Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

books Seperating the art from the artist.


Victoria Everglade

Recommended Posts

This can be about any author/artist etc that you like the work of but hate the artist etc themselves. But is primarily about J.K Rowling.

Now for starters, I am transgender and demisexual, however I am not entirely left wing. In fact I am more centrist than anything. Why am I saying this stuff? You'll soon see why.

I grew up from the age of twelve to whenever the last actual Potter movie came out, loving the books and some of the movies. All of this was while I was still identifying as a cis hetero male, and even a bit after my diagnosis of being trans. 

However, over the past few years, J.K's actions and beliefs have made me like it a lot less. As she has proven to be a homophobic terf.

Now, this is where my own beliefs and identity come into play. As I said I am a transwoman and demisexual, and despite that, I'm not crazy left wing, nor am I right wing (like say Blaire White), I am a centrist. However, even so, I find her words and choices have irked me, as she has repeatedly invalidated gender dysphoria, has chosen a pseudonym that's the name of the man who invented gay conversion therapy for her new series, aaand if you actually look into the books of Harry Potter, there's a shit tone of racism, racial stereotypes and class war. I can no longer read the books, watch the movies or play the games..

"But can't you just seperate the artist from the art?" Some ask, and the answer is "No, not when the choices, actions and words of the artist effects not only me, but a lot of people world wide. She has no shame in it at all and is quite proud of it."

There are a few artists I've been able to seperate from the art such as:

Ozzy Osbourne (alcoholic junkie) and Marilyn Manson (junkie, bit of a creep), so it isn't impossible for me to do it in general, but when the choices are felt worldwide such as with Rowling, it is.

What are your thoughts on it? Are there artists you can/can't seperate from their art?

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always separate the person from their work. Let's pretend that I find out that my favorite singer had murdered people. It still would not change my opinion about their performances. Because the reason I enjoy them is the performances themselves and not because of political opinions of that person. 

Even someone who is not an artist, for example a car mechanic. If he is a good mechanic, does not try scam me, can repair my car properly etc, I would not care if he was a neo-nazi or an SJW. As long as his opinions did not interfere with his work, I would be OK with them. 

I don't rally care what the person does in their free time. Really. I may like a book, a song or a movie or I may dislike it, but I don't really try to find out more information about the author or performers.

 

There are some authors who could be considered collaborators (with the USSR), it does not, to me, make their work worse or somehow less enjoyable. 

If the work itself is something I don't like, then I don't like it, it does not matter if the author has opinions that are exactly like my own.

 

As for 

1 hour ago, Evelyn Nocturne said:

"No, not when the choices, actions and words of the artist effects not only me, but a lot of people world wide. She has no shame in it at all and is quite proud of it."

I don't think they affect anybody at all. I mean she is not in government, much less Dear Leader. Anybody can just ignore her books and her tweets. I do not really value the political opinion of a celebrity more than any other random person. Being able to sing, play an instrument or write fantasy books does not make the person an expert on politics or economics.

I can still enjoy a song while completely ignoring the artist's advice on who to vote for :).

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She shouldn't be ashamed for speaking her mind and presenting logical arguments.

There are a few artists I stop following because of their beliefs. It sucks but there is plenty of other stuff to follow.

(Posting before this topic gets locked.)

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be closed.

Anyway, for me H.P. Lovecraft. He was a total racist but I love his work. 

But it would just be weird and creepy to watch The Cosby Show knowing what Bill Cosby is like. Not that I advocate burning literature of any kind for any reason but I wouldn't want to watch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You basically have to do this for any artist from long ago because social morals and standards were different a long time ago. I see a lot of people judging for example H.P. Lovecraft for being racist when that was simply what the world was like in his time. It's incredibly flawed to retroactively apply modern hindsight and target specific people for being the way everyone was back then.

Also, I always separate the art from the artist in general because I am a strong believer that work should generally be judged on it's own merits. J.K. Rowling however is an interesting example and likely exception as she tries to force her own view on her work. I've been a strong believer my entire life that once art is released to the public, the meaning the audience takes from it is more valuable than the artist's original vision. Once work is out in the world, it belongs to the masses.

 

Edited by Harmonic Revelations
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would this be locked? Well I guess if people start debating then it will be. I looked at more so as a safe place to post your thoughts and views on this subject. 

Anyway, there are alot of people/bands/artists etc. I stopped engaging with their content. I don't tell other people what to do. I just personally don't feel comfortable engaging with them anymore. 

Red Hot Chili Peppers (pedo stuff), R Kelly (pedo stuff), Ted Nugent (crazy right winger), Roman Polanski (rapist), Phil Anselmo (racist)

Everyone has their own threshold and everyone has their own freedom to listen or watch whatever they want. So to invalidate someone's reason for not listening to someone or watching etc. is silly. If they don't feel comfortable then they don't, stop being dense. And in a similar sense don't tell people what they can't and can watch. 

Also the whole "well get ready to stop listening to music or watching movies because everyone has done something shady" mentality is ridiculous/exaggerated. and also like "well ok" if that's what it comes down to. It's not hard to do. 

For me personally I stop engaging in a source's content when they have done "bad things" and never amend for them, continue to do the same shit (even after apologizing or amending), or just done something not worthy of redemption. 

Edited by Miss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Miss said:

 

Everyone has their own threshold and everyone has their own freedom to listen or watch whatever they want. So to invalidate someone's reason for not listening to someone or watching etc. is silly. If they don't feel comfortable then they don't, stop being dense. And in a similar sense don't tell people what they can't and can watch

^ This. I am not saying people should stop reading the books or watching the movies. It is a personal choice for me, as I can't get past the reasons I mentioned before, and perhaps I made some poor choices in words in my OP. 

Instead of saying 

10 hours ago, Evelyn Nocturne said:

not when the choices, actions and words of the artist effects not only me, but a lot of people world wide. She has no shame in it at all and is quite proud of it."

I probably should have said something more like "Not when their words and actions make me feel uncomfortable and more than likely put their beliefs etc into their work" which may still be poor choice of words, I'm not sure.

5 hours ago, Harmonic Revelations said:

I see a lot of people judging for example H.P. Lovecraft for being racist when that was simply what the world was like in his time. It's incredibly flawed to retroactively apply modern hindsight and target specific people for being the way everyone was back then.

You said it before I could

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Evelyn Nocturne said:

^ This. I am not saying people should stop reading the books or watching the movies. It is a personal choice for me, as I can't get past the reasons I mentioned before, and perhaps I made some poor choices in words in my OP. 

Instead of saying 

I probably should have said something more like "Not when their words and actions make me feel uncomfortable and more than likely put their beliefs etc into their work" 

There was nothing really wrong with how you said it. I too feel that many actions and words people say contribute to the mentality that causes violence/hate crimes etc. 

but just remind people to not debate and that this is a safe place. 

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My eye only turns to those who work in the entertainment industry if they themselves make an effort to be seen as activists by awkwardly inserting their political opinions into the product. Unfortunately, the western entertainment needs to be purged along with the adjacent media. Perhaps then my eye shall finally be able to turn back towards the illusory worlds. I have no need to see those behind the curtain unless I really want to compliment them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care about past artists racial views or not. I don't care if they were a white supremacist or something, if the art is good I will read it but these days I probably won't separate them from the work depending on what the view is, and it depends on the extent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, this is something to make me think as a writer myself....and I know many of us who are of the Brony Community are also artists/writers/creators in such a lovely thing we each bring to this place of words and wonder.   Is to ask:  How much do we put our thoughts/self into what we do in the creative paths?

The thing even as a writer,  something of "myself"  does show up in my writing,  a shard from a good feeling of a memory,  the smell of apple pie my grandmother made, my anger of loss of someone I loved, the feel of snow on my face as it gentles falls that first winter's night.   Some parts of "myself" will always show up in my writing from good to bad,  thinking patterns,  inner reflections, and beliefs as a person.

There is a saying my English teacher told me "A writer writes what they know."  This even comes to this topic of:   Separating the art from the artist.    We have had the maddest of souls/ppl paint/write the most breathtaking of things but why/how?  The most peaceful of us,  show the deepest understanding of violence or be capable of it when just one little thing goes wrong? 

So when a creative person's beliefs/standings come to light,  after making some beloved around the world,  it shatters their fans and hurts them.    They form this mental image of what this person is and once it is broken,  this fan will feel hurt and act out,  even give up on this person's works and swear never to touch/read/listen/look at it again.

Yet you can not deny that person has had some way of touching/making/ and even shaping you as you are now.  Yes, it might sicken some ppl,  but it is the truth.   The books I have personally read over my years have shaped how I think/believe/act and just me even as a person.    I look at what they have put out,  and in my way,  yes I removed the writer from what they do, I look at the "art" they have put out, and that had feed my soul and myself.

 

Some may not agree on what I say,  but this is my "truth" in how I see.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some authors put politics in their work. I'm talking about the more obvious examples, where the politics overshadow the story. I usually do not like those works, whatever the politics in them are. It feels like propaganda. However, it may be that only a few works of that author contain politics. For example, a poet may have written a lot of good poems, but have also written one about the greatness of Stalin. IMO the other works still stand for themselves, even if the author could be considered a collaborator.

However, if that makes you not enjoy the works, then don't read them.

J.K. Rowling is an interesting example though. I remember she used to tweet about how maybe some characters in her books could be (or were) gay, probably upsetting far right. And apparently now she is upsetting the far left. I do not read her tweets, so I do not know what she really did (or say) to upset both sides and I do not really care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe one ought to just trust the tale and not the teller.  Racism is an odd accusation to level against the Harry Potter series, since one of the major themes of the series is that racism is a terrible thing.  I haven't read anything of Rowling's since The Deathly Hollows so maybe the new books are rabidly pro-racist, but the original seven books make it clear on no uncertain terms how terrible racism is.

The central conflict in the book is between Voldemort and his Death Eaters, which are all racial supremacist, and everybody else.  Voldy & friends are obsessed with "pure blood" lineage, even though the book series makes is clear there is zero meaningful difference between pure bloods, half-bloods and muggle borns.  Despite this, they are willing to commit atrocities up to and including the torture and murder of children to establish a society with pure bloods at the top.  Book 2 even has Slytherine and Voldemorte unleashing a giant snake monster in Hogwarts with the express intention of murdering children for no other reason than they were born to the wrong parents.  And if the A Plot didn't make the themes obvious enough, there is also the overt racism between the humans of the Wizarding World and the elves, centaurs and goblins, with the wizard's treatment of the elves in particular being beyond horrible.

So racism is the largest cause of suffering and death in the Wizarding World by a considerably margin.  There is nothing redeeming or sympathetic about Voldemorte, most of his followers or his cause, and Voldemorte himself is revealed to be a hypocrite and a coward along with being a sadistic, mass-murdering psychopath.  The book series simply does not screw around with any of these themes and takes a very clear stance against this sort of behavior.  So I find it strange that the series itself is accused of spreading bigotry when the whole series is essentially an anti-bigotry diatribe.  

Edited by Twilight Dirac
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to wonder if even watching or reading HP is a good idea for anyone, especially since they will be forever tainted by the author's choice to betray everyone, and I'm not referring to the  post Deathly Hallows material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see an author and his creation as a one in any way. Hitler was one of the most disgusting characters in history, but if he draws good, he draws good, you can't deny it.

As for J.K., I think she didn't violated the law of free speech as she didn't offend anyone personally (while some people who are against her do violate it). I believe you can share your opinion as long as it's not personal or extreme

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
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!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...