You're arguing about brand recognition, not separating the art from the artist. This is a consumerism campaign to tie a commercial product to another business brand, not an artistic endeavour to encourage or appreciate the books directly as if it's a public reading or a themed event. Nobody had an issue with the fan-generated gathering at King's Crossing Station a few years ago for the anniversary of the books.

So how does buying these doughnuts show an appreciation for the art more than it enriches the artist? This is what needs to be explained since you believe the concept of separating the art from the artist apparently is the concept at play here.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

How does buying merchandise featuring art that you enjoy show appreciation for the art more than it enriches the artist? Is that a real question you have?

When you see someone purchasing something The Wizard of Oz themed is your first thought that this person must like the work of art "The Wizard of Oz", or that this person loves the person Frank Baum and supports the hellish conditions the director and studio executives of the 1939 film put Judy Garland through as a child?

When you see someone in a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory costume or shirt or watching one of the movies is your first thought that this person likes the work of art "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", or is it that this person loves Ronald Dahl, who was a terrible racist/sexist/jackass?

When someone says they like Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Platoon, Young Guns, Major League, or Disney's The Three Musketeers, do you think that person enjoys whichever movie it is for the movie itself, or do you get upset thinking they're condoning and supporting Charlie Sheen personally despite the many sexual assaults he paid settlements on to keep from going to trial, his rampant drug abuse, and all of his other awful behaviors?

Maybe that's stretching things too far for you. Since this is a specific instance of a marketing campaign involving a fast food chain collaborating with an artistic media property: When you see that McDonalds is running an ad campaign for the latest Batman movie do you think the folk that go to the McDonalds either because it's where they were going to eat anyway or for some to specifically get that new BatBurger or Batman logo drink cup are doing it because those folk like Batman, the artistic property, it's concept, character, etc, or do you instantly think that those people are all supporting and enriching the company who helped deny Bill Finger any credit or financial dues as Batman's co-creator until well after his death?

It shouldn't even be a question. Any normal human being is going to see someone purchasing a product depicting a form of artistic media and assume that person is a fan of said media. The author, or director, or publishing company of said media and any of their personal assholeries or scandals won't even cross most people's minds. Because it's not a JK Rowling collaboration selling donuts with her face and personal bigoted quotes on them. It's a Harry Potter collaboration. Like every single bit of the advertising, images, and products show.

I imagine you never consider Bill Finger or any awful things relating to Batman at all. Most people wouldn't. Because they see a Batman logo and think of the Batman artistic media properties, not the people directly involved behind the scenes with the creation of those media properties. And you don't bother to research deeply into the the people behind the scenes for the media you do purchase and consume even though you are directly supporting those people financially. Because that would take genuinely caring enough to change your behaviors and put in a lot of effort. Instead you see what person/media/company it's fashionable and 'virtuous' to hate at the moment and you hate on that and anyone who doesn't put on that act to show what a good person they are. Because that's easy, a socially acceptable way to feel like you're doing something good without doing anything at all, and it gives you a socially condoned target to spit hate and bile at. Because most people feel good venting hate on something when they feel they're justified for doing it.

[–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

No, the question was always if you're sure you're applying separating the art from the artist properly. Not anyone else who just go in and eat a doughnut because they like Harry Potter and they like doughnuts so why not. That makes sense, that's what normal human beings do. What they don't do is start justigying their description as an ability to separate art from the artist.

I'm wondering why you saw people who oppose this because they hate JK Rowling and any opportunities where she generates revenue and decided this was a case of an inability to separate art from artist, as if Harry Potter was a doughnut flavour and not a book series. This is why I keep asking you to explain how buying these doughnuts is closer to showing appreciation for the art than it is enriching the artist since you are operating on the belief that rejecting this marketing opportunity means rejecting the art.

The more you keep insisting that all hate for JK Rowling is performative virtue signaling, the less I'm convinced you've actually thought any of this through. How do you figure nobody could actually hate JK Rowling specifically if they don't go around finding reasons to hate any and all artists? Do you go around telling people who say they hate broccoli they are performativity virtue signaling because they'll eat lettuce without considering it shares vitamins and nutrients with broccoli too?

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

This is why I keep asking you to explain how buying these doughnuts is closer to showing appreciation for the art than it is enriching the artist since you are operating on the belief that rejecting this marketing opportunity means rejecting the art.

No I don't. That's senseless. People who like Harry Potter will buy them. It's a Harry Potter Promotion. It's not a JK Rowling promotion. It's not there to celebrate the personality and world views of JK Rowling.

Horrible people can make wonderful art. The vast majority of people online bitching about Harry Potter now having to be hated are doing it performatively. You don't genuinely change your lives. You don't genuinely research every artist, author, actor, etc behind the media you purchase and consume. That would take genuine care. It would have to be a true belief that mattered to you. But it isn't. You don't have a genuine personal conviction to make sure you're not financially contributing to people who hold abhorrent beliefs. You only care to bitch about the loud, obvious, socially accepted target and anyone who isn't doing the same. Because it's easy and takes no real effort or life changes on your part.

That;'s why I say you're virtue signaling. Because it's what you're doing.

You: "That’s a lot of words to avoid explaining how buying these doughnuts is appreciating the art and not enriching the artist..."

I explain that I don't care about not enriching the artist and am fine with appreciating art though it does enrich an artist who's a twat.

You: "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."

I answer that.

You: "No, the question was always if you’re sure you’re applying separating the art from the artist properly."

All you do is constantly change wording and move goal posts. Am I sure I'm applying the concept of separating art from artist "properly"? Properly to whom? It's my life and my actions. I'm sticking to them universally. You don't apply yours universally. Because that would take effort instead of performative care.

I'll go ahead and block you now. I don't care to see your seventh revision of what the question really is. Good luck with your crusade against child wizards.