Art and Bad People

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

Its really a personal thing. I can see associating an artists irl shittiness with a piece of art could make you less able to enjoy it. What pisses me off are the people who pretend they are making some kind of moral stand. Like really? Youre wearing clothes that were made in a sweat shop you keep all your money in BoA and carry around electronics that the Congo was destabilized over. But the new Xmen movie, thats where they draw the line. They refuse to let your money be tainted by it so theyre going boycott it, and I assume, every single product who whos profit might eventually reach the hands of a sex offender.

Hi New Guy, you seem alright.

Shhh, he is just doing it so he can collect quotes of people saying

You know, Ron Paul is one smart cookie!

Or something similar.

Don't fall for his tricks!

...

Dammit!

Youve caught me. For years Ive studied the ancient tibeten technique of turning internet forum compliments into raw magical power. Ive spent the better part of my life posting on forums, carefully posting compliment-bait, calculating my next move. And now its all been unraveled. 3 years of reposting shitty memes on Reddit for karma, wasted. Do you realize how close  I was? How close I was to absolute power? I could have done anything, world peace, perpetual motion, replaced Reality Shows with good TV. But no, you just had to shit all over it. Hope you feel good about yourself.

edit: lol wut

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

I'm pretty sure the bases have been covered; in that every person decides for themselves, art evokes emotion and negative associations can be off-putting despite the actual art itself, some people can separate the artist from the art and some can't.

Personally, I am more on the emotional side than the analytical side. If I don't like the person, then I tend not to like the art. MJ is a great example where I listened to his shit as a kid and won't touch it now. I don't think I liked it all that much then, except the song "Black or White". And after the Macauly Caulkin thing, the video squicked me out. So that sucked.

Orson Scott Card is apparently hugely anti-gay. I still love his Alvin Maker books, but that's because the books mean something to me and Mr. Card does not. I likely won't read the Ender's Game series or anything, though.

John Mayer is a complete tool and I will turn off the radio if his shit comes on the station. But I think both his music and his personality are shit.

Maybe it's different with books, comics, movies, etc because there's that level of remove. With actors and singers and such, the person is always right there - their voice, their face, their presence, because that is the medium through which they communicate their art. So perhaps reactions are more emphatic in those cases. Unless you're Anne McCaffrey.

[Cramulus]

Orson Scott Card is apparently hugely anti-gay. I still love his Alvin Maker books, but that's because the books mean something to me and Mr. Card does not. I likely won't read the Ender's Game series or anything, though.

that reminds me of a good youtube discussion via IdeaChannel

How is Seeing Enders Game a Political Action?

Consumption, especially when money is involved, is political in nature.

Speaking as a consumer, it gets really exhausting to only engage things that have "good politics". Once again I'm standing in the pasta isle wondering which brand to have for dinner, and in my head, I'm making up my mind about gay adoption. There is no "just pasta" option in global commerce.

If I judge an object or concept by its shittiest manifestation (ie judging a pasta brand based on the homophobia of its CEO), I am now operating on a level of awareness where I'm only going to engage "clean" products. We've all gotta develop more awareness of where our money comes from and where it goes. But are there any clean politics? Is it even possible to boycott assholes? You can, but it comes at a premium, it's often a luxury.

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's hard to boycott assholes but it's very easy to steal from them. Ender's Game? I thought it was an amazing movie. Watched it on blueray a couple of months before it came out. Orson Scott Card? Never made a penny out of me.

[Cramulus]

My guess is that your piracy was not specifically based on boycotting Card, but a more broad "you're not gettin mah money" to the movie industry? 



The messy thing (mentioned in the video) is that it's likely that every single member of the cast and crew had views more moderate than Card's. So if you make a principled boycott, you're not just denying Card some money, you're also denying much less shitty people money as well.



Where I draw the line is explicit links between object consumed and undesirable cause.

Like Chick-Fil-A actually gave money to "traditional marriage" causes. So there is a clear link between that chicken sandwich and meaningful political action.
Barilla Pasta, Orson Scott Card, Brandon Eich... I'm not sure their opinions on those topics actually matter.

I don't think buying a Michael Jackson album meaningfully contributes to "a culture of pedophilia". You can (validly) be squicked out by the association, but the relationship isn't clear enough (to me) for that to be an explicit link. If money from MJ albums was going to NAMBLA or something, I might read it differently.

[Ben Shapiro]

Sorry, I don't follow?

I'm praising you for being a biped. Sorry for bad signal.

[minuspace]

I feel like maybe "New Criticism" is a little to strong for me:

In 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published a classic and controversial New Critical essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy", in which they argued strongly against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting.

In another essay, "The Affective Fallacy," which served as a kind of sister essay to "The Intentional Fallacy" Wimsatt and Beardsley also discounted the reader's personal/emotional reaction to a literary work as a valid means of analyzing a text. This fallacy would later be repudiated by theorists from the reader-response school of literary theory. Ironically, one of the leading theorists from this school, Stanley Fish, was himself trained by New Critics. Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley in his essay "Literature in the Reader" (1970).[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism

I understand taking into accout socio/cultural implications of work, however, accusations leveled against the public aspect of a person tend to be simply secondary or tertiary sources.

[Ben Shapiro]

I feel the same way when I listen to MJ. If some asshat is going to lecture me about listening him. I'm going to shit in that person's mouth for liking John Lennon. Fuck him til the ends of the earth.

[Faust]

Sorry, I don't follow?

I'm praising you for being a biped. Sorry for bad signal.

Cheers.

The counter argument to what I said, enjoying the separation of artist and art is that it perpetuates a culture of the disposable artist. We consume, they produce, just like any other product being sold to us. In some cases it leads to the organic growth and perpetuation of ideas, but a lot of the time it's just entertainment on tap, used up and forgotten about.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

MJ is a poignant example because I see him as kind of a Frankenstein's Monster. We created him and we eventually had to destroy him en mass with torches and pitchforks. This has been the nature of celebrity for thousands of years.

Celebrities are Holy, that's why we rip out their hearts and send their severed heads bouncing down the steps of Chichén Itzá.

This in particular made me associate with some book of Mircea Eliade... I dont know the direct translation but i think its "sacred vs. profane", in which whatever is rare or strange over the course of history has either been brought up, or brought down but never has a neutral reaction.

Example 1: Cats either have been worshipped as god's companion (Egypt et al) or have been thought of as THE devil's companion (witches).

Example 2: Schizophrenics have been thouhgt of as either being the medium thru which gods speak, or possessed by teh demons.

And what is an artist after all? Some strange minion that is either put in an altar or demonized depending on the person that is subjected to them... artists are the lightning rods for the masses sentiment, or their altar, or their punching bag...

I had to look it up, that looks like a really interesting book! http://www.amazon.com/The-Sacred-Profane-Nature-Religion/dp/015679201X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402958096&sr=8-1&keywords=eliade

[The Johnny]

I feel like maybe "New Criticism" is a little to strong for me:

In 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published a classic and controversial New Critical essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy", in which they argued strongly against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting.

In another essay, "The Affective Fallacy," which served as a kind of sister essay to "The Intentional Fallacy" Wimsatt and Beardsley also discounted the reader's personal/emotional reaction to a literary work as a valid means of analyzing a text. This fallacy would later be repudiated by theorists from the reader-response school of literary theory. Ironically, one of the leading theorists from this school, Stanley Fish, was himself trained by New Critics. Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley in his essay "Literature in the Reader" (1970).[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism

I understand taking into accout socio/cultural implications of work, however, accusations leveled against the public aspect of a person tend to be simply secondary or tertiary sources.

Cute, but retarded.

Interpretation of a text cannot be done seriously if its done in said "closed manner". Why is it you might ask?

Well, because if you arent taking into account its context of creation, or intent, then you are interpreting based on YOUR OWN context and bias, making it just a mirror of your inner thought process but nothing much about the work itself.

How would satire be interpreted?

How about a very strong sarcastic work that means the opposite of what it says?

How about a diary of a statesman that just talks about his dog and family (while under war)?

If im off base, correct me.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I don't like to use Gill Sans or Perpetua because Eric Gill was a thoroughly nasty dude:

A deeply religious man, largely following the Roman Catholic faith, his beliefs and practices were by no means orthodox.[19] His personal diaries describe his sexual activity in great detail including the fact that he sexually abused his own children, had an incestuous relationship with his sister and performed sexual acts on his dog. This aspect of Gill's life was little known until publication of the 1989 biography by Fiona MacCarthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill

Think about that next time you see the BBC logo.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't like to use Gill Sans or Perpetua because Eric Gill was a thoroughly nasty dude:

A deeply religious man, largely following the Roman Catholic faith, his beliefs and practices were by no means orthodox.[19] His personal diaries describe his sexual activity in great detail including the fact that he sexually abused his own children, had an incestuous relationship with his sister and performed sexual acts on his dog. This aspect of Gill's life was little known until publication of the 1989 biography by Fiona MacCarthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill

Think about that next time you see the BBC logo.

How oddly appropriate for the BBC.

[minuspace]

I feel like maybe "New Criticism" is a little to strong for me:

In 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published a classic and controversial New Critical essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy", in which they argued strongly against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting.

In another essay, "The Affective Fallacy," which served as a kind of sister essay to "The Intentional Fallacy" Wimsatt and Beardsley also discounted the reader's personal/emotional reaction to a literary work as a valid means of analyzing a text. This fallacy would later be repudiated by theorists from the reader-response school of literary theory. Ironically, one of the leading theorists from this school, Stanley Fish, was himself trained by New Critics. Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley in his essay "Literature in the Reader" (1970).[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism

I understand taking into accout socio/cultural implications of work, however, accusations leveled against the public aspect of a person tend to be simply secondary or tertiary sources.

Cute, but retarded.

Interpretation of a text cannot be done seriously if its done in said "closed manner". Why is it you might ask?

Well, because if you arent taking into account its context of creation, or intent, then you are interpreting based on YOUR OWN context and bias, making it just a mirror of your inner thought process but nothing much about the work itself.

How would satire be interpreted?

How about a very strong sarcastic work that means the opposite of what it says?

How about a diary of a statesman that just talks about his dog and family (while under war)?

If im off base, correct me.

It's funny how people just don't get satire

[minuspace]

I once wrote an essay about the hypocrisy of people denying that "Lolita" was satirical.