, and the band has had an influence on French music, yet some people don't feel comfortable about listening to his music and especially him still performing it, and who wouldn't understand that? I witnessed two people having an argument about that. The first said "the artist should be separated from the art juts because the art is beautiful and deserves a listen" and the second said "he shouldn't be allowed to live free and his music shouldn't be out there because his behavior was totally immoral". I would say, who are we to say this shouldn't be out there? I'm interested in what a successful record has been, even if the composer has turned out to be a murderer. Mental issues can affect anyone. I don't want to censor music. I can like music without liking the artist, though. I like Rolling Stones music even if I don't care about the guys themselves. It doesn't matter, for the music world, if they were moral or immoral. I mean, it matters, for each person to decide how, but it doesn't have to be translated in immoral = music boycotted.

About Micheal Jackson, I've never been a huge fan but I enjoy the music, and I wouldn't be surprised if they guy has done everything he is accused of. Do I think the music should be less listened to? No, I'm still interested because he was a music genius, and I'm perhaps even more interested because he wasn't all sane. It's almost educational. A genius music, who yet wasn't all sane and couldn't hide it from the public eye, why should I not check it out? I see it as being immoral can happen to anyone. I don't place myself above anyone. I'm interested for the music an the compassionate aspect, if anything. You can't expect less shit to happen of you judge some people as monsters or not worthy of any listen. If the only good thing they produce is art, I'm still interested, even for the art itself, I don't want to close my eyes on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarcasm

my life as a Kanye fan, the novel

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.
2 hours ago, WhiteTim said:

He was found not guilty FBI raided his house several times and found zero evidence he was stripped search and his private part did NOT match the description one of the boys said he had all of the accusers after being an adult have said they were told by their parents to say he did it the two who are in that documentary testified in court he didn’t and have only switched when they were denied employment in the Las Vegas event 

I’m not saying he has never molested but right now there’s no evidence that points that he ever did and the only 2 accusers are shady people 

I’d never would have my kid around him not alone 

For me admitting on camera you shared a bed with children is really suspect

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maryjanewhatsername
10 hours ago, DeJennsitized said:

I think the main thing is not wanting to contribute to their success. Opinions don't have to be illegal, they just, for me, have to be promoting oppression or harm to someone or a group for no other reason than who they are. Sometimes we have to work with people or interact with family etc with harmful beliefs, but this is because sometimes you don't get the luxury of picking and choosing. But where I do have the option, and the information available to me, I'll choose to not support it.

Your favourite colour or fruit is an opinion I'll happily overlook, but if you have the opinion that gay people are second class citizens who shouldn't have the right to get married or adopt? I'll have a problem with that.

Exactly how I feel. I don't want to support people that contribute to something or advocate for something I find offensive or harmful. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhiteTim
2 hours ago, Joe. said:

For me admitting on camera you shared a bed with children is really suspect

True but that doesn’t mean he has done anything tho and I’m not defending him on that it’s just there’s literally zero evidence to call him a child molester 

I hate to victim shame but the only two who are saying he did something are shady people who are mad they didn’t get what they wanted Wade testified at the second trial that MJ didn’t do anything to him and that his mom told him to say something “cause we didn’t have money and she heard he paid off the family of the first trial” mind you Wade came forward himself neither MJ’s lawyer or the prosecutor had called him he approached them from the second trial all the way until last year and a half he kept telling people MJ didnt his mom made it up he then goes and applies to be the choreographer for the Las Vegas MJ Show gets denied the job and all the sudden he switches stories... 

again I said maybe he did do something but after reading all the evidence and testimonies from the second trial seeing how much the FBI raided his house randomly four times never finding anything at all and everything has my logical side saying we shouldn’t call him a child molester accused child molester sure but from all the evidence they have at the moment I think it’s wrong to leave out the accused part 

as much as I think it’s disgusting and weird and such that he thought it was okay it was ok to have slumber parties with kids that doesn’t automatically mean that he did anything sexual I don’t defend that part at all I know what the defenders of MJ says to defend that shit and yeah he probably was messed up from not having a normal childhood and just wanted to be a normal kid and shit but fuck that he knew sleeping in the same room or bed with the kids was wrong as fuck 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maryjanewhatsername
1 hour ago, WhiteTim said:

True but that doesn’t mean he has done anything tho and I’m not defending him on that it’s just there’s literally zero evidence to call him a child molester 

I hate to victim shame but the only two who are saying he did something are shady people who are mad they didn’t get what they wanted Wade testified at the second trial that MJ didn’t do anything to him and that his mom told him to say something “cause we didn’t have money and she heard he paid off the family of the first trial” mind you Wade came forward himself neither MJ’s lawyer or the prosecutor had called him he approached them from the second trial all the way until last year and a half he kept telling people MJ didnt his mom made it up he then goes and applies to be the choreographer for the Las Vegas MJ Show gets denied the job and all the sudden he switches stories... 

again I said maybe he did do something but after reading all the evidence and testimonies from the second trial seeing how much the FBI raided his house randomly four times never finding anything at all and everything has my logical side saying we shouldn’t call him a child molester accused child molester sure but from all the evidence they have at the moment I think it’s wrong to leave out the accused part 

as much as I think it’s disgusting and weird and such that he thought it was okay it was ok to have slumber parties with kids that doesn’t automatically mean that he did anything sexual I don’t defend that part at all I know what the defenders of MJ says to defend that shit and yeah he probably was messed up from not having a normal childhood and just wanted to be a normal kid and shit but fuck that he knew sleeping in the same room or bed with the kids was wrong as fuck 

I agree. It's all super shady on both sides and I don't think there's sufficient evidence to say either or, but both sides do have compelling/creepy arguments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Seargeant Mark IV is a fucking piece of shit but he made Brutal DOOM, one fo the greatest classic DooM mods ever. You can hate someone and like their creations at the same time and I do that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hermione
14 hours ago, Billie Hoe said:

She didn't say she was vaccinating her child either though. All she said was that she won't make it public anymore after the (deserved) backlash she got for saying she wouldn't be "injecting our baby with specific chemicals and toxins". So she's  still an anti-vaxxer who just won't publicly talk about it anymore, and imo that's more than enough to condemn her. Her uneducation on the topic is actively harming people and risking their lives, especially her baby's but not only. There are people out there who depend on mass immunity to even go out of the house and socialize. But I guess the possibility of having an autistic child (which has been 100% disproven) is worse than having a dead child? It's literally not a stretch at all to call her an anti-vaxxer. She said she wouldn't vaccinate her child, then made a video after people started boycotting her about how she won't publicly talk about it anymore but never said she would vaccinate her child now. Yeah she says she's educating herself, but that's also the exact same thing she said when she wouldn't vaccinate: "I already know what it’s like to make life choices that are not the same as the majority. So your negative comments are not going influence my choices — actual research and educating myself will — which I am diligently doing." 

Not vaccinating children or yourself may not be illegal in some countries but remember that legal =/= morally right. There are laws that are unjust and should be broken, just as there shouldn't be a law forcing you to do the right thing. It's dangerous and actually life-threatening, people have already died from completely preventable diseases. That's more than enough for a boycott. 

Again, no. It's not an "unproven accusation", experts have concluded that there was a 99% chance that the handwriting was indeed hers. The disgruntled ex-employee was actually her employer who was personally handed the note from her when she left the show Miami Ink, which was witnessed by another employee. Just because she says "lol i didn't do it" doesn't mean that she's innocent or that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that she did. What more does one need to believe it?

If you look at all of that as isolated incidents, sure it doesn't mean she's a nazi. But the fact that she wrote this note, the fact that she was engaged to a known neo nazi (or someone who at least glorifies it), the fact that she named her eyeshadow "Selektion" (which is a word Nazis used for the process of selecting jewish people for the death chambers... awkward coincidence, right?), the fact that her German / Italian grandparents by the noble name "von Drachenberg" moved to Argentina at a very suspicious timing and the fact that she made a highly dodgy post about her concealer "doing all the hard work for you *brown skinned emoji*" with a picture of her holding it up in front of a cotton-field surely are a lot of coincidences that somehow fit together.

If someone wants to boycott her for completely valid reasons, let them. If you don't want to, good for you. I still think it's funny though how far people will go to defend the actions of someone who once collaborated with Billie just so they can feel good about buying the products and will rationalize every single shitty thing in order to make it look less bad. :) 

An anti vaxxer is someone who advocates for people to not vaccinate their children, right? In the first place she was only talking about her own child - I agree she deserved to get backlash for it because planning to not vaccinate your child and posting about it is dangerous, but still pretty far from an anti vax crusader. This is her latest comment on it:

Quote

 

“I am not an anti-vaxxer; what I am is a first-time mother,” she says, before explaining how she’d been doing “a bunch of research and reading the ingredients” of these vaccines. 

“Since then, we have decided as parents to consult with our paediatrician and just let him educate us and guide us… I am choosing not to make our decision – or any of our baby’s health records – public.”

 

To me that sounds like she was ignorant about it, and although she takes issue with the idea that people have the right to know her decision she's now more educated and has probably changed her mind on it if she's going with what a paediatrician says. And it's a big stretch to call her anti vaxxer after she's said this.

Handwriting analysis isn't an exact science and an opposing side with a vested interest in the result hiring an "expert" to confirm what they think is a pretty fishy area. 

I don't think there's enough proof one way or the other on the racist stuff but of course if people want to boycott her they can. I was mostly just confused that it was "after her most recent bullshit" which consists of clarifying that she's not an anti vaxxer and saying she isn't a neo nazi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emilie

I honestly don’t understand how the Kat Von D thing blew up. I am against the anti vaxx mindset as much as anyone could be. But she never came across as anti vax to me. At the time, people didn’t even know if there was a reason for her personally not vaccinating. However I also don’t support her because her racist/sketchy race related things have turned me off. And the race stuff has made its way into the brand (e.g. the Selektion product). If she was vocally anti vaxx that would put me off her brand even more 

And The difference to me between KVD and other brands is that Kat IS the brand. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brooklyn Baby

I don't really care. The artist is there to entertain me. I'll happily listen to music or look at art from people I disagree with - I mean, Billie Joe has characterized Trump supporters like myself as white supremacists and fascists but whatever, that's his crackpot opinion. His music is still good, so :confused:

I figure, the amount of money I spend on these people is so insignificant, no one would notice or care if I stopped spending my money on them. I just do what makes me happy and try not to get caught up in figuratively tarring and feathering some public figure whose opinions I don't care for. 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maryjanewhatsername

One of the artists I was thinking of was System of A Down's guitarist Daron Malakian and singer Serj Tankian. Both of them have massive egos like they've got sticks up their asses but they make great music. They announced a new album and then a few months later they decided not to make it because of personal disagreements between them and for me that damn near killed SOAD for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eva
18 hours ago, maryjanewhatsername said:

One of the artists I was thinking of was System of A Down's guitarist Daron Malakian and singer Serj Tankian. Both of them have massive egos like they've got sticks up their asses but they make great music. They announced a new album and then a few months later they decided not to make it because of personal disagreements between them and for me that damn near killed SOAD for me. 

I think that's a little different than political opinions, though. I mean, I still don't really listen to artists that I disagree with heavily when it comes to politics, but I also don't tend to like a lot of artists that I think are giant assholes in the first place :lol: But I think that being like "Wow, the dudes from Trapt are dicks, yikes" is different than "Man, Kanye West really said slavery didn't happen, huh?"

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Insider

I care for example I can't watch anything with Kevin Spacey in it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×