creative geniuses, unpleasant people

so let's say you are a big fan of a certain [author, singer, artist, director, actor, photographer, etc] and you really love all of their work.

then, let's say, you discover that they have said something really [racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ableist, etc].

what do you do? does it impact your enjoyment of their work? do you continue to love their work but find yourself less inclined to gush about them to others or to pay money for more of their creations?

times when this has happened to me:

• stephen fry is a hilarious comedian but has said really transphobic things. i will still laugh when i see "a bit of fry and laurie" but i can't join in conversations about how great or funny or awesome he is anymore.
• florence welch's first cd was an absolute joy to listen to and has over thirty plays of the whole album on my itunes, but when she wore a native american headdress and made an unapoletically racist music video for 'no light, no light' i lost all respect for her. i couldn't bring myself to put that much effort into listening to her second album and i don't bother following anything she does or recommending her to other people anymore.
• terry richardson is a fashion photographer who does these awesome gender-bendingphotoshoots that i really loved until i found out he is a skeevy rapist douchebag! i straight up go out of my way to avoid his work now because he is so horrible

so what do you do when this happens? do you do anything? what affects your response, and how do you justify it?

This happens more often these days for me. It's heart-breaking. I basically just have to consider the weight of their wrong-doings, and decide whether I can view what they said or did in a perspective that I can tolerate or not. (For instance, if they perhaps made an ignorant statement in the past, and later repaired their stance on the issue/apologized in an appropriate and sincere way)

Recently, I followed a prominent trans* figure on tumblr. I looked up to him, he was very insightful and helpful to read/watch. But a few months ago, he was accused of multiple cases of rape, from about four people who were courageous enough to come forward and share their abuse stories. It was clear from their words that he was a serial abuser, and I un-followed him immediately.

I still feel that he made good points on many things, but that doesn't mean that I will ever promote or look up to him ever again.

Wow, he really said that? Gosh, that's incredibly disappointing, given his background and everything else. :-/

I'm lucky with a lot of people that I like because most of them are advocates for human rights.

But for me, I am capable of separating the two, so it usually does not affect what I think of their work, such as if I can take into account the time period they are speaking from, etc. For example, I absolutely love reading about Charles Darwin and his works, but I have read that he was racist and while greatly disagreeing with that view, I can ignore it. It's the same with Sigmund Freud, I can read and appreciate his works, while disagreeing with them.

However, it certainly does make me think less of them as a person as in that I am very disappointed in them, especially if I look up to them.

yeah, i know who you're talking about, and i had the same reaction. it is such a fucking travesty.

@Darkfire - but why should somebody's works be considered in a vacuum?

I'm pretty good at separating those things and enjoying art that someone has put out despite their viewpoints. Art is art is art; if a painting is beautiful I will appreciate it regardless of who painted it.

It is, I couldn't believe the number of survivors who spoke up about him on tumblr alone. But a good thing about it was that the news spread very quickly and he was rightly vilified by thousands of people which is often not the case when dealing with a lot of rapists.

I sure as hell won't give them any of my money.

Orson Scott Card (author of Ender's Game) is a homophobic douche. His books are apparently awesome. If I ever want to read them, I'll either download them or buy the books second-hand. I won't do anything that will put money in his pocket. But I'm not so sure if I want to read them because I have a long list of books by amazing authors and I'm really not sure I care that much, as my view has been tainted by that knowledge. It might not effect me as much if he were dead like Darwin, but the dude's still alive, has a fanbase, and is actively spreading a hateful message and I just can't do it. I'm not sure how comfortable I am, or how well I can enjoy, the work of someone who believes I'm disgusting, wrong, abnormal, corroding our society, and need to be "fixed".

Then there's Robert Jordan who writes the Wheel of Time series. At first, I loved his books! I attributed the misogyny in them to the culture of the world and I could deal with that. But as I continued reading them, I realized no...actually, that wasn't just the characters--that was him, because he wrote his -isms not as cultural things, but as this is just how the world works. So that killed my enjoyment of it, because that stuff bled right into his work in a pretty obvious and gross way.

I dunno. It's sorta case by case. I guess it depends on how much of their views bleed into their creation, how much is ignorance versus intentional bigotry (not that that makes the result any different, but it's one thing if they realize their mistake and own up as opposed to dismiss it). If the two are kept separately (and they rarely are) then I can still enjoy the work alright, but I just won't support them.

And yet on the other hand, there are some problematic things I like. (Hard to avoid, sadly.) Like, I enjoy Supernatural even though it treats its women and minority characters like shit. I recognize the problematic aspects of it. I guess it depends on the degree, because some things I just sorta...am forced to accept, otherwise I wouldn't be able to enjoy much of anything. >_o

I think @Darkfire is the father of @slant. The mother? @Ruffian. Slant combines his Dad's absurd arguments with his Mother's love of .gifs.

I think it is some sort of weird robot argument to assert that we should turn off the empathetic part of our brains that has feelings for the authors of creative works and never examine them outside said works. I mean, you could, but why would you want to?

Also, the weird thing about, "But so-and-so made great [thing]!" I am like, "Yeah bro, they did, but different so-and-so also made great [thing], and they are not a terrible person. Can we give them a bit more attention and credit?"

@Kyubey!!

YOU

I like how I'm being mentioned and I didn't even post in this thread.


Pop.u.larry.ty.


Or maybe...obsession on someone's part

Unfortunately both of my biological parents are both one person by the name of @Fardels Bear. But, seeing at this post is off topic, I will add something to this discussion since someone was trying to hard to pull me in!


Uhhhh I don't know, I think, if you're going to be upset about something someone said and still support them financially you have to just own up to the fact you weren't that upset. Conceptualization of capitalism is that if someone does something you don't like and they're trying to sell you something, the best protest is to just not buy it because of their behavior. I don't think this method really works though unless enough people are dedicated and boycott something and I think in our consumerism world to do that would pretty much kill all businesses. People aren't perfect and it's unlikely that someone selling you something hasn't ever said something offensive or lacks bigoted opinions.


Actually this totally reminds me of this discussion I watched about whether it's okay to support Chris Brown or not considering how he beat up Rhianna:


Also there is the controversy regarding chick-fil-a about their positions. There are several protests going on about that, one with people who support them to go buy a sandwich, and another for people who don't to share a same sex kiss in front of a chick-fil-a. Some people feel passionately and will protest anything and everything, and that's totally cool. I just think this attitude is impossible to fully embrace because someone's always done something that makes you not want to buy their product.

Even if it's not totally offensive; for example, one of my favorite musicians who sings all these lovely songs about romance and such, recently participated in a music competition. When he lost he flipped off the judges and swore at reporters because he was accused of plagiarism; he said something to the effect of, "There are a thousand fxcking songs with 'la la la la' in them, it is not plagiarism." That really shocked me, and pretty much everyone else in his community, and since he isn't American apparently his home country took it a lot worse than I did. People were writing slander about him and I was just like, screw it, I'm still buying his new album, despite his terrible temper.

Eh, it depends. I'm not really convinced that a creator can be held seperately from their works, because a creator influences their work. I see really disgusting rapey imagery in loads of the stuff Terry Richardson does, Florence Welch obviously produces fairly racist videos, and Orson Scott Card's homophobia shows up as a theme in his work.

I do think it's a lot more prevalent in something like writing, which I think reflects far more of the author's views than a painting does. But I take issue with @Darkfire 's argument that "not one stroke changes" - one stroke has been changed already in the creation of the piece - in the influence that the author's mindset has over their work.

In cases where it may not be as obvious, well, even then I'm prone to irrational dislike. I was never really a fan of the Beatles anyway, to be honest, but it made it a lot easier to dislike their music when I became aware John Lennon was a gigantic prick in life (misogynist creep, basically, who actually admitted to it himself and talked about his own horrible treatment of his son Julian; I grew up around men like that and I'm not a big fan). Then I looked at Yoko Ono who had done decades of LGBT activism and it was a lot easier to give her music a chance (which I'm now a big fan of - her art too).

I suppose I'm a modernist in believing that a created object is steeped in its creator. I don't view any author or painter as infallible, and I don't view the "artist" as being seperate from the "piece". I don't trust omniscient narrators to be omniscient - I don't trust that the way JK Rowling writes Harry Potter, for instance, isn't steeped in middle-class British social mores - and my understanding of why it's biased in the way it is comes from my knowledge of her background. Atonement is an entire book about the fallacy of the omniscient author.

Or I mean, even context means everything. A rainbow oreo cookie by itself doesn't mean anything to the kid of 100 years for now, but give them the knowledge that the rainbow was the symbol for LGBT pride and that kid understands what the cookie means. I don't think authors are any different - their work is influenced by them, and I find it difficult to seperate their work from who they are; and I do view it as changed by their actions and speech "after the fact".

Context is important, but being a creative genius of some sort doesn't give anyone a free pass for really heinous behavior.

Roman Polanski, I'm looking at you.

It's easy for me to not let the failures or attitudes of creators affect my enjoyment of their work only because I don't really care about the person who's behind it. It would take something really bad on a personal level that I highly disagree with in order to make me stop enjoying their work. To me, the author is more of a category than the person. I enjoy their style and content, which keeps me interested enough to not care about them on a personal level. The whole issue reminds me of the whole Tiger Woods thing when he cheated on his wife (multiple times) and everyone made a huge fuss over it. All I wanted to know that whole time was how cheating on his wife effect his golf swing. If it didn't make him play like ass then what was the issue? Or Kobe Bryant after the rape accusation, he's a terrible person for it, but damn can he drain those baskets still.

This. I've never liked Chris Brown's music, but if I did, that wouldn't have stopped me from buying his new CD. When I heard about it, I was pretty much like, "He hit Rhianna? What a dick." *turns up Kiss Kiss*

It didn't have an effect on me. Yeah, he's a massive douche, but a lot of people in the entertainment industry are so I'm not going to stop enjoying something just because the person behind it sucks.

The same goes for me and Chik-fil-a. I like gay people, I also like chicken sandwiches.

My point is, I'm not going to interrupt something that I like just because its creator is a jerk unless they did something super heinous. I won't support them on a personal level and if anyone asks I'll tell them that this person is an ignorant piece of crap, but that last episode of -insert show here- was awesome!

NO offense intended here, folks. Just my two cents.

I am a true believer in freedom of expression, and artistic expression is artistic expression. I am also a believer that everyone should be respected for their point of view, and I will treat anyone with respect even if they do not share my particular opinion or point of view. Besides, what is the harm in entertaining a thought or idea, but not necessarily believing in it?

Sometimes we go on witch hunts (and we all do this), and cannot really discern what is simply an expression of art and what is really meant to be hurtful. I get it. We are angry at injustice and want to see justice. Sometimes, however, we point at the wrong people that really aren't doing any harm.

I will never agree with going on TV or radio, or even this and other forums, and using the N-word, or any other kind of derogatory statement that is used to hurt and divide people. Unless, of course this is done very tactfully in the form of comedy or art that tends to lighten us up and laugh at our collective idiosyncrasies, at all the division we cause with one another by allowing ourselves to be offended, and just how overall uptight we all can be at times. In my opinion, it's rather healthy to do this, as long as the intent to spread malice or harm to others is not present.

In closing. Life is way too short to get hung up. If you enjoy something, enjoy it. If you do not, toss it away and move on. Have fun. Be light. Remember what is really important. Your friends, your family, those you love. Grab onto them and hold on for this crazy ride we call life. But don't forget to laugh. The real 'witches' we are hunting will always rear their ugly heads, and at that time we'll know what to do and say.

oh jeebus you guys i went to bed and now there are 20938298542 posts to respond to @ ~@ i can't respond to everything so i will just pick a few choice quotes

this is another really interesting thing that i am glad you raised! i have that exact same problem with supernatural and i am not sure if that is a separate or very similar issue to having problems with the attitudes of the creators. i guess it is pretty clear in this case that they are one and the same. in fact i will leave this link here because it was something i enjoyed reading awhile ago: how to be a fan of problematic things

slant i love this because it is so incredibly honest and also true

i had not seen it before! my first reaction was not as strong as the florence welch video, because the cultural referents to voudou and mysticism weren't there, but then i am not exactly an authority on what is racist and what isn't. a little googling around pulled up some good commentary. why is her emotional turmoil embodied in darkening her skin?? and why does she refuse to admit the african influences on her music and dance style, instead claiming it's all her and calling it "tribal"?

you know, i'm gonna address this because this actually hit my dad pretty hard. my dad has been a golfer since high school - it's like his only real hobby - and i've always kinda rolled my eyes at it, but he loved the game. and he really admired tiger woods! when that whole thing broke, my dad just kind of...stopped playing golf. stopped watching tournaments. and it was awhile before i had a conversation about it, but when i finally asked what was up, he told me that he had really admired tiger woods as someone who was a good person, moral, family-oriented, etc., and in a way when it turned out he was such a liar it really disillusioned him towards the whole game. i can't exactly speak for why it was such a blow for him but i think this is a really good example of how sometimes your love of something is more complicated than the pure form of expression.

FINALLY:

you do know that saying "no offense intended" doesn't actually make you inoffensive, right?

this is really quite flippant and, even worse, unoriginal! please don't walk into a conversation about how we handle people who really insult what matters to us, and tell us that it shouldn't matter to us at all. it makes you look incredibly out of touch.

life IS short, and it is also more complicated than you are willing to admit here. we don't all have the luxury of pretending like people aren't racist or transphobic or anything else when they directly contribute to a culture that makes our lives miserable. your cliches leave a bad taste in my mouth.