Is it OK to like the output of artists w/unfavourable views?

[Petrolheadia]

https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/ ... ician.html

Recently, Philip McCain's show in Birmingham was cancelled after he "volunteered" on Facebook to shoot illegal immigrants.

And that got me thinking - is it OK to go to a McCain concert, or enjoy his music, knowing that and not being a racist? Is it OK in any case of liking art by artists who held or acted on opinions you think are reprehensible (e.g. liking Hitler's paintings, unless you're a Nazi)?

I would say that this is OK, as I detach an artist's work from their views, unless they try to convey them through it. A musician, writer, sculptor, etc. can be a racist, an abject homophobe, a genocide denier or the like, but I'll only judge them as and artist.

Cases in point: I still love the original Lynyrd Skynyrd after learning that their drummer is a registered sex offender and their backstage behaviour used to be quite racist, Eric Clapton's music didn't get any worse for me after hearing about his racism, and AC/DC isn't much worse when the guy behind the drums orders a hit.

I just listen to musicians' output, not their opinions.


And what do you think? Is it OK to like the output of artists with reprehensible views or actions?

[Merni]

I think it's perfectly fine — art (unless it is racist itself) should not be affected by the artist's political views, or in fact politics in general.

(as is usual here, only my opinion)

[Awesomeland]

Yes. They're artists, not politicians. They have ONE job, and it isn't to determine public policy. You can like the art, but still not vote for guy, because, well, his views are not in line with what you consider suitable and therefore he should stick to art. Complaining about this is like wondering why a hammer makes a poor screwdriver. Maybe you should just stick to using the hammer for hammering, and not complain that its approach to screwdriving is not to your taste.

[Right wing humour squad]

Of course it’s ok.

It’s ok to like art of people who have shitty views.
It’s ok to have shitty views and live your life around them.
It’s not ok to cause physical harm because of your shitty views.
It’s not ok to force someone who has shitty views to do something they don’t want to.

/thread

[Vistulange]

Tying everything in life to politics is, frankly, sad. Life is far more than politics, and sometimes, you just ought to enjoy the goddamn thing. If you like music of a particular kind, you like it, you enjoy listening to it, end of story. Whether or not the creator has favourable views to you is completely irrelevant, and certainly not for anybody to argue whether or not it's "okay".

[Gaine Moon]

I believe it is OK. An artist is more than just their art. You can find a painting, for example, to be beautiful, and the painting would still look the same after you learn that Hitler painted it.

Now, that doesn't mean you should go around praising Hitler, but you should detach his paintings from his reprehensible actions. I haven't seen any of Hitler's paintings, so I can't say if they're any good.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

Yes. But it's also okay if you find you can't enjoy their work any more.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Yeah its perfectly fine, you can like someones art, be it music, paintings, prints, novels, movies etc even if you dont like that persons politics or shit they say outside of their work.

For example, i like Adam Baldwin as an actor, loved him in Firefly (jayne cobb is best character) and chuck, but im not the biggest fan of his politics. Same with Clint Eastwood.

Its also perfectly fine not to like someone's stuff because of things they say outside of it, if you dont feel comfortable with it etc.

[The Free Joy State]

I think it's fine. There's no reason why someone with morally-reprehensible views -- even actions -- can't do culturally valuable work. If you can separate someone's opinions from their work (fiction, art, music, films) and enjoy it, I don't see why they should feel guilty.

The viewer isn't the racist, sexist, or homophobe. Viewing a piece of art or film and saying (strictly in the hypothetical): "well, the artist/filmmaker is a scumbag, but he does good work" is not endorsing their actions.

That doesn't mean that an artist shouldn't be judged and charged within the confines of the law for their actions (as appropriate), just because they do nice work, of course.

Nor does it mean that people shouldn't opt-out of watching/viewing/reading/listening to things if they find their objections to the creator's views an insurmountable obstacle.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

You can enjoy the work still, because the work entirely on its own has to be detached from the person who made it. However, you do have to see what kind of views you support. So, if these people espouse such hateful views, perhaps don't pay them money to go to their concert. In practise, you can't entirely separate the performance from the artist. If an artist espouses certain views using his platform, which he owes to his income, perhaps one should not contribute to that income, if one is a mindful consumer.

Yes. They're artists, not politicians. They have ONE job, and it isn't to determine public policy. You can like the art, but still not vote for guy, because, well, his views are not in line with what you consider suitable and therefore he should stick to art. Complaining about this is like wondering why a hammer makes a poor screwdriver. Maybe you should just stick to using the hammer for hammering, and not complain that its approach to screwdriving is not to your taste.

Tying everything in life to politics is, frankly, sad. Life is far more than politics, and sometimes, you just ought to enjoy the goddamn thing. If you like music of a particular kind, you like it, you enjoy listening to it, end of story. Whether or not the creator has favourable views to you is completely irrelevant, and certainly not for anybody to argue whether or not it's "okay".

This is one view I don't subscribe to. Art, society and politics are intrinsically linked. You can't just separate entertainment from the public discourse. There is enough art with a political meaning, enough entertainment has political meaning. Saying that 'entertainment is entertainment' and 'politics is politics' misses the point entirely, as the two influence each other tremendously.

[Sungai Pusat]

My thoughts are below the line, but first up OP: The band Alabama isn't involved in this.

Phillip Mccain is an Alabama musician, not someone playing for the band Alabama.

---

I think that the politics that someone holds might at least be something to be aware of, if nothing else. The support you (general you, ergo the public) give for that creator does at least give them a level of weight within the public conscious to express the views that they have; if they didn't have that presence, then this would be most notable for the comment itself rather than its relation with a decently well known musician.

Still, the politics one holds could have dick all to do with what they make so it kind of is up to you whether you're okay with supporting the creations of someone who will benefit from that support and whose views are different from your own/potentially in ways that are fundamentally counter to human decency.

This also depends on how much support the creator is given to their political views and how much it bothers you that part of the money you use to pay for it, or part of the money earned from their work, is going to said politics (i.e. someone making shitty Facebook comment vs. same person donating a decent chunk of money to shitty political movement)

I absolutely understand the reaction though because holy fucking hell.

[Hirota]

This is at the heart of the whole attitude of tribalism and how it blinds people from different perspectives.

[The Free Joy State]

You can enjoy the work still, because the work entirely on its own has to be detached from the person who made it. However, you do have to see what kind of views you support. So, if these people espouse such hateful views, perhaps don't pay them money to go to their concert. In practise, you can't entirely separate the performance from the artist. If an artist espouses certain views using his platform, which he owes to his income, perhaps one should not contribute to that income, if one is a mindful consumer.

That is something I failed to add. I don't see why someone shouldn't enjoy it, but there's a difference between enjoying art and adding to a bigoted or sexist artist's income stream unnecessarily.

So, medium could be an issue.

Perhaps it would be arguably more moral to (legally) buy the MP3 album of artists with unfavourable views rather than see the concert, and to buy the book secondhand in the case of authors?

[Petrolheadia]

You can enjoy the work still, because the work entirely on its own has to be detached from the person who made it. However, you do have to see what kind of views you support. So, if these people espouse such hateful views, perhaps don't pay them money to go to their concert. In practise, you can't entirely separate the performance from the artist. If an artist espouses certain views using his platform, which he owes to his income, perhaps one should not contribute to that income, if one is a mindful consumer.

Except I'm not buying Highway To Hell or Nuthin' Fancy because they were recorded by criminals and racist, I'm doing it to appreciate the output of these people.

For me, when you pick up the pen, the brush or the guitar, you're not judged by what you have said, but by what you make.

[Sungai Pusat]

This is at the heart of the whole attitude of tribalism and how it blinds people from different perspectives.

Is this connected to Phillip Mccain's viewpoint or to the viewpoint of people deciding to boycott/cancel his show?

[Petrolheadia]

So, medium could be an issue.

Perhaps it would be arguably more moral to (legally) buy the MP3 album of artists with unfavourable views rather than see the concert, and to buy the book secondhand in the case of authors?

You're not paying to see and appreciate a racist, you're paying to see and appreciate a musician.

[Purpelia]

I was going to write a long complicated rant about how stupid it is to punish your self by denying your self enjoyment of goods and services in order to spite the person making them. And that got me thinking about the counter arguments of not wanting to give someone money knowing he'll use it to advance causes you disagree with. And those do have merit. And the more I looked at the two sides and the more I thought about them the more I realized something.

This is one situation where piracy is actually THE ethical choice.

[Auze]

I believe it is OK. An artist is more than just their art. You can find a painting, for example, to be beautiful, and the painting would still look the same after you learn that Hitler painted it.

Now, that doesn't mean you should go around praising Hitler, but you should detach his paintings from his reprehensible actions. I haven't seen any of Hitler's paintings, so I can't say if they're any good.

[Ethel mermania]

I hate giving money to people I find personally abhorrent, even though I like their performance.

Roger waters being such an anti Semitic cunt, I regret spending money on his music, as much as i like it, as it just increases his ability to speak.

[The Free Joy State]

You're not paying to see and appreciate a racist, you're paying to see and appreciate a musician.

The way I see it, it depends entirely how much their views would be separated from their performance.

Would they perform their music -- no politicising, no xenophobia, just some broadly amusing banter (no reference to their views) and the music -- or would they use their concert to make a statement of their views?

Arguably, if it's the latter, then you are -- at least in part -- paying to see a racist (although you are not a racist, and not going to appreciate a racist; you are going because you like the music).

That's where my comment about medium becomes relevant.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

You can enjoy the work still, because the work entirely on its own has to be detached from the person who made it. However, you do have to see what kind of views you support. So, if these people espouse such hateful views, perhaps don't pay them money to go to their concert. In practise, you can't entirely separate the performance from the artist. If an artist espouses certain views using his platform, which he owes to his income, perhaps one should not contribute to that income, if one is a mindful consumer.

Except I'm not buying Highway To Hell or Nuthin' Fancy because they were recorded by criminals and racist, I'm doing it to appreciate the output of these people.

For me, when you pick up the pen, the brush or the guitar, you're not judged by what you have said, but by what you make.

That might be the way you look at it, and that is a moral view, but in this case the racist and the musician are the same person, and separating them has no actual factual meaning. If you pay for a product, the maker is going to get money. The racist is going to get money to advance his platform. There is nothing wrong with appreciating the art, but rewarding a person with abhorrent views is a step further.

And I am not talking about conservative v. progressive or left v. right. You can certainly buy from people you don't agree with. But when someone is racist, for example, or threatens murder against illegal immigrants, that is going way too far for me. As consumers, we vote with our wallets, and to blind ourselves to the consequences that might have is silly. They are using the platform you helped pay for to further their views.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Yes. But I'd pirate the music and not buy any of their merch.

Who am I kidding that's what I do with everyone.

[95X]

I could care less of performers political and personal views. What I focus on is "did I like the song/movie/article/etc?"

I even have a secondhand copy of Ted Nugent's Spirit of the Wild, including a song I'll call 'track number nine'.

[Pasong Tirad]

There's a world of difference between not liking an artist because of their political beliefs (ie. You're a liberal, said artist is a conservative - LOOKING AT YOU, KANYE) and not wanting to support their work because they and it are problematic (looking at you again, Kanye - I'm still gonna listen to your past work). Art is inherently political, art for art's sake is bull, and if your young white "rapper" wants to say the n word, maybe don't listen to his music on Spotify or spend money to buy his album on iTunes.

Of course, this all falls under the question of authorial intent - of whether or not the artist is dead once their work is finished - and whole university classes can be taught discussing this. But, I'm assuming OP is merely referring to artists who produce work but don't necessarily mention their political beliefs in their art.

[Jarian]

I believe in freedom of speech and expression. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't have a right to exist. However I also believe in human rights and put those first. Like him or not, Adolf Hitler made some nice paintings.