Tom Cruise is an incredibly talented actor. He also is the face of a horrific cult that has probably murdered people
Shelly Miscavige hasn’t been seen in public for almost two decades
Check out the story of Lisa McPherson, breaks my heart every time.
It’s equally likely that Shelley is dead as she is living at the Sea Org compound.
I think it’s more likely she’s dead. If I’d been trapped in the Sea Org compound for 15 years, I’d have probably killed myself by now
If he’s playing a villain, I’ll watch, otherwise I’m not interested.
You know what i am just gonna say it scientology is only as bad as all other religeons every religion has skelatons in their closed if you are gonna blacklist tom because of that consider blacklisting everyone who is christian,muslim or from any other religion . And no i am an atheist and doesn’t believe in scientology .
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
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 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.
For me it’s more of a rubber meets road issue. Whenever a Harry Potter franchise something is released it becomes a circus of highly performative transphobia that spills into trans spaces as certain people want to not just enjoy their Potter related paraphernalia… they suddenly find a wave of harassment to ride and do not seem content until they have hunted down trans spaces, people or allies to rub our noses in the fact they are having a really good time while spewing anti-trans sentiments everywhere as they do.
Being a trans person in public and seeing someone wearing Harry Potter related merch out and proud in the world can be a red flag in the sense that marks out a person as more than likely mildly anti trans on the safer side but a decent number of them who have held strong til this point are not nessisarily shy about being openly hostile in a very general - non fandom related sense. If I walk into a place with a bunch of people wearing wizarding house t-shirts and pins… I find away to excuse myself and leave.
The money isn’t even much a factor anymore. The inner fandom has become so toxic it basically just provides the mechanical structure of an organized hate group while nominally being about the franchise.
I’m not consistent about anything I do, including this.
I do acknowledge that some of the creators I appreciate are awful people. I don’t know if I would have picked up the art in the first place if I’d known then.
The art is a separate thing from the artist so I can typically treat them separately in my mind. A bad person can still be correct. A person who has done wrong can still make something beautiful.
It’s cases of when the making of the art itself is what’s problematic that I have a much more difficult time with because now it isn’t separate. Kubrick’s treatment of Shelley Duvall for e.g., Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz. The creation of the art itself caused harm, not some separate unrelated thing the artist said or did.
I’m not going to avoid A Bug’s Life, or even The Usual Suspects just because Kevin Spacey is in them. The Cosby Show was super important in breaking down stereotypes and improving race relations and is a great show. I’ll watch Woody Allen movies, probably, if I get around to it.
Promoting an artist’s work is promoting the artist and their views.
The Harry Potter IP, for instance, is now the official flag of shitty transphobia, and hell will freeze over before I go waving it around or even stand under it.
It’s not just a question of financial gain, it’s a question of social impact and what we tacitly agree to tolerate.
Imagine, if you will, telling a rape survivor to just lie back and enjoy the masterful comic stylings of Bill Cosby, or at least to shut up while you watch it because they’re ruining the funny, and YoU hAvE tO sEpArAtE tHe ArT fRoM tHe ArTisT.
What kind of message would that send? It would be telling them who you side with, it would be telling them that a rapist can purchase your undying loyalty and support just by being entertaining, and that as far as you’re concerned, rape victims can just suck it.
It’s not a good look.
Obviously, the worse and more immediately problematic the artist, the more pressing an issue this is.
The further back you go, the more unpleasantness you’re likely to find, simply because social progress is a thing. But again in the case of JK Rowling, she’s riding her popularity and influence in an attempt to drive trans kids to suicide right here, right now, which is just a leetle bit more pressing than the fact that some Victorian author was caught up in the casual racism of their day. Which is also not good, granted - but you triage these things.
Since you mentioned HP: seeing all the shitty views of Rowling coming to light also just destroyed my enjoyment of these stories. As a kid I used to love HP but now it just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth
I feel bad for my sibling personally. I at best thought the series was kind of fun but they were a massive Potterhead. We are however both different flavors of non-binary trans. My sibling is the kindest and most principled soul and seeing them go through essentially a grieving process made me fairly furious at the author not just for the shit she was spewing but the pain she was causing my younger sibling.
Anti flag has ruined their music for me and anything harry potter is repulsive after learning about who JK rowling is. So, yes I think I can’t seperate the art from the artist
Yes. Bad people can still be good at things, right? You can admire what they are good at, without endorsing their bad behavior. This is a sweeping generalization, I know, but broken people often can do remarkable things because they are trying to fill a hole most of us just don’t have. So if you will only listen to/look at the works of people you consider virtuous, you will be so limited.
Officially, yes, I separate them. In truth, there are some artists whose I’m less likely to enjoy once they did that thing they did.
Like, I don’t really want to see Kevin Spacey movies anymore. But I’ll still watch everything Mel Gibson does. I could make arguments for why that is (Gibson was drunk, moment of weakness, whatever), but it’s really just about how I feel. I could make similar arguments for the ones I don’t feel like watching anymore.
I do think we’re all kind of dirt-meat struggling through a confusing nightmare, and art is one way we rise above it. The best art is often made by broken people. Broken people don’t act right.
Oh man Kevin Spacey outing himself as a disgusting predatory piece of sh1t ruined his movies for me forever! American Beauty was one of my favorites as was The usual suspects. Now I can’t watch them anymore.
It depends… I wouldn’t say I cherry-pick, but if the art has a message that parallels the issues I have with the artist, it’s hard not to “separate” them. Like Kanye’s latest album… I can listen to College Dropout and Life of Pablo no problem, they don’t have any Nazi messaging. But his latest album is filled with very weird lyrics that just make me uncomfortable.
Another example would be someone like Dali, who was an avowed fascist. But his paintings don’t really have anything to do with that. And I quite enjoy them still.
Fuck, Dali was a fascist? I’ve been to multiple exposition that talk about his personal life but they never mention it
I mean he was just weird in general, but yeah: https://medium.com/the-collector/salvador-dalis-obsession-with-nazism-and-fascism-4769af704b96
Yes, especially as the same logic can apply to inventions, and then it just gets messy.
Strict if the artist is alive. Much less so if they’re dead. Much, much less so if they’re dead, and so is everyone attached to them.
I try not to separate the art from its context, I feel I get a more shallow experience by doing so. But, how much context, how I seek it out, etc are all up in the air. So when talking about a piece I’ll mention something of the context, the writer being living garbage is easy context to contrast/support against their work.
Ender’s game being written by a bigot is interesting because of the contrast. H.P Lovecraft being a bigot is interesting because it is so obvious in the work.
I actually like Hitler’s paintings.
My life too much of a mess to give a shit about things like this.
Did we ask about your life ? If you don’t have anything to add why bother at all ?
People that claim to cut things out of their life completely once the creator does something they don’t agree with, or worse yet when they are only accused of doing something they don’t agree with, are simpletons. They simply do not understand how the world in general works if they think that mindset is scalable.
Almost nothing is black and white when it comes to people’s choices and actions. The world is full of grey area and if someone fails to acknowledge that then they are in for a very frustrating existence.
It depends. For a movie, it probably doesn’t matter to me unless there was a really egregious transgression.
If i’m buying a painting to hang on my wall, am I going to think about the artist more than the piece when I see it? If so, that would ruin it for me and I wouldn’t enjoy the piece, so I wouldn’t buy it.
Of course, sometimes the controversy behind a work is the reason it’s appreciated – not the quality of the work.
Yes.
I quite enjoy the Tom Clancy books, and some of the film adaptations, but know he is right wing and it comes through in the books.
Similar to J K Rowling. Terrible person in general but the books were enjoyable when growing up.
he is right wing and it comes through in the books
I don’t think it really came off as much in his original books, or maybe I was just younger and more naive when I read them and didn’t notice. But all the new stuff written under his name is just un-fucking-bearable.
Yea the books with Jack Ryan Jr as the main character aren’t as good.
Far superior writers in the genre.
Alan Furst. Spy books set in the early days of WW2. For some reason they’ve been marketed as a series, but each book is a standalone with completely different characters. “Night Soldiers” and “Dark Star.”
Dan Fesperman. “The Warlord’s Son” is set in the days leading up to the US invasion of Afghanistan. Burnt out reporter and a self exiled Afghan search for bin Ladn.
Other things being technically superior doesn’t mean a thing isn’t worth your time, though. I listen to a lot of extremely talented musicians but a good chunk of my library could be learned in a Guitar 101 class, too
Back in the day, I started ‘The Hunt For Red October’ and noped out when the Soviet submarine commander wrote the KGB a litter telling them that he was stealing the most powerful weapon on Earth. It was so colossally stupid that I refused to read another line.
Unless you’re telling me that you actually listen to Guitar 101 students making all sorts of errors.
Here’s Ray Charles singing The Alphabet Song. Superior talent can take simple things and vastly improve them. Untalented people can take good ingredients and make an inedible mess.
They Might Be Giants wrote, “The sun is a mass of incandescent gas…” Still a good song despite being wrong (yes I know they’ve “updated” it)
People love Marvel movies even though they’re full of plot holes and formulaic stories but I’m not gonna say they should stop in favor of films which aren’t, ya know? Instead of saying “stop watching that crap,” say “you might also like [similar but ‘better’ film]”
For the record, I’ve never read a Clancy novel so I have no horse in this race
It’s apples and oranges. No one expects to get accurate scientific data in a pop song, and no one expects a comic book movie to be realistic.
People accept a lot of inaccuracies in a James Bond movie, but they’d feel cheated if Bond suddenly had the power to time travel or turn into a lion.
Since you never read the book I have nothing to add.
It’s not all that different. And I don’t think whether or not I’ve read Clancy is relevant here when my point is “people like different things about art and you shouldn’t pretend your preference is objectively better”
It’s totally cool to like things BECAUSE they’re hyper realistic but it’s also totally cool to not care about that. I am much more in-line with you in that regard…inaccuracies take me out of stories…But others aren’t bothered. Why tell them their preference is bad?
I quite enjoy the Tom Clancy books, and some of the film adaptations, but know he is right wing and it comes through in the books.
That’s the original comment I was responding to.
The books I cited are superior because they are not full of hard Right ideology.
They are also, in my opinion, much better written and far more enjoyable.
If you’d bothered to try and understand what I was saying, you wouldn’t have wasted all our time.
The books are better for the person who posted. Objectively better because they aren’t right wing screeds.
