this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
43 points (93.9% liked)

General Discussion

12013 readers
10 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.

🪆 About Lemmy World

🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!

💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:

Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to !fediverse@lemmy.world or !lemmydrama@lemmy.world communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Jessica@lemmy.world
ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world
fubo@lemmy.world
43
What should we do with the artistic legacy of people who commit immoral and illegal acts? (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 1 year ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/general@lemmy.world
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

When the MeToo movement took off across the globe in 2017, it changed how we think about artists and their art.

As victims of sexual harassment and assault spoke out, the public became more aware of the behaviour of well-known people, including successful artists. Audiences immediately began to view these artists' work through the lens of their actions.

As a result, many of our favourite books, songs and art works became irrevocably tainted by the transgressions of their creators.

Admiring the work of Pablo Picasso — the cubist artist who burned his partner Françoise Gilot's face with a cigarette (and painted it) — or Alfred Hitchcock — the film director who tried to destroy actress Tippi Hedren's career when she rebuffed his advances — became a less straightforward proposition.

"In the aftermath [of MeToo], people were left wondering what to do about their heroes," US critic Claire Dederer writes in her new book, Monsters: A Fan's Dilemma.

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ThankYouVeryMuch@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

We should not make heroes. People are falible, don't idolize them. You can of course still admire their work.

This is harder with artists though. They put more of themselves in their work and once you know an artist was an absolute cunt you can start seeing things in their art that you didn't before or experiencing it differently and don't like it anymore.

But if you still enjoy their work I think that's fine too. Especially if they are dead and can't profit from it, if they would profit from it I, personally, just pirate it and that keeps my conscience clean.

[–] DonSerrot@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But if you still enjoy their work I think that's fine too. Especially if they are dead and can't profit from it, if they would profit from it I, personally, just pirate it and that keeps my conscience clean.

This is pretty close to something I've been saying for a while now in regards to the whole ActivisionBlizzard sexual misconduct thing any time someone brings up separating the art from the artist. You can easily do that with a book or a movie simply by going to a local library. And for many games through piracy like you said.

For a live service game like World of Warcraft there is no real way to experience it without supporting them, either monetarily or in their precious monthly active users metric they switched to after they stopped reporting on subscriber counts. In that kind of case the only real option is to walk away.

[–] ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For a live service game like World of Warcraft there is no real way to experience it without supporting them, either monetarily or in their precious monthly active users metric they switched to after they stopped reporting on subscriber counts. In that kind of case the only real option is to walk away.

Aren't there still private servers available, or did they get those taken down via lawsuits/threats of lawsuits? Or did they kinda fade out after classic WoW became an official option? Regardless, you're right that with most live service games the only real option is to quit outright.

[–] DonSerrot@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm sure they probably are still around, and would probably be decent for someone new to experience the content for themselves in an ethical way. But going that route for a long time player means giving up your current character that you've invested a lot of time into and any guild friend groups you are part of just so you can go play an approximation of an older version of the game. At that point it starts seeming like an addiction to me. Better to let the past go and seek out new experiences elsewhere.

[–] ThankYouVeryMuch@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In that kind of case the only real option is to walk away.

I agree. I sucks sometimes, but it can also be a push to try new things or, specially if more people jump off, to recreate the good things of the old place in a new one (ehem..)

[–] DevCat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I like this approach.

[–] animist@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

I like your points. The only part I think that could still be debated is definition of an artist. Actors and singers are considered by many to be artists (though of course the definition of artist is subjective), and we are far more likely to recognize them in their art than we probably are to recognize, say, a painter or sculptor, thus making it harder not to idolize them as artists.

But I still agree with you.

[–] WhoRoger@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wrote in another commenr:

People with creative minds are more likely to push societal boundaries instead of just being happy in 9-5 jobs.

You want to call out and cancel every artist that’s not the ideal person, enjoy your white walls for entertainment.

[–] ThankYouVeryMuch@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not gonna downvote you (yet) because maybe I'm not getting your point right, and I think you didn't get mine which was the exact opposite to your third paragraph. I meant that no one's perfect, and when you idolize them you create expectation that no one can match so sooner or later they'll going to let you down.

Now not being perfect or 'pushing societal boundaries', which many would argue is one of the purposes or even a requirement of art, is not the same as being a complete piece of shit. I'm not supporting with my hard earned money or with publicity anyone who I know is gonna use it to abuse others, or to scam, or rapists... but I hope these where not the kind of 'creative minds' you were talking about, are they?

[–] WhoRoger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't disagree with you, I just thought I'll add my point too.

You can boycott anyone and anything for any reason of course. I have my own peeves as well.

But I don't think it's good for society to just declare somebody so bad, that all of their personality, art and work has to be completely dismissed. When you're looking at a random painting or movie, you simply can't know what's behind it anyway. What would you do if you found that 99 of your top 100 movies were made by serial killers? And it's not just about art. Everything in modern society - technology, politics, medical science - has been shaped by suffering, and it still is.

People are complex creatures, both individually and as a society. We are all capable of insanely shitty things in circumstances. We can acknowledge that and include that knowledge in our future endeavour. Or we can cancel and erase bad things from history and invite them from happening again.

Btw this is my original comment where I took that bit from.

[–] ThankYouVeryMuch@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh sorry, I didn't read the original comment before answering. We seem to come from a similar place but I don't know that bit of the phone was like 'people died for you to have that phone so you can't say anything about murder' and that's not fair. For most of us the alternative to owning a phone is just misery. And even if we can't avoid causing misery to others by the mere act of existing, we can absolutely try to reduce it. Specially when, like here, we're not talking about martyrdom or big sacrifices. Not giving money to a scumbag artist can be at most a wee bit inconvenient. Or pushing for longer with your phones instead of getting a new one every other year.

I agree with you in this one comment. You can see someone's work and think it's brilliant, and then when the dark secrets are unearthed you can think the fucker's a monster, not incompatible at all. I think we should absolutely keep them on the books, but adding a footnote explaining how much of a cunt they were doesn't hurt.

And about the movies, I would still enjoy most of them probably. With some of them is possible that my experience is somehow affected by what I now know and some will fall off the chart. And a few of them I would exclaim 'I knew it!' Lol. But I will actively try not to give any money or publicity to the 99 of them

[–] WhoRoger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Re the phone thing. What I meant is that you can boycott whatever you wish, and try to convince me too I guess, but some people tend to go waaaaay too far.

Like with the recent thing about a Harry Potter game, when some people were absolutely bullish to anyone who wouldn't agree with their view, and if you'd say that that you'd buy the game regardless, they'd deem you a monster and cancel you too.

This may be an extreme example, but there's really this entire culture about cancelling and legacy erasing for... Anything at this point.

So first problem is that if there's barely any difference if I get cancelled and bullied for buying a video game or murdering someone, then what is the incentive to behave anymore? That's also my point in lots of other discussions, but I won't get into it.

Then as I said, the whole concept of how it's only okay to enjoy content of the right people. I just can't get behind that. It's natural to a degree, but let's not go too far.

So, it's not your case, but if someone becomes too loud regarding these things and how we're also accessories for willing to acknowledge Kevin Spacey as a good actor or whatever - then yea, I'll totally point at their phone and ask what's their position on that.

Besides, yet another issue is that all these anger campaigns are fads that fizzle out in a week, because it's not even about making a change, but appearing righteous. So maybe the footnote idea could work, as that way there would be at least some record of the whole affair.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Now this is a good debate.

Personally, my view is that it is inappropriate to hold people from past generations to modern value systems, as the rational basis of those modern values did not exist yet.

We only expect human rights because we have ancestors that fought for them. Before the conflicts became commonplace, part of being a "good" person was to behave differently. We should not think that we are somehow special and would behave any differently than our ancestors, had we been nurtured in that time, surrounded by only those antiquated ideas.

This is why Genghis Khan and Hitler should be seen in a different light. They were both butchers, but the Khan was a butcher in a time of butchers. Where Hitler did it in a time of industrialization and the rise of globalization. One of the men is a respected historical figure of great relevance, the other is despised as one of the most evil men in history. Not for different actions, though, but for doing the same actions in different contexts, in worlds of different expectations.

[–] omnislayer88@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We also need to note the time difference. Khan lived 8 centuries ago and hitler only 1. Hitler is more fresh in our minds and his memory will fade like Khan and the many others before him. How many people know of the atrocities that Assyria committed thousands of years ago? Hitler won't be seen as nearly as evil in say 3500 because they will most likely have someone from the 3300s or 3400s who they see as evil and want to not repeat the actions of. Khan may have lived in "a time of butchers" but people then also saw his actions as atrocities. We aren't that much better than other periods of history really we just see our selves that way because that's where we live and we don't see the day to day experiences of people hundreds or even thousands of years ago and only hear about wars and battles and what empire raped the other worse.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I would argue that while yes, they were recognized as atrocities, there was still a common expectation that massacres could and would happen during wartime. As a result of this general expectation, the Khan was never really looked at in any different light from those Assyrians you mentioned.

Hitler, however, behaved quite differently from his contemporaries. Only Stalin was quite that bloody. This illustrates a clear difference of the changing standards of the time, further reinforced by things like mass literacy and rapid communication of news.

To say that humans haven't changed requires ignoring a great deal of relative peace and prosperity. While we will likely never be done 100% completely with atrocities of different natures, simply reducing how common they are is an accomplishment that should not be ignored.

[–] WhoRoger@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

People love to see things and the world as black and white. In fairytales, the good people were always beautiful and flawless, and the bad people were always ugly and hateful. (Unless the story was deliberately about those stereotypes.)

And we still expect the world to be like that.

But it's not. People aren't even just good or bad. And even those "bad" people can do amazing things. Werner von Braun, a full-blown nazi, got us to the moon. Serial killers on death row have made scientific discoveries. Some eras and genres of music are barely anything else than drug trips where tons of people were hurt.

That's just how it is. That book, song, movie you're enjoying, wasn't written by a flawless ethereal being. In fact, it probably wasn't, because people with creative minds are more likely to push societal boundaries instead of just being happy in 9-5 jobs.

You want to call out and cancel every artist that's not the ideal person, enjoy your white walls for entertainment.

Besides, before cancelling someone, you know how it works - throw the first stone...

And also, whatever gets exposed is only the tip of the iceberg. Entire industries, creative or not, are built on suffering of some kind.

If you decide to boycott someone or something, that's always your choice, but don't expect me to follow you, or be mad at me when I don't. Otherwise I'm gonna ask you what you plan to do with that phone built by child slaves.

[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The answer is pretty simple. Continue enjoying the art, but cut them off from any profits from it.

[–] WhoRoger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Where do you draw the line between cutting off profits and not? If somebody did only smaller crimes, do we cut only some profits?

I don't get this reasoning. Either we can admit that people can do both good and bad things, and good and bad art, or we can keep doing all these cancellations until nobody has anything.

Ed: also who gets those profits then, they corporations owning the IPs?

[–] SLIME@lemmy.fmhy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure exactly who said it, but I like the phrase, "acknowledge the artist, appreciate the work."

[–] Sami@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can't fully separate the art from the artists but you can try. The trick is to never learn about them in the first place.

[–] DevCat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is a viewpoint I must disagree with. While it is possible to appreciate an artwork for its intrinsic value, knowing the type of life the artist led can often add to that appreciation. Or, in the case of some artists, an interesting discussion on human morality.

[–] Knusper@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm on the humans-don't-have-free-will-train, so the way I see it, is you can still appreciate their art, even if it's just out of a morbid fascination that the brain-inputs which led to their crimes also produced their art.

But you'll still want to hijack everyone else's non-free will, by socially punishing such artists, e.g. not giving them money and not expressing your appreciation publicly.
This is especially important, if you've got artists actively using their artist reach to output horseshit, like JKR TERFing it up.

[–] DocSophie@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m on the humans-don’t-have-free-will-train

Genuinely curious about this; could you explain that train of thought to me?

[–] Knusper@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can explain the idea, but I'll be honest, it took myself years of living in the dry world of maths, theoretical logic and computer science (+ likely autism) to truly get behind this one.

So, you probably know from maths that a function has inputs and outputs. You stick parameters into it and then it evaluates to a result.
With this model, the only way to change the output, is to change the inputs. A function cannot randomly decide that today, it's going to output something different.
Well, it can, but then the date (or whatever makes that day special) needs to be an input to the function.

There is no random, there's only pseudo-random, which is when it's really difficult to work out which inputs lead to a given output.

And I don't see a reason why our brain should magically be different from this. Our whole brain is a function. It's an extremely complex function, with gazillions of inputs throughout our lifetimes.
It's also not a pure function, as the outputs of future evaluations are influenced by the inputs of previous evaluations, a.k.a. we remember shit. And that remembering is fuzzy, too, as we only store certain statistical weights, like LLMs do.

So, there are a ton of sources for pseudo-randomness, meaning even for toddlers (who've experienced comparatively few inputs), it can already seem random why they are crying.
But I see no reason to believe that we've somehow acquired the only source of true randomness in the whole universe, let alone somehow a consciousness?/soul? which for whatever reason makes decisions not based on those inputs. That just sounds like terrible decision making to me.

I feel like people struggle to let go of this idea of free will, because so much of our philosophy, religion, laws, motivation etc. are based on it. Even for me, with my particular set of brain-weightings, I have to be quite aware of my thinking to not fall into traditional patterns.
Maybe the whole artificial intelligence shenanigans will make us realize that our own intelligence isn't that special.

[–] ThankYouVeryMuch@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Maybe you got stuck in the purism of math, in physics there seems to be lots of randomness in the universe, like everywhere all the time.*
But you do have a point in that as biological machines we don't have much say in how our hardware (wetware? meatware?) is built or the programming that goes in, at least initially which could set us in a path to acquire or not a particular software or another. So how much free will can we really have? I think certainly not 100% absolute fee will, but maybe there's some degree of freedom and therefore responsibility for one's actions.
*Yes this could be a lack of understanding of how things really work in a underlying level, but for some reasons physicist believe it is true random.
Edit: grammar

[–] Knusper@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I hate the field of quantum physics, because it sounds like a fucking religion, trying to convince itself that these things are truly random, when, as far as I can tell, there is no evidence for that.

What is the case, is that this is the first time in human history that we cannot measure without significant impact on the real world.

Like, imagine a dark room and you're wearing earplugs and somewhere in the room is a medicine ball. You can throw tennis balls around and observe whether they bounce back to figure out where in the room the medicine ball is.
That's classical physics. Those tennis balls are photons.

But do the same experiment, except replace the medicine ball with a baseball, and obviously, you'll have a problem. Your tennis ball will still half-bounce away from the baseball, but the baseball will half-bounce away, too. Your measurement has significant impact on the thing being measured.

The traditional physics method of measure→change→measure collapses. Everyone panic! We have to refer to this as quantum physics, because it's obviously a completely different field! And let's convince ourselves that this one is truly random, because can't measure it, so it obviously has to be throwing dice at all times.

Alright, rant over. That is maybe taking the shit out a bit too much. Me hating the field means I'm not actually deep enough into it, to make most of these claims.
Especially e.g. quantum entanglement and wave-particle-duality, I don't know enough about, to truly claim that they're not new.

Also, to be fair, much like with computer science's pseudo-random, in many cases, quantum physics might as well be truly random. Unless we find smaller balls to throw around, it is physically impossible to predict.

[–] I_Miss_Daniel@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I don't play Rolf Harris songs on the radio any more.

I still play Michael Jackson on rare occasions though - no clear convictions I think, just accusations.

load more comments
view more: next ›