I choose to continue to enjoy the work of people who turned out to be shitheads from before learning that they are shitheads. Michael Jackson, Phil Anselmo, now Neil Gaiman (actually, last year for him). All people who created great art that I enjoy and whose future work I will not consume (for the ones that are still alive). To be clear, MJ is only before the allegations. Thriller still kicks ass.
Yeah, you can appreciate that people are complicated, and bad people can create good things. If you try to only read books by people who are morally above reproach, you will wind up with a pretty short reading list.
I mean, claims against MJ seem pretty bad and, I think, multiple enough that I can't ignore them. There's no proof, to my knowledge. But I'm not comfortable with it.
I think the running counter story is that he felt more comfortable around kids than adults, but people couldn't believe it was innocent. Its really hard to play the accusations game. Macaulay Culkin saying he spent tons of time with him and nothing bad ever happened is as much evidence for good as any of the accusations of wrongdoing.
I also think there was and still is a problematic understanding of psychology especially with small children.
I don't enjoy supporting the artist even if the art is good and don't buy into this argument. If you support the art, the artist is still making money off of it. Unless they are dead I guess....
A gentle nudge towards, let's say, alternative means of acquiring media to enjoy. One that, ironically enough, Neil Gaiman commended himself (under certain circumstances, of course). One that is still better than giving money to someone you don't want to support as a person or a creator.
Ahh gotcha. I thought that somehow the artist had been controversial and that this was an example of separating the art from the artist or something. I was thinking in the wrong direction, thanks.
For me, knowing that the artist is a terrible person ruins the art for me, or at least compromises it to the point where I don't feel comfortable in my skin continuing to peruse it. And that even if I wouldn't be buying anything new or otherwise be giving the artist money.
Take as an example Jon Schaffer, head of metal bad Iced Earth, which I liked quite a bit in the past. Later it became clear that he is at least problematic, and once he was identified as having participated in the January 6 riots, that was the end of it. I still own older Iced Earth CDs, but I can't listen to them any more.
Or Joss Whedon, whose work I used to love, and I own a lot of DVDs of his stuff. But watching it now knowing what he's done particularly to many women he worked with just seriously hinders my enjoyment of what I once really liked.
I agree, sometimes what you know about the artist can change how you experience it so that it is no longer appealing. That's a legitimate reaction too. If philosophy is art we had this situation with Martin Heidegger, who was quite a brilliant thinker but also, at least for part of his life, a committed Nazi. It's not really possible to read him now without that fact colouring the experience.
I just read a super interesting book about this–Monsters by Claire Dederer. It won’t really give you answers, but a thought-provoking discussion on this subject I also struggle with.