yes

the entire argument that art is corrupted by the action of the artist is dependent on the idea of guilt by association.

A lot of us don’t believe in guilt by association. I am not responsible for the actions or views of other people, nor do I endorse them by my interaction with them or their works.

My dad was racist af. I knew him for 27 years and cared for him for ten of those years. Am I a racist? No. Only insane people would make that argument. And yes, there is a lot of collective insanity going on in the world. In the 2000s if you asked this question most people would laugh at it, but social media has warped people into believing that if you ever read Harry Potter you are a transphobe by the associative property or something equally absurd, or if you watch the new upcoming HBO Harry Potter, you are going to become a transphobe. It’s a completely stupid POV and not any different than thinking that if you watch a movie by a Muslim director you are now Muslim.

It’s not any different with crime. If my dad killed someone, I am not in anyway responsible for that action. Yet, people are stupid and will start assuming that I am also a murderer or be more likely to murder someone. They will then make up arguments to justify this suspicion, it’s genetic, or I ‘should have known’ and stopped it and I am therefore responsible… blah blah. It’s especially toxic when you combine these things with the arrogance of hindsight and the exaggerated interpretations of events and words… like we were magically supposed to know in 1997 what JK Rowlings personal views were based on some random passage of her first book or something.

It’s tribal ape-brain nonsense that falls apart when you remotely begin to approach the idea with any skepticism or scrutiny.

It’s also equally as stupid as thinking if I read Mein Kampf or do primary source research for a paper on Nazi Germany… I’m a Nazi or I will somehow be ‘tainted’ by Nazi ideals. Essentailly it’s rooted in a fear response, fear of becoming the ‘bad thing’ or fear that others will think you are ‘bad’ if you enjoy the ‘bad person’s work’. It’s also even stupider when you realize a lot of these associations are completely false. For example Nietzche is considered a ‘Nazi’ by a lot of people, despite the objective historical record showing us he was not, but because his sister was and she edited his works after his death to curry favor with the regime. I had professors in college who woudln’t teach him because they were afraid of being labeled a Nazi because of this ‘his associations with Nazism’. Fast forward 20+ years and nobody ever talks about him in association with Nazism because that myth has been largely busted.

But again, it’s all about people’s emotional reactions and moral panic and their inability to understand that people’s actions and beliefs are entirely their own and your enjoyment of anything or consumption of it is not an endorsement. I can watch Pulp Fiction and not want to do drugs or rape gimps… but very dumb people think that I can’t do this and if I watch Pulp Fiction I must want to rape gimps or something. Or probably go as stupidly far to assume that I somehow will inherit Tarantino’s foot fetish if I like his movies…

People who think like this are the equivalent of those who think Haitian immigrants were eating cats and dogs because Trump said so and he never lies! It’s a baseless accusation that is entirely rooted in fear and ignorance and a need to perpetuate that fear and ignorance to solidify the in-group identity.

Yeah, but you shouldn’t be blind to it.

If the artist is constantly in the news reminding you what a POS they are IRL, then no, I can’t enjoy their works because that’s always in my mind. Otherwise, if they just fuck off into obscurity, then I can enjoy the work for what it is.

I don’t really think so… Especially in an era of AI-generated slop that’s devoid of the human touch, it’s more important than ever to recognize the people who make things.

With that said, I do think that we should be able to accept flaws and imperfections in human creators. I think people should understand the fact that you can like someone’s creations without endorsing every aspect of them as a person.

For example, the number of zoomers who I’ve met that claim that “the Beatles suck” because they have a problem with John Lennon’s personal flaws is pretty wild to me. It’s cool if people dislike the Beatles, whatever! Did John always practice what he preached? Probably not… But, like, even knowing that he was a bad father to his first son and a bad husband to his first wife, that doesn’t really change the fact that his band was objectively one of the most influential musical acts of the 20th century. You don’t have to like the guy, the band, or even the songs, but to ignore their once-in-a-generation skill and cultural importance feels like willful ignorance to me.

Like many people, I love Jamaican music: reggae, dub, ska, dancehall, etc. At the same time, I’m not a rasta, nor do I totally agree to some of the religious and political ideologies that rastas have typically believed in (judeo-christianity, African zionism, ethnostatism, the ideas of Preston Garvey, the cult of personality around Haile Selassie, etc.). I choose to look at Jamaica, Rastafari, and the endless library of amazing music that they in the context in which it was created. I try to understand their point of view and relate to their experiences to the best of my ability, even if I don’t exactly believe in all of the things that they believe in. The Rasta’s music is a window into their world, their culture, and their perspective on life, and I love that music allows for that.

In other words, I think we should be able to judge the work and the person separately, with our understanding of one informing the other, but not dictating it. We shouldn’t expect artists and musicians to be any more perfect than any other human being. At the same time, it’s fine to judge creators by the things that they say and do outside of their work, and it’s understandable if someone has stances or a history of behavior that totally turn you off of their creative output.

If JK Rowling’s stance on trans people takes away from your ability to enjoy her work, or at worst becomes a personal attack against your identity (her attacks against trans people are active and relentless), then I think it’s perfectly understandable that you can’t enjoy Harry Potter anymore. I near read, and was never emotionally invested in, Harry Potter so it’s always been very easy for me to say “nah, fuck that shit”, especially when she made it her life’s work to attack trans people for simply daring to exist. I’m not trans, but empathy alone tells me that trans people should have a right to exist and define themselves as they see fit.

Graham Linehan (creator of some great Irish/British comedy shows that I love, like Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd) went down the same path of trashing trans people on Twitter, and I still watch and enjoy his shows for what they are, despite the fact that I think he’s an idiot and an asshole for making his anti-trans hate the molehill he wants to die on… I don’t like him for being that kind of person, but why don’t I hold it against him to the same degree that I judge Rowling? I guess probably just because I liked his work in the first place.

No.

Hermione is a total transition goal, so sure!

I also wrote a HP fanfic where a trans squib connives her way into Hogwarts :p

The art itself has its own problems, eg slavery, protectors of the status quo, but the excellent sense of place/wonder will always be part of my childhood nostalgia :3

As long as you’re not supporting the artist financially, eg by pirating any media associated with it, I say enjoy what you like and condemn the artist as a separate person 🤷‍♀️

“Can you” as in “are you able to” or “should you”?

Anyway, yes on both counts personally. It’s like reviewing resumes with identifiers removed.

Otherwise, one would be judging the content with preconceived bias. IMO it’s a slippery slope to, and belong in the same subset as, so many other identity-related issues in society e.g. tribalism, identity-based politics, discriminition based on identities like race, etc

I think I can but I don’t really know. I can’t think of any examples of things I no longer like after knowing what fucked up thing the artist did nor I can otherwise, stuff I still like regardless.

I guess it will depend mostly on how much is the artist involved, for example, I think I could read a Neil Gaiman book but I don’t feel like listening an audiobook narrated by himself.

imo, Death of the Artist is a literal statement of the requirements to separate the two.

Only you, yourself can that decide for yourself. People on every platform will throw their own opinions but at the end of the day, it is you who either enjoys whatever it is or not.

Only when:

• The art isn’t significantly tied to the artist’s views/publicly spouted opinions/decisions/etc (e.g. if the artist is a Nazi, you can’t really separate an artwork they made with a swastika from the artist. If they painted a nice flower field 10 years ago, it’s hard to say that it is likely to carry any Nazi-adjacent themes, and is probably pretty distinct from whatever they’d make if they made art now)
• Consuming the art doesn’t financially support the artist (so in the case of J.K Rowling, you could pirate the books, or read a copy you already have, but you can’t buy new ones (or get them on loan from somewhere that could compensate her, like a library), pay to stream the movies, go to a theme park based on the work, or buy any licensed merchandise, assuming you want to not give her money and thus separate her from the work)
• Your consumption of the art won’t indirectly cause someone else to benefit the artist (e.g. you wear a shirt you already own with Harry Potter on it, and it reminds someone else of the series and they buy the books)

If the artist died a long time ago, absolutely. Lovecraft for example has been dead long enough that his horrible views can be looked past.

If they are still alive and causing problems, then not really. Fuck Rowling and Cosby.

Anything in between depends on what they did, whether they reformed, or if the art is completely separate from their behavior.

Logically it’s pretty easy to demonstrate that you can. You could simply let someone experience a work of art, and never reveal any information about the creator. Boom, that person can experience the art completely independently of who the creator is, because they simply don’t have any information about the creator. In fact, that’s more or less how most people have experienced art for the majority of human history up until the past few generations.

I think Rowling and West are both examples of where the person’s behavior later changed the way people interpret their art. That doesn’t happen for every piece of art. Like, Hitler made some really nice paintings of flowers. I loved almost everything I saw with Kevin Spacey in it.

Sure, JK art is still bad.