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?
Hitler
That guy is literally Hitler.
Heard he killed Hitler though
Eh, not really.
Now, there are some examples where I won’t/can’t actively seek out their work, and would never contribute to them by buying anything at all, ever.
Cosby falls into that category, just as an example.
But, I have a complete separation as far as the work itself being valid/good despite the origins. Using Cosby as the example again, if I’m somewhere and one of his performances is on, I’m not going to care enough to change a channel or leave, or even say anything.
That’s pretty much anyone and everyone. I just don’t have that thing where a given item, piece of work, whatever, is “tainted” just because the person that made it is a piece of shit. I don’t form an association like that. It’s that I choose to not seek out some things as a matter of principle.
But, as a general rule, if they’re dead, I don’t care at all. And, if the person in question is only one person involved in a group effort, that group effort is fine by me. Like, if the guitarist of a band is a piece of shit, but everyone else is not, why would their work be a bad thing?
Now, this isn’t to say that I ignore any bad acts when interacting with a given work. Take van Gogh as an example. His excesses and disturbing behaviors are part of his work to an extent. It’s a thing where knowing the person’s flaws informs the interaction with the work. Kinda like “gee, I wonder how much of this work stems from the same root as the bad acts did?”
But, I can enjoy the work of people I personally despise with no issues. I just don’t have whatever it is that other people have that makes a thing tainted based on the creator.
Part of that is knowing how shitty humans in general are, and how hard it is to find any artist that didn’t/doesn’t have massive flaws. In music and painting in particular, you run into a shit ton of artists that were abysmal people. If I did have that whatever it is that causes a connection between the art and the artist’s flaws, I wouldn’t be able to listen to much music at all.
Foo Fighters used to be real down with the whole AIDS denialism, even financially supporting it.
I know David Grohl is an internet sweetheart, but every time I see anything Foo related, I just immediately wonder how many people died pointless and preventable deaths because they believed the denialism Foo Fighters pushed.
To be fair, it wasn’t Dave’s idea or something he supported. It was bassist Nate Mendel’s message that they were, admittedly, amplifying. Even the info on their website had a disclaimer that listed it as “being displayed at the request of Nate Mendel”.
I think they all regret being involved in amplifying that message too, including Nate. In the 20 years since they initially broke support with the people involved, they’ve played several shows in support of HIV/AIDS awareness groups, fundraised for Elton John’s AIDS Foundation, and every tour they do now has some kind of fundraising or auctions to support AIDS education or LGBTQIA+ rights.
It feels like they know now, in hindsight of course, that it was harmful and have at least tried to do more good to make up for it. Mendel was even quoted saying that the only reason he did it was because he thought he was helping people, not hurting them.
To be fair, it wasn’t Dave’s idea or something he supported.
And yet he kept mendel in the band, and had the message plastered on their website.
Thats not something you get to handwave away with even the grossest incompetence claim.
Mendel was even quoted saying that the only reason he did it was because he thought he was helping people, not hurting them.
I mean, yeah. he likes his career, of course he says that.
No one is hand waving anything away. Nate is a member of the band. The message on the website was clear that it was his message.
You make it seem like people can’t change their views based on new information. It’s not like they could go back in time and not do those things after the fact. They’ve done far more in support of AIDS education. It’s not fair to vilify them for something they did for a few years while ignoring everything they’ve done since for more than 20 years.
You make it seem like people can’t change their views based on new information.
I never said or implied that.
I said you cant handwave away or excuse Grohls involvement, and that a person who values their career has an incentive to say a certain thing after being called out for being a piece of shit.
Anything beyond that is just your fiction.
Except you did. You’re literally on a discussion where you posted Dave Grohl because of something he was a part of for maybe 2 or 3 years that wasn’t even his idea to begin with while ignoring everything he’s done for 20+ years since.
And now you’re being dishonest about it.
