Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?

  • Kalash
    link
    fedilink
    111 months ago

    What about when the artistis is dead and can no longer profit of his work by any means? Does that make the art “ok” again?

    • @NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      211 months ago

      I think for a great many artists being remembered after their death is a significant part of making art. So if the artist like tried real real hard to remain in obscurity but was nevertheless discovered (a reverse-Van-Gogh if you will) then maybe.

      Unrelated by I also think the artist, what they experienced, how and why they made it, are all implicitly part of the work.

    • @afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      We work really hard to deprive ourselves of our own culture. From 90 year copyrights, to allowing all this geolocking multiple streaming services, to digital text, and to self-censorship.

      Is anyone going to claim that they are a better person because they never read Harry Potter? No, I don’t support her bigotry I just don’t know what we gain out of having less culture.

      • Kalash
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I totally agree. Ignoring the positive contributions from bad people just makes for an overall worse world.

        My best practice is basically to try to ignore as much “celebrity news” as possible. Last I heard was that was “too woke” for making dumbledore gay, even there was nothing about it in the books. No idea what she did now to be a biggot … and I don’t really care.

        They were great books and decent movies and her actions outside the fictional world won’t change that.