No, the key to art is how it affects those experiencing it so it's separate from the artist.

The life an artist has obviously influences their works, but most artists know how to differentiate their personal lives from their "artistic persona". For some "influencers" and celebrities whose main mean of divulgation is the exposure of their personal life and those that don't know how to distinguish, it might matter.

I think it's especially important to differentiate between artist and person when stuff gets political or penal. I've heard many Michael Jackson saying it's imposible for him to be bad without any basis. For example, in some countries actors use that false impression to become politicians or embezzle. At times artists end up becoming activist of dubious enterprises ,others may even try to justify shady stuff or even crimes .

They don’t change mine. That being said, I wouldn’t financially support a rapist or whoever by buying their works.

Yes. Fortunately or unfortunately, human judgement and bias exists and persists. It's hard to be objective. Can't separate the artist from their work, and vice versa.

Some good debate and sharing going on here though! Respect everyone's different opinions and thoughts.

the Chappelle thing was real bad; I think I'll not watch any future content from him. it was something done now in 2020s with all the understanding available before he decided to do what he did.

Kevin Spacey I'm more on the fence about. Things that happened between 10-40 years ago
If you're an influential person and someone is coming to you to get some strings pulled, (because you can't mentor an acting student[not your acting student] in 1-2 5hr sitdowns) how much advantage are you taking of them?
He's not the boss of anything; and can make whatever promises he wants.
I think his sexuality looms large in giving him somewhat of a pass; many new gay relationships in the 80's-early 90's had poor communication and were very slambam. He wasn't strangling street youth in suburban Chicago, he was making drunken passes at everything. No one ever claimed that he burnt their career after he was turned down, it's not Weinstein at all. All the court cases are paused/fell apart and he's paid no ooc settlements.

I kind of flipflop on this stuff.

I'll probably think something different the next time the poll comes around

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/mel-gibson-j ohn-wick-prequel-continental-1235033041/
Mel Gibson just got a new gig on John Wick. You can't make this up. He recently saluted Trump after his failed coup (despite neither of them having served in the military, something even I have accomplished) but here we are. A Hollywood starring role! Kevin Spacey is currently working in Europe. Multiple female MCU actresses tried to bring back Joss Whedon this year. Etc.
This is the plot of the new Kevin Spacey film: "about a blind artist who can draw people from their voice and is wrongly accused of sexually abusing a child" - Variety. He plays a detective who has to prove the man´s innocence. The film finished filming in the summer. It's a small wonder that Spacey didn´t write his own version of "If I Did It". This role is somehow even worse though...

I wonder if Roman Polanski will consider him for his next film. He is still at it. Polanski´s 2019 Anti-Me Too movie won multiple highly prestigious awards amid 3 new (child) rape allegations! Yes, he is about to get a new film funded despite new rape charges and public protest. An Officer and a Spy is in itself a good adaptation of the historic Dreyfus Affair but Roman Polanski being the 21st century Dreyfus is quite the take. Giving it a 7/10 on IMDB fucking hurt as it is one of the most amoral films in years considering the circumstances. At least he never got any of my money.
So yeah. Cancel Culture continues being an Alt-Right/Right-Wing boogeyman. It's about as real as Bigfoot.

PS: Bill Cosby still has an official Twitter account. It´s currently blasting back against a newly filed drug/rape lawsuit. On the day it was publically announced too. Sorry Bigfoot. You might be more real than Cancel Culture.

Last edited by residentgrigo at 3:25 pm, Oct 18 2021

________________
I also read EU/US comics and am a librarian.
Manga-Masters, My ANN-Lists + Imdb

It comes to individual. but for me myself, it should not matter (in that I can still enjoy their work) because think of it this way: they have their work supervised by editor and other people as well. If I were to reject an artist work because of his behavior, it's like I put others who also work on said product in same bracket as the actual guilty ones, and it doesn't feel fair.

Anyway, this might not be directly related to the poll, but somehow Mangaplus is still showing Rurouni Kenshin (depspite Watsuki's case being frequently cited in this discussion) while they rooted out Act Age completely. which is a curious case.

I mean, it empirically does affect how I interact with those works--I still enjoy the original Rurouni Kenshin, for instance, but I haven't been able to stomach the Hokkaido Arc since Watsuki came back to manga. And if, as the worst possible example, we found out that Oda was a child molestor, I might not even be able to quit One Piece cold turkey before it ends, but I'd certainly stop recommending it to people in the hope that Oda earns less money as a result.

However, I took this question to mean "from the perspective of an art critic" and answered No. When evaluating art itself, you should be attempting to do so objectively. Certainly, Watsuki's... proclivities... didn't factor into Kenshin at all, and as a result, it'd be highly disingenuous to say "this is a worse manga now than it was before". However, you can still say "don't buy volumes of the manga because doing so gives money to child sex trafficking".

Couple of things. First, turn off the news; even the FBI admits that nothing happened on January 6 beyond protesting. Second, if you don't like the guy, then just ignore him and treat him with apathy. Silence and indifference is the worst marketing a company can ask for.

Personally, I haven't liked the John Wick films myself beyond the first, so, as much as I like Gibson's films, I don't plan on watching it.

________________

This is a hard question. I know a few mangaka which I respected turns out to have "scandal" (sexual assault, child pornography). I still love their works too.

But I also know some writers who often wrote about humanism, social justice, injustice, exploitation, tolerance, etc turns out to made some big blunders in reality. These blunders was the opposite of what they wrote in their works. This honestly made me change my perception of them and their works.

For this poll, I decided to be absent, since I couldn't decide one of them.. I think it depends on what kind of blunders they made, what kind of works they wrote, etc.

well on one hand if you already have smth of them and you like what they did, then its fine to separate it. But if one knows about their bad doings then i believe we should not support them by buying their stuff. Like you know their art is good, but i would not want to help them by consuming what they sell, but again, if i already have something of them, then well, its already mine, so.

Recognizing they make good things is one thing, but supporting them by buying their stuff is another

________________
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

On this subject what are people's thoughts on Thomas Mallory and Le Mort D'Art?

________________
http://fightingdreamersscanlations.wordpress.com/

https://infogalactic.com/info/Thomas_Malory

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

________________

No, the key to art is how it affects those experiencing it so it's separate from the artist.

I've never even thought of art being "an expression of the individual." It's a commercial piece made to entertain an audience and make money from them, so I'm pretty sure it's an expression of the artist's work personality and not their actual personality. And even if this were the case, who cares? I'm here to enjoy art/fiction/music, not to morally judge the creator. If they committed crimes they'll be punished for it, provided they're caught and convicted. If whatever they created is great, I'll still enjoy it regardless.

Also, the irony in the first option is that in the case of a criminal artist who hasn't got exposed, people will continue to praise their creations, possibly while condemning a similar work by someone who did get caught committing a relatively minor crime.

I don't think people really got ticked off, but people disliking it made one side to claim it was because they got ticked off, and as I said I got no problem with edgy, but if you're doing a comedic special be funny when you're doing it, as you say it's a shtick and it seemed poorly written (or acted) when I watched the special.

Give how they Netflix is losing creators and having their staff walking out of their offices over this, stating that they're "ticked off" is putting it mildly. Let me ask again, what did he actually say? If it was just an unfunny joke, alright, move on and don't pay attention to the guy anymore. However, the way that people are treating makes my think he got up on stage dressed as Hitler, started shouting "Gas the Jews", and turned the entire thing into an unironic political rally for the Fourth Reich.

Wait a second, Monty Python already did that 50 years ago. NEVER MIND!

________________