Although I appreciate your thoughts and stance, I would have to respectfully disagree! All art is consumed under systems that are inherently meant to disenfranchise certain populations. Artists are not isolated from these systems (capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy) and the ways in which they contribute to these systems and thus promote the dehumanization of historically vulnerable populations influences how many throughout the world treat these people as well. By separating art from the artist, we may inadvertently overlook or downplay the consequences of their behavior, which can be harmful to victims and perpetuate a culture of impunity. Holding artists accountable for their actions sends a message that certain behaviors are not acceptable! This can contribute to a more ethical and responsible artistic community, where hopefully artists and the general public alike are mindful of the impact of their actions on others. :) Just my thoughts!
of course! The systems I am referring to are the broader societal structures and economic systems (capitalism primarily) that exist in our country and beyond. These systems perpetuate structural racism, gender discrimination and labor exploitation (especially under capitalism). If we really dive deep into the historical context and even modern day practices, we will find that these systemic inequities contribute to the disenfranchisement among women, people of color, the LGBTQ+ community, etc. This process is cyclical and impacts everything we do, read, watch, and consume. I think art can play a huge role in disrupting this given that artists have the power to challenge, disrupt, and reshape societal norms, perceptions, and structures! Hard to sum it all up in a paragraph and it might seem a bit radical at first glance haha. Happy to recommend some reading if you're interested!
I can tell you've thought about this deeply. I appreciate your points and agree with many of them.
I think the point I was hoping to drive home was that if we only allow ourselves to enjoy the art of artists whom we 100% agree with then we could end up missing out on some amazing work.
Unfortunately my problem lies within when the art you consune actively supports and generates income for said artist. For example, if Michael Jacksom would still be alive you would, by watching that music video on repeat, actively be giving him money from the advertisement-income generated by that.
The same goes for me with my Harry Potter-obsession. I try separating JK Rowling from the franchise but I always watch or read with a little twinge of guilt because you never can fully separate art from artist as long as the artist is alive.
I see where you're coming from Maja. But I still think it's better to give them the benefit of the doubt and consume their art with an open mind so you can come to your conclusions. Instead of refusing their work entirely just because of some negative press they might receive.
okay - so, just to humour me here: I really like Alain de Botton's essays, because I know he majored in philosophy and so I can trust the logic behind it more easily. in other words: I like his work - even independent of him - but knowing that he wrote it, that he thought about the logic behind his essays, makes me like it even more.
I think it's difficult to always decouple the artist from the art - knowing the history and who the artist is can sometimes positively influence my judgment of the piece, the knowledge can enhance my understanding of where it came from, and ultimately, what the piece means.
that's a good point. I like his stuff too. and there's plenty of artists out there that I feel the same about. My defenses are lowered whenever they release anything because they've proven time after time that they know what they're talking about. but it still doesn't mean they cant be wrong sometimes.
The same thing happens with the great people of history, whose lives and ideas are a kind of art we can appreciate and learn from. The modern world balks as them, seeing their times as indelible stains invalidating all they've done.
But those men and women are dead. We don't hurt them with our neglect. We only hurt ourselves by depriving us of an example outside of the straightjacket of present thinking.
Say something occurs to you — an inspiring or interesting idea, or a new take on an old problem. If you've got a circle of like-minded thinkers around you to help you work through it, the idea goes into a refinement period and emerges stronger on the far side. And your friends' constructive feedback and encouragement gives you confidence to promote it or build on it.
But that doesn't happen much these days. Your fledgling idea emerges onto the warzone of the modern internet. Social media pounces because your idea pushes on the overton window a bit too hard and its hasn't been fully fleshed out and has some weaknesses.
I think the extreme hostility of the modern world makes people cautious. They keep their best ideas to themselves or never develop them at all. The stakes seem too high. The consequences of being seen as out-of-step are too great.
Can you imagine Marcus Aurelius posting each excerpt from his journal on twitter? People who didn't have the slightest clue about the context he was working from would be freaking out.
Same could be said for a Walt Whitman, Machiavelli, Sappho, or a Nietzsche. All strangled in the cradle.
Most of what we hear about all these artists are just rumors. The good and the bad. I prefer to judge an artists art separately from the person they were. But thats easier said than done.
I think that it depends. I am also a big believer in the concept of “the song, not the singer” but in the age where we know all (or most) about anyone, the idea of dancing to the music of a rapist is very off putting. Granted that there are bad people and bad people. Shakira didn’t pay her taxes in Spain, but she didn’t kill anyone. Liam Gallagher seems like a proper d$&k but I heard nothing about him actually chanting “Jews shall not replace us”. So I guess that artists don’t have to be virtuous, but somehow, we don’t connect with their art if they are evil.
Oh I like that! "the song, not the singer". I agree that its hard to still be a fan of someone who we know everything about (good and bad). But what about all the artists from history that existed before social media? We only know about a handful of things about them because their entire lives werent documented. Who knows how much worse or better they were than what we know today?
I personally think its exhausting to try to be the morality police constantly keeping close tabs on every artist to see who I need to stop liking and start hating each day. But thats just me.
Exactly, you don’t have to be the morality police, but if someone is guilty and you hear about it, you cannot help yourself. But I agree that when it comes to rumors one need not to justify themselves on why they still like the music. I.e. rumors of JayZ cheating and Beyonze forgiving him? Who cares? Enjoy the music. And like that… so many other examples.
A thought-provoking read. It reminds me a lot of my experience listening to Kanye West. He was my favorite artist for many years but his reputation now has gone (rightfully so in my opinion) down to the floor. I still like his older music, but it's hard to enjoy because of the person he seems to be.
Thank you Daniel. I still struggle with this myself which is why I wrote about it. There's plenty of musicians and comedians I really enjoy while also not loving a lot of the decisions they make in their personal lives. But thinking about it like this has helped me - what if I created some artistic masterpiece at some point in my life and I was bombarded with attention? could the crowds find something negative or that they didnt approve of from my past personal life? of course they could! but does that silly decision i made years ago mean they must reject all of my art simply on principle?
Great idea here Arman. No one is perfect and we all have make questionable decisions at some point in the past. As you said, learning to separate the art from the person is important. I think if we all judged on principal, there would be few artists and icons we could actually follow. This doesn't give anyone a free pass though. Being aware and informed is essential.
Yes that's a good point. At the end of the day, we're all doing the best we can. If we only allow ourselves to enjoy art from artists we 100% agree with then we'll end up never getting to enjoy any art at all.
Creating that looks inside oneself too often comes from a place of pain. If we heal the pain what comes instead it becomes insight and knowledge. It becomes growth and information that could move the whole of humanity forward to a healthier place.
We do not value how much it costs the artists to be an artist. You are benefiting from his pain. You are benefiting from him never moving through his pain and deciding instead to spread it. We should healing. Creating is a part of that. But if artists are not healing there is high cost to continue to create in that same way.
Artists are some of societies most tortured and exploited people. I don't want that. I want growth and moving through the process and healing. Everything is better when you do this. He sought out young boy to teach them. That is all he should have done. Instead he stopped their learning. I am sorry I can't support that.
Thank you for sharing Lillian. I like your point on "we dont value how much it costs the artists to be an artist". It can be a tortured existence for many of them but they still decide to share their creations with the world. We are forever indebted to our artists.
Ok, so here's a question for you. How about separating gigs from the company. I was recently approached to speak for a very large corporation that produces products I'd rather not see in the world, but they have employees in need of motivation and inspiration. Do I take the gig and help the people, or shun the gig because helping the people would enable the company to better deliver their product? The company is not asking me to modify my message, which is about being authentically human and empowering professional growth. But their bottom line is most certainly profit.
Hm thats an interesting dilemma. Almost sounds like one of those brain teasers from philosophy 101.
Personally, I think removing the gig from the company would still apply. Like you said, those people could greatly benefit from your message no matter what company they currently work for. And who knows where they will end up next? They could start working for a company you admire and they will be better off because you decided to still speak to them. Food for thought.
I agree with what you say. I do however look for more art by the artists I already like. So when I know I am headed to see a Raphael, a Monet, a Giotto, or a Velasquez, it makes me anticipate more and it’s extra special to recognize the techniques that make them
Thank you Anu. I dont think there's anything wrong with having a preference for your favorite artists. We all have them. I think the issue arises when we automatically reject an artist without even checking out their work just because of things we have heard about them.
Although I appreciate your thoughts and stance, I would have to respectfully disagree! All art is consumed under systems that are inherently meant to disenfranchise certain populations. Artists are not isolated from these systems (capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy) and the ways in which they contribute to these systems and thus promote the dehumanization of historically vulnerable populations influences how many throughout the world treat these people as well. By separating art from the artist, we may inadvertently overlook or downplay the consequences of their behavior, which can be harmful to victims and perpetuate a culture of impunity. Holding artists accountable for their actions sends a message that certain behaviors are not acceptable! This can contribute to a more ethical and responsible artistic community, where hopefully artists and the general public alike are mindful of the impact of their actions on others. :) Just my thoughts!
Thank you Sky. Ive never thought about it like that. I appreciate you sharing.
Could you elaborate a bit more on what you mean "art is consumed under systems that are inherently meant to disenfranchise certain populations?"
of course! The systems I am referring to are the broader societal structures and economic systems (capitalism primarily) that exist in our country and beyond. These systems perpetuate structural racism, gender discrimination and labor exploitation (especially under capitalism). If we really dive deep into the historical context and even modern day practices, we will find that these systemic inequities contribute to the disenfranchisement among women, people of color, the LGBTQ+ community, etc. This process is cyclical and impacts everything we do, read, watch, and consume. I think art can play a huge role in disrupting this given that artists have the power to challenge, disrupt, and reshape societal norms, perceptions, and structures! Hard to sum it all up in a paragraph and it might seem a bit radical at first glance haha. Happy to recommend some reading if you're interested!
I can tell you've thought about this deeply. I appreciate your points and agree with many of them.
I think the point I was hoping to drive home was that if we only allow ourselves to enjoy the art of artists whom we 100% agree with then we could end up missing out on some amazing work.
Always open to new reading recs :)
How I wish I could agree wholeheartedly!
Unfortunately my problem lies within when the art you consune actively supports and generates income for said artist. For example, if Michael Jacksom would still be alive you would, by watching that music video on repeat, actively be giving him money from the advertisement-income generated by that.
The same goes for me with my Harry Potter-obsession. I try separating JK Rowling from the franchise but I always watch or read with a little twinge of guilt because you never can fully separate art from artist as long as the artist is alive.
I see where you're coming from Maja. But I still think it's better to give them the benefit of the doubt and consume their art with an open mind so you can come to your conclusions. Instead of refusing their work entirely just because of some negative press they might receive.
hmm... what if it helps that I identify with the artist?
That's great too. But then we have to be careful to not automatically agree with them just because we like them.
okay - so, just to humour me here: I really like Alain de Botton's essays, because I know he majored in philosophy and so I can trust the logic behind it more easily. in other words: I like his work - even independent of him - but knowing that he wrote it, that he thought about the logic behind his essays, makes me like it even more.
I think it's difficult to always decouple the artist from the art - knowing the history and who the artist is can sometimes positively influence my judgment of the piece, the knowledge can enhance my understanding of where it came from, and ultimately, what the piece means.
that's a good point. I like his stuff too. and there's plenty of artists out there that I feel the same about. My defenses are lowered whenever they release anything because they've proven time after time that they know what they're talking about. but it still doesn't mean they cant be wrong sometimes.
The same thing happens with the great people of history, whose lives and ideas are a kind of art we can appreciate and learn from. The modern world balks as them, seeing their times as indelible stains invalidating all they've done.
But those men and women are dead. We don't hurt them with our neglect. We only hurt ourselves by depriving us of an example outside of the straightjacket of present thinking.
I wrote more about this here: https://open.substack.com/pub/andrewperlot/p/why-were-marooned-in-the-present?r=1xulhu&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
great minds think alike!
thats another great application of this idea that i hadnt thought about.
if historical figures had social media and the internet back then i wonder how many of them would be ruthlessly canceled today?
Many great ideas is strangled in the cradle.
Say something occurs to you — an inspiring or interesting idea, or a new take on an old problem. If you've got a circle of like-minded thinkers around you to help you work through it, the idea goes into a refinement period and emerges stronger on the far side. And your friends' constructive feedback and encouragement gives you confidence to promote it or build on it.
But that doesn't happen much these days. Your fledgling idea emerges onto the warzone of the modern internet. Social media pounces because your idea pushes on the overton window a bit too hard and its hasn't been fully fleshed out and has some weaknesses.
I think the extreme hostility of the modern world makes people cautious. They keep their best ideas to themselves or never develop them at all. The stakes seem too high. The consequences of being seen as out-of-step are too great.
Can you imagine Marcus Aurelius posting each excerpt from his journal on twitter? People who didn't have the slightest clue about the context he was working from would be freaking out.
Same could be said for a Walt Whitman, Machiavelli, Sappho, or a Nietzsche. All strangled in the cradle.
great points. i totally agree with you. its a shame how many great ideas end up in the graveyard never to see the light of day.
i hope more people turn off their cautiousness and just release their ideas into the world.
PS- the rumors about Michael Jackson were, I believe, never confirmed. So we cannot judge an artist based on hearsay, right?
Most of what we hear about all these artists are just rumors. The good and the bad. I prefer to judge an artists art separately from the person they were. But thats easier said than done.
I think that it depends. I am also a big believer in the concept of “the song, not the singer” but in the age where we know all (or most) about anyone, the idea of dancing to the music of a rapist is very off putting. Granted that there are bad people and bad people. Shakira didn’t pay her taxes in Spain, but she didn’t kill anyone. Liam Gallagher seems like a proper d$&k but I heard nothing about him actually chanting “Jews shall not replace us”. So I guess that artists don’t have to be virtuous, but somehow, we don’t connect with their art if they are evil.
Oh I like that! "the song, not the singer". I agree that its hard to still be a fan of someone who we know everything about (good and bad). But what about all the artists from history that existed before social media? We only know about a handful of things about them because their entire lives werent documented. Who knows how much worse or better they were than what we know today?
I personally think its exhausting to try to be the morality police constantly keeping close tabs on every artist to see who I need to stop liking and start hating each day. But thats just me.
Exactly, you don’t have to be the morality police, but if someone is guilty and you hear about it, you cannot help yourself. But I agree that when it comes to rumors one need not to justify themselves on why they still like the music. I.e. rumors of JayZ cheating and Beyonze forgiving him? Who cares? Enjoy the music. And like that… so many other examples.
Totally agree. I don't need to give my stamp of approval on every life decision of an artist to still appreciate their work.
A thought-provoking read. It reminds me a lot of my experience listening to Kanye West. He was my favorite artist for many years but his reputation now has gone (rightfully so in my opinion) down to the floor. I still like his older music, but it's hard to enjoy because of the person he seems to be.
Thank you Daniel. I still struggle with this myself which is why I wrote about it. There's plenty of musicians and comedians I really enjoy while also not loving a lot of the decisions they make in their personal lives. But thinking about it like this has helped me - what if I created some artistic masterpiece at some point in my life and I was bombarded with attention? could the crowds find something negative or that they didnt approve of from my past personal life? of course they could! but does that silly decision i made years ago mean they must reject all of my art simply on principle?
Great idea here Arman. No one is perfect and we all have make questionable decisions at some point in the past. As you said, learning to separate the art from the person is important. I think if we all judged on principal, there would be few artists and icons we could actually follow. This doesn't give anyone a free pass though. Being aware and informed is essential.
Yes that's a good point. At the end of the day, we're all doing the best we can. If we only allow ourselves to enjoy art from artists we 100% agree with then we'll end up never getting to enjoy any art at all.
Creating that looks inside oneself too often comes from a place of pain. If we heal the pain what comes instead it becomes insight and knowledge. It becomes growth and information that could move the whole of humanity forward to a healthier place.
We do not value how much it costs the artists to be an artist. You are benefiting from his pain. You are benefiting from him never moving through his pain and deciding instead to spread it. We should healing. Creating is a part of that. But if artists are not healing there is high cost to continue to create in that same way.
Artists are some of societies most tortured and exploited people. I don't want that. I want growth and moving through the process and healing. Everything is better when you do this. He sought out young boy to teach them. That is all he should have done. Instead he stopped their learning. I am sorry I can't support that.
Thank you for sharing Lillian. I like your point on "we dont value how much it costs the artists to be an artist". It can be a tortured existence for many of them but they still decide to share their creations with the world. We are forever indebted to our artists.
Ok, so here's a question for you. How about separating gigs from the company. I was recently approached to speak for a very large corporation that produces products I'd rather not see in the world, but they have employees in need of motivation and inspiration. Do I take the gig and help the people, or shun the gig because helping the people would enable the company to better deliver their product? The company is not asking me to modify my message, which is about being authentically human and empowering professional growth. But their bottom line is most certainly profit.
Hm thats an interesting dilemma. Almost sounds like one of those brain teasers from philosophy 101.
Personally, I think removing the gig from the company would still apply. Like you said, those people could greatly benefit from your message no matter what company they currently work for. And who knows where they will end up next? They could start working for a company you admire and they will be better off because you decided to still speak to them. Food for thought.
Interesting take. Thank you. I appreciate your perspective.
I agree with what you say. I do however look for more art by the artists I already like. So when I know I am headed to see a Raphael, a Monet, a Giotto, or a Velasquez, it makes me anticipate more and it’s extra special to recognize the techniques that make them
masters at their art:)
Thank you Anu. I dont think there's anything wrong with having a preference for your favorite artists. We all have them. I think the issue arises when we automatically reject an artist without even checking out their work just because of things we have heard about them.