The Art versus The Artist

There is no ethical consumption. Just enjoy yourself.

The problem I see with that thinking is that there are different levels of what can be considered unethical, but it usually gives the idea of "since it's all unethical, it's all the same". For example, buying something from a smaller company is usually much better than from a big one that uses slave labor.
so how much Bitcoin do you spend per year on child prostitutes?

This is why AI-created content will win the day. No complicated moral or ethical quandaries to navigate. Oh, except electricity usage. And copyright issues. And diminishing the value of human art and artists. And the possibility of skynet ending humanity.

Looks like it’s back to scratching rough drawings into the dirt for me…

And AI invariably becomes bigoted as it is based upon human failings.
- But more easily correctable than a human too

My problem with this is that the vast majority of times. Works of art are not the works of a singular person. However, because a single bad person was in it or involved in its production. Some people view viewing that work work as supporting that bad person. For example: how many people worked on the movie space jam? I try to avoid things produced by bad people as much as possible, but you also have to look at the scope of the works involved. If the studio itself was involved in such an incident. That would be enough to justify boycotting the entire studio. If it was a singular person, then I expect that person to no longer be allowed in future works, but not a call for the the total avoidance of current and past works.

Shouldn't Space Jam get tossed in the R Kelly panel?

I can't let this fly.

Also Michael Jordan was apparently a real asshole.
- Being an asshole isn't enough, you just need to not be a rapist or rape supporter.
  Fun fact btw: Michael Jordan's father admitted to raping Michael's sister repeatedly.
  The father Michael called "his rock" after his death.
  So, you know. Close enough, even if other allegations aren't true.
Either that or the Bill Murray panel cause he's in it too.
I believe it can fly. I believe it can touch the sky.

Is Weird Al the only acceptable musician?

I've only heard good things about Dolly Parton
No, you can still listen to Bathory as well.
I think he and Tom Hanks started a cult ...

I've been watching James May's travel and cooking shows. Haven't heard anything terrible about him, other than being Brtsh.

Anyone who can stand being in the same room as Clarkson for 45 minutes must be a wrong'un.
- Can't agree there. I've had plenty of coworkers who were worse than Clarkson. Hell, I have family members worse than him.
  By that logic, I'd be a far worse person than James May. Which I might be, but that's beside the point.
- Look at it from another perspective: Anyone who had to spend as much time with Clarkson as him has a 5 star room reserved in heaven with a free buffet and open bar.
James May is the only decent person on TV. I will fight anyone who says otherwise
- In my mind, he's in the same category as Bob Ross, Alex Trebek, and folks like that
- I say otherwise: there is at least one other decent person on TV.
Hey Bim, guess what!

some say it's statutory i say it's mandatory

Actual line from Kid Rock's contribution to Space Jam sound track.

Yes, we should just burn Hollywood and stop lionizing the rich and famous.

Agreed we should burn hollywood and stop lionizing the rich and famous, but it has nothing to do with song lyrics. Go back to the 90's and clutch pearls with the PMRC.
- Why don't you have a seat over there.
  This is Kid Rock. His song lyrics don't exist in a vacuum. We know what he's about.

Are they getting money from you watching or listening to it? If not, don't worry about it.

Related thought: when does it come back to being ethical consumption? I haven't checked but I would bet a range of historical artists and musicians were also real dicks. But obviously we dont care much about that, the art has successfully detached from the artist. Or better, the artist has detached from his misdeeds.

What do you suppose is the timeframe for that?

At least long enough that you're not giving money directly to the person who did the bad thing.
Definitely once it's in the public domain, or for all the people impacted to be dead.
There's also a timeframe over which we can recognize that there has been sufficient drift in morality that we can overlook some things.
By the standards of his era, it was not okay for Roman Polanski to drug and rape a 13 year old.
There are certainly artists that had wives that, by modern standards, were disgustingly young but contemporary standards found unremarkable. Easier to fault the standards than a person who was perfectly normal for the time.
- This, but also people who insist an artists' actions can simply be separated from their art love to ignore the sheer discomfort some of us actually get from seeing or hearing rapists and abusers and their work.
  Consuming their media isn't isn't just about funding them, it's also about supporting not only their existence in our media, but their glorification by that media that in many cases enabled the abuse in the first place (putting people on a pedestal and beyond reproach never ends well).

No way! I'm not falling in love with them just to find out in ten years that they're assholes too!
- They probably made an off color joke on Twitter ten years ago. Can't take the chance.
- Quite the nihilistic approach
Omeleto ?
Like this but japanese ?
There's no reason to assume they're any less awful than the non-indie film makers. They're just less well known.
I had no idea Omeleto existed. Looks like I've got a few weekends of watching their vids ahead of me!

I'm an asshole sometimes so I throw anything I make in the trash

Tom Hanks movies are still safe, right?

He once smiled at the cashier when getting groceries, but it was only a polite smile.
Pretty sure that's the worst he's ever done.
That and Keanu movies.
Including the kitten one.
Back when people were dunking on Bieber, he happily banded on the hate train which always sat wrong with me.
He acted with Tim Allen in the Toy Story movies. Better steer clear just in case.

Do it, fuck 'em. There are lots of other artists waiting to be seen.

Do you know H.P. Lovecraft was a nazi? I was kindof devistated when I found out.

To clarify, he was absolutely racist with really reactionary views. He wasn't a Nazi.
I'm not defending him, but I also think it's worth being clear about who was and wasn't a Nazi when discussing those alive during the Nazi Party.
For anyone curious, this letter (sorry for linking that site on lemmy, best source i could find) has him discussing Hitler in 1933. It's far more positive than I'd ever defend, but it's also pretty clear he's not a Nazi. He saw Nazism as the lesser of two evils compared to Bolshevism. I think that's a fucking bad take, but I don't think someone who says
"Still—don’t get my wrong. I’m not saying that Schön[e] Adolf is anything more than a lesser evil... When the Germans can get another leader, & emerge from the present period of arbitrary fanaticism, his usefulness will be over."
is a Nazi. He was just a good ol' New England reactionary racist.
This video essay also has some really great insight into discussing the reactionary nature of Lovecraft from a leftist standpoint while still recognizing his literary contributions.
- One eery thing though is that in one of his books he described police placing "fish people" into concentration camps, this being right before the Holocaust.
  Obviously racists will come up with similar end goals, and it's not like concentration camps didn't exist before, but it's still feels like a bizarre coincidence.

I've gone through my music collection and tossed everything that's not by a creep.

All I have left is Kenny G and the Insane Clown Posse (separate, not a collab album).

If the artist earns money in any way from your support, then yeah, you're enabling their behavior. If you condemn Rowling for transphobia but keep buying official Harry Potter shit, then you're telling her that her transphobia isn't really a problem to you. If you are pretty sure that Brian Warner has sexually assaulted multiple intimate partners, but you still buy albums and go to concerts, you're saying that you relaly don't think that's as important as you getting to enjoy his music.

You can draw your own lines. What bad behavior do you not condone, but isn't bad enough to prevent you from handing them your money?

Once they're dead, whatever; you're no longer supporting 'em, so it's not a problem.

As for art being collaborative - sure. But. You're still supporting the bad behavior. The people that were getting an hourly wage for working on a film, etc., already got paid, long before you forked over your cash for a ticket. The people that are going to lose money are the producers. And maybe, just maybe, if they keep losing money whenever they have a particular star in their films--like, say, Amber Heard, or Jared Leto--then maybe, just maybe, they'll stop casting those people.