General Discussion

12096 readers

22 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 Communities

Feel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!

Also keep an eye on:

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

💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:

[email protected] - Note this is for more serious discussions.
[email protected] - The opposite of the above, for more laidback chat!
[email protected] - Into video games? Here's a place to discuss them!
[email protected] - Watched a movie and wanna talk to others about it? Here's a place to do so!
[email protected] - Want to talk politics apart from political news? Here's a community for that!

Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.

0. See: Rules for Users.

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

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Jessica

ElectroVagrant

fubo

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 to c/general

29 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] WhoRoger 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.

[–] [email protected] 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 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.

[–] [email protected] 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 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.