So many people so incapable of separating art from artist. Tons of artists are horrible people whom no one should interact with. If we can only care about the art of flawless people who have all the right beliefs and acceptable thoughts on all topics then we might as well start burning all of the books and movies now.

"That's not the socially accepted thing to say right now! You're supposed to say 'Fuck Harry Potter anyway!' to signal that you're a good person. Anyone who doesn't follow the herd to show their virtue must be a bad person. I will down vote you! You are bad! Down voting you will show the rest of the herd that I am good."

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 39 minutes ago (1 children)

This isn't art, this is consumerism.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 0 points 34 minutes ago* (last edited 34 minutes ago)

Art is in the eye of the beholder. You don't need to see a thing as art for others to see it so. A perfectly prepared tax form can be seen as art, and it doesn't require you to agree to that.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 2 points 44 minutes ago (1 children)

I'm willing to separate the art from the artist after the artist is deceased and can't cause more damage. I'm not willing to divorce the two while the artist is still alive and making money off their art while making the world around them a worse place.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 1 points 37 minutes ago (1 children)

With just the cases of the loudly vocal asshat artists, or do you unlike the bulk of people actually take the time to try to ensure you're not financially supporting anyone who holds such awful beliefs?

That's the difference between something that truly matters to you and something you only care about on the surface. If something truly and deeply matters to you, then it is worth changing your life and behavior for.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 1 points 20 minutes ago

I admit that I no longer keep track as I used to thirty years ago. Unfortunately, the information burden has gotten to be just too much, so I admit that said information does have to bubble to the surface in some venue more widely distributed than the author's social media account before I notice it.

Thing is, though, 70% of the people boycotting the most visible 30%—even 20%—of the artists who express bigoted sentiments is likely to be more useful in curbing the expression of those sentiments than 5% of the people boycotting 100% of them. It's a much clearer indicator to other artists that no, this crap isn't acceptable.

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Oh come on. That's so dishonest and disgusting to continue to spread that distorted lukewarm rhetoric. She's a literal billionaire, actively personally platforming anti trans rights and condoning hate and violence.

This is so far past separating art from artists even several years ago and you know it.

She hates trans people so much that she's making life worse for cis people and women, too. I would call her a politician, but she's a billionaire using that money to put up ads, start programs, spread misinformation on a global scale, and has ties to Epstein and Israel.

She's literally an evil person and supporting her is morally indefensible.

So get the fuck up out of here with that "so many people are INCAPABLE of being rational" bullshit. That's inflammatory nonsense rhetoric. Before you next time, do any level of research on the topic other than suckling on jkr's twisted pr posts directly and then coming on here and repeating a shitty right wing political talking points.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 0 points 48 minutes ago

I never said anyone is incapable of being rational, but you definitely seem on the border of that. I have no idea what most of your babbling is about. I don't spend my time on social media, I don't believe I've ever read any post on anything from JK Rowling, Vans definitely not loads of right-wing talking points.

You seem so full of hate and eagerness to show what a great person you are and fight the evil demons who must be anyone who doesn't agree with you that in your head your warp anyone who isn't a fan of the loud endless virtue signaling into the antilove child of Charlie Kirk and Hitler.

I don't give a single fuck about JK Rowling. I've never said I'd do. I don't support her as a person. If she catches on fire right now I wouldn't mind.

Perhaps you should take some time to look into literary and artistic history. See how many great artists and authors were completely horrible people. I'm absolutely capable of enjoying a form of art without the artist having to have been a wonderful person. A painter can be a complete sack of shit, but if they painted a beautiful sunrise that looking at makes my day better I'm not going to start hating that thing. I'm sorry that you're so caught up on hatred and anger that you're unable to appreciate the simple fact that even awful people can create beautiful things, and insist on hating those things as well. Seems like a sad way to go through life.

[–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Are you sure you're separating the art from the artist correctly if you believe buying these doughnuts is appreciating the art and not enriching the artist?

[+] Abyssian@lemmy.world -6 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (3 children)

Yes. You can absolutely hate a person and still have an appreciation for art that person has created. The angst about JK Rowling in particular is an easy public performance. It requires no real effort to say "Yes, I hate her too, she bad!"

On the other hand it takes an awful lot of effort to research everyone involved with all of the media you consume to make sure you're not enriching anyone who holds similar views. So you almost certainly don't put in effort to make sure you don't enrich anyone with shitty views, because it's not something you genuinely care deeply enough about for it to be worth changing your life and habits and putting in so much work. You just want to be able to say "See, I'm one of the good ones and fuck the bad ones."

That's the difference between separating an artist from their art and performative virtue signaling. I have no problem supporting art that I genuinely love that isn't made by flawless, divine beings. If I find out the people are shit I'm willing to accept that and not like the person, but that doesn't change my enjoyment of the art itself. The art is not the person.

If I take my car to a mechanic who does a wonderful job fixing it up and the car now runs like a dream come true, and then I find out he stabbed someone once, I'm not going to suddenly start hating what a good job he did professionally. That was still a good job. Me appreciating that isn't condoning or supporting stabbing folk. I won't feel the need to loudly proclaim that he's awful and I hate that I went to him and I'd take it all back to show you and other people what a goody good person I am. Because I don't care what you think. You're irrelevant. I'm absolutely fine with idiots thinking I'm a dick. I'm an honest one. Most of you are full of shit and putting on social theater. I find that far more disgusting than being an honest dick.

[–] StillAlive@piefed.world 1 points 54 minutes ago (1 children)

Holy slopGPT

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 0 points 46 minutes ago* (last edited 45 minutes ago)

It's so heartbreakingly sad to see how many stupid children see someone taking the time to actually respond with more than one or two badly written sentences and decide that must be AI.

[–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

That's a lot of words to avoid explaining how buying these doughnuts is appreciating the art and not enriching the artist, and how separating the artist from the art applies here.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world -2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I'm sorry that words are difficult for you.

[–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately your problem is that I understood your words too well. How else would I be able to tell that you didn't respond to what I said at all? If I had a poor understanding of words, I'd see all your big words and how many of them there were and think "Wow, this guy must eb correct".

So, since you were the one to fail to respond to what was asked in the first place, the question is which words I used were so incomprehensible that you ended up spending 20 minutes typing up something that didn't apply? Was it "correctly"? Maybe "doughnuts" since it's spelled in a regional way?

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world -1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

The bulk of the words were pointing out that a part of being able to separate an artist from their art is not caring if enjoying their art led to a financial benefit for the person you dislike. I enjoy some music made by serial adulterers. I've enjoyed movies that include actors who are generally known to be complete pieces of shit to most humans they interact with. I'm not researching everything about the lives and views of everyone involved with every piece of media I enjoy. And it's very possible for awful people to make wonderful things. I'm not going to stop enjoying those things because of that, even if I strongly dislike the artist as a person.

tl;dr: I don't fucking care if she gets a penny because I buy a dozen donuts. She has a mountain of money. You're not financially harming a billionaire by not eating a donut.

[–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

The question was about how you see buying these doughnuts as appreciating the art more than supporting the artist, not how much you care about giving the artist a penny.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 21 minutes ago)

If you enjoy the art, which in this case would be Harry Potter, then how buying Harry Potter collaboration donuts is appreciating that art should be self evident. Just like how folk who enjoy Transformers might buy Transformers toys or cookies.

That's the entire point of marketing collaborations. Getting folk who like one thing to buy something else that thing is doing a collaboration with. When it's a collaboration with a popular form of artistic media it's being done to get folk who appreciate said media to but said collaboration product. In this case donuts.

It's not Tim Hortons doing a JK Rowling or Emma Watson collaboration, or that is what they would be advertising and the campaign and product would reflect that. The entire thing is talking about the artistic media, not any individual real human person.

[–] SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

So many words, and nothing of value.

JK Rowling has, in the course of her transphobia arc, engaged in Holocaust revisionism, sexual harassment, and overt racism.

You can't separate shit from fuck, when the money you're throwing around is directly being used to harm others.

Read another fucking book, you sheltered little loser

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world -4 points 8 hours ago

Lazy copy/paste:

I find it ironic that the people supposedly doing good by hating her are the ones in here spitting bile at others. Not even others who say a single good word about the woman. I’d say you’re acting like awful people, but I don’t think you’re acting. That’s likely why you need to virtue signal so hard.

[–] vinceman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Lmao JK Rowling actively funds queer hate groups and this directly puts money in her wallet. Maybe save separating the art from the artist when their dead and their families aren't using the money to put fascists all over the world in power.

[+] Abyssian@lemmy.world -12 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (4 children)

I'm sure many artists and actors in things you financially support hold the same views and make similar donations, and that you don't bother to dig deeply into every one of them to be sure they don't. You're only bothering to hate on the one who's loudest and easiest to single out. It's not you standing for anything other than jumping on the bandwagon. Performative virtue signaling so everyone sees how much you care and how good a person you are.

[–] Akuchimoya@startrek.website 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

You're just telling on yourself that you just don't care where your money goes. And, you know what, that's your call to make. But what I don't understand is why bother attacking people who choose differently than you? Why do you care what random internet people you don't even know think of you? Who would even know how you choose to spend your dollars if you didn't say anything?

If you don't care where your dollars go, just own it. "I've got too many other more immediate things in my life to worry about." Okay, then. Fine. Just own it, and stop being so insecure about it. If you're right, then you're right.

"You're not perfect, so don't even try" is an incredibly childish and immature stance to take. That's like saying no one should ever try or learn anything new because they're not masters of it immediately. I mean, if that's the attitude you have, why should you even bother anything ever? What is the point of your life if you're not the best or perfect at everything? You may as well just go and die already.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world -1 points 56 minutes ago

I'm not saying that if a thing isn't perfect you shouldn't bother to try. I'm saying that you are not bothering to try. You're putting on a big show protesting the one person you can easily see as a problem. You're not taking the time to research the people involved in other ways you spend money. You're not taking the time to change your life and behaviors. You don't really care. You're just performing for the crowd to show what a good person you are.

Congratulations. You are a wonderful person for now disliking Harry Potter. You can wear the good person hat. It will let everyone know how good and caring you are, and you can carry on living your life and spending your money blindly and not bothering to change anything else about your behavior even though lots of the money you spend every day could be going to hate groups and paying to disenfranchise and harm others. Who cares, it's not worth the time and effort to genuinely do that, you already have your nice hat. Enjoy it. You deserve it. You're one of the good ones.

[–] vinceman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Like what? Since you know so much about me after all, you must be able to name one thing I would support. Unlike you, who is actually defending a known pos. But nah, you know everything, right?

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world -3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Of course I'm not some crazed stalker of you in particular. But as a human being who consumes books, music, TV shows, and movies, given the current large cultural rift and your deep, genuine values I'm sure your detailed research into everyone involved with all media you consume has led to you finding loads of people with awful personal beliefs who aren't often featured in big flashy news articles.

If you're not simply virtue signaling I'm sure it would be very simple for you to whip out a few dozen of those names to help everyone know more awful people who we should be sure to ensure we're not financially supporting with our media consumption habits.

Also... no, dear. I never said anything good about JK Rowling. She's a sack of shit. Loads of artists are horrible people. It's nothing new. If you watch a thing and enjoy it and then find out one of it's creators is a sack of shit do you instantly hate that thing you'd just been enjoying? Retroactively change your opinion on the art itself? It's performative. That's all it is. And it's becoming tiresome as hell.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 hours ago

It's either all or nothing. Anyone who imperfectly tries to make the world a better place is just virtue signaling.

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Exactly. You can love harry potter without liking JK in the slightest, there are two different things. And you don't get to ruin other people's enjoyment of a franchise just because you're having a fight with the author. The whole thing is kind of silly

[–] vinceman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

The second you are promoting it is where the problem lies, like how can you not see that? And how the fuck is it ruining if I simply point out she's a huge hateful piece of shit? If that makes it tough to enjoy, boo fucking hoo, you have morals at odds with your wants, find a way to deal with it.

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -4 points 6 hours ago

I hate to break it to you but it's stunning number of authors and directors and actors are huge pieces of shit. They're not promoting her they're promoting the work.

By most accounts Martin Luther King was a terrible person but you can still appreciate the message he had with regards to race and still think his speech was incredible

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world -1 points 8 hours ago

I find it ironic that the people supposedly doing good by hating her are the ones in here spitting bile at others. Not even others who say a single good word about the woman. I'd say you're acting like awful people, but I don't think you're acting. That's likely why you need to virtue signal so hard.