You can enjoy problematic art (or media) and problematic artists. The challenge is be honest with yourself and others and do not defend the problems or dismiss them.

This is one of those dilemmas that will never be satisfactorily resolved, but is really important to grapple with! Great discussion!

"You will think less of the art, when you know the artist." ~ George Bernard Shaw

This applies to everything, not just art. This applies to fim directors, chefs, newscasters, architects, high school teachers.... Would you eat at a restaurant owned by a man who beats his wife? Would you buy music from a rapper who said "slavery was not that bad"? Would you watch films from a director who sexually molested his daughter?

Good old rule a zoology teacher once told my class “Stop seeing the world as black or white. Everyone and everything lives in shades of grey. Accepting that will allow you to see the shadows of beauty and horrible that can exist side by side. An angel’s trumpet is a beautiful plant to see but ingesting one single flower will send you straight to the hospital. Such is the nature of life.” One is not necessarily bad if we appreciate good art by bad people as long as we acknowledge and abhor the bad things they did.

I think i'm most comfortable with the asterisk approach, because some artists who did horrible things were still influential and have to be part of the art story we tell. But I also tend not to idolize or revere artists, partially because that's not really my nature and partially because they are also whole complete people and not "good art" or "bad things" alone. I think work by people who do bad things should be accessible and the wholest truth about them should be available. But also, fuck Gauguin.

Have you ever found that you might dislike a piece of art but then discover that you really respect the artist when you find out more about their views and life?.

I thought of J.K. Rowling and it made me sad

HP Lovecraft super racist and antisemetic, but I really like that he was one of the fathers if not the father of cosmic horror/ cthulhu and friends. (Though I'm 90% sure his racism, antisemetism, and xenophobia played a huge role in inspiring his works)

Ghandi was a racist. Martin Luther King Jr. had multiple affairs. If we demand that every "problematic" person go away, the list of people we're allowed to admire is going to be very short indeed, especially if we judge historical figures by the morals of today.

Such a nice example of why ethics and aesthetics merge into each other. Thank you for all the wonderful work!

For me it's Bono. He's so very problematic on one level and I cannot accept how he is part of the problem in many ways, but I will never stop loving U2 and his power as a performer/singer/lyricist. Damn you, Bono. I won't be buying anything from him, but I can't just ignore the emotional landscapes he has painted for me.

Something I think about is how, say, smashing a DVD of Annie Hall doesn't really do anything, but boycotting a new Woody Allen movie might. That is to say, there's a big difference between personal consumption and institutional support when it comes to artists who do bad things. But, then again, the personal and the institutional are not always black and white.

"You can make quality art and do bad things. But you should know, there will be consequences when those bad things are revealed and that you'll lose the privilege of a less clouded reading of your work when that happens." This whole video is absolute gold.

This is the fourth video from this channel that I'm showing to my Intro to Art class. I tried as best as I could to provide a variety of sources, but these are providing EXACTLY what I need to talk about. They provide a great starting point of discussion. Thank you!

Hiyo Miazaki, the creator of studio ghibli, was not a very good father. He walked out of the premiere of his sons first directed film “Tales from Earthsea” and was just generally not supportive of his sons work. Despite this, millions of people, including myself, love and cherish his films as a part of their childhood. Learning this has not caused me to look at his films in a bad light.

I want to work in museums after graduation, and every time I have one of these "difficult art conversations" with family or friends, I refer them to this channel. Thank you guys for both dispelling the myths and engaging with the complexities of the capital-A Art World. I live for this channel!

I like Heidegger's philosophy, but he was a Nazi. I love Picasso's paintings, but he was a sexist. I really like Mayhem's music, but they were criminals. I think that when problematic artists make art we should firstly focus on the product, not the producer. We should also be aware of their misconduct, but isn't their misconduct a huge part of their influences that are being laid on tape/canvas/pages/film for us to enjoy? Plus, if you like their works, you just like their works, you're not their friends and you shouldn't be judged upon your aesthetic values, which are not the same with your moral values.

It's one thing to call out evil and it's another to understand it and realize it's potential is also in you.

Show me a person who isnt problematic at all...

If we only tell history of those who never did anything that caused outrage, human history can be summed up as follows, "___." If I ever become a famous artist put an asterisk beside my name with the footnote, "He was flawed, not as bad as some, worse than others, he corrected what he should, and reveled in the rest."

The KZfaq channel Mother's Basement also did a video on this that I think expands on this dilemma in different scopes and spheres of media. It's called Good Art by Bad People.

I don't think it's useful to hide the negative aspects of these creators. In my opinion I think it's more enlightening to understand the artist behind the art and that doesn't diminish depending on whether the person had positive or negative views. People are jaded, the world isn't black and white and it's artwork or creative endeavors in general which often reveal this. The fact that we can understand the negative aspects of an artist's personality is evidence to me that people are not going to be swayed or influenced into those same negative behaviors just by appreciating the artist's work. They may not be the best person in the world, but you can still see meaning or value in a piece of their work and that is because they are human. People will have their own views and beliefs before seeing an art piece which will determine how they see it. Artworks and the artists behind them can reveal a lot about history or just life from another perspective. Shunning that away would be immature and naive. They still exist either way. I think it's understanding these negatives and embracing that they simply exist is how we learn from it and avoid repeating these behaviors in the future.

If you start digging through anyone’s past, you’re going to find things you don’t like or agree with or are not acceptable today. You’re going to end up not being able to like anything made by anyone.

that was absolutely stunning in how you engage thought, always staying neutrally cheerful yet still adding that underlying tiny pinprick of irony. I fall more and more in love with this channel every day.

I was distracted by your Picassoesque stripey shirt! Yes, I know he was a misogynist, still I am attracted to the raw energy in some of his work. I recently had a show of my cancer paintings. Perhaps they would be rejected because of the subject matter. Instead the paintings opened a dialogue. People shared intimate stories. The paintings became more than pretty and acceptable. P.S. Most people might find things about my life questionable.

What's funny is this video completely dances around the real issue and just reinforces the problem. The question isn't "Should we separate the art from the artist" it's "How should we feel about people who did/said bad things?" Human beings are very sophisticated living creatures, that grow and evolve. No 2 people grow alike, and due to how many factors contribute to who a person becomes you can never predict what a person will be like. Because of this, it is very important to look at people subjectively. It's important to understand that while an individual may be problematic or imperfect, that doesn't mean they can't possitively contribute to society or general individuals in possitive ways. If we began cutting the possible influence away from people just because they do bad things, we would inevitably end up deplatforming everyone. Because a system in which you deplatform people like that will always lend itself to abuse. So what is the answer? The answer is to look at EVERYTHING a person does. Praise the good as well as condemning the bad. How is ANYONE to know what's acceptable if they are scolded for all they say and do? That, and don't be so full of yourself. Learn how to not lock yourself in a sociopolitical box. Learn to keep an open mind. Learn that your own feelings don't dictate the greater picture.

When did artists become role models? Throughout most of history they were just the servants of the rich and powerful. I suspect it's an idea that emerged in the 19th century along with that of the romantic genius. Since many artists actively opposed fascism in the 20th century (including Picasso) we seem to have come to expect a lot from them. Is it fair to hold them to a higher standard than everyone else?

This is excellent.

i saw the thumbnail and thought "ah they've seen nanette then"

talk all you want there is no way around it but when you appreciate the work it melts away

As part of my MA I wrote a presentation about the Eric Gill exhibition at Ditchling Museum in England. I think it's really important that you can enjoy a piece of art even if the creator was awful, but I also think it's important that the awfulness of the artist isn't hidden.

Thank you ! What a great video that reflects so much feeling in all aspects of all content that’s being made now and in the past , art, books, movies, TV shows, KZfaq ect . It takes a thoughtful person to view content from all aspects - for what the thing is on its own and the direct effect of the creator / actor that can alter someone’s feelings ( similar to how relationships evolve)

To me art is a personal experience. Looking at it, creating it, purchasing it, etc. I don’t have to follow the collective morality of what is “right” and what is “wrong”. I decide what resonates with me and I confront everything that comes with that. If an artist has done something hurtful in their lives I’ll acknowledge it, but it won’t necessarily change how much I appreciate their work. It’s like would you hate the meal of a master chef even if they were a complete asshole? No of course not, if the food’s good it’s good. I may feel upset that they chose foolish decisions in their life and it sucks to dim the light on someone that you want to admire in full. But part of that feeling I realize is narcissism. You just want to be able to prove to people that you only like the “best stuff”.. because it represents who you are to the world. But It’s not the case and it’s never the case. You’re more than your tastes.. you are more nuanced than that. Your actions speak louder than anything you like. I know many people interested in the lives of serial killers. Does that make them bad people? Absolutely not. it’s just a subject matter they have chose to take interest in. Until they actually do something bad will I judge them for it at all. And if we constantly dismiss artists who have done problematic things in the world we also close ourselves off from learning from them. We can’t keep pretending the world is some picture perfect place. All of us contain the capacity for good and evil.. it doesn’t matter who you are. It’s better that we acknowledge the ugly truth about some artists while recognizing the good they have done as well. That’s just my 2 cents. I have a lot more I could say, but I’ll leave it at that.

Well-written, well-spoken. Glad you guys tackled this issue, it's pertinent in this day and age.

I love that you included the footnote that we are actively supporting things in ways we don't even consider. As always, well thought out discussions with amazing research. Thank you.

I don't like the way how people abuse the good story or background of an artist to strengthen their art and completely ignore it when the artist has done something bad or in questionable circumstances. Of course it's up to you how you judge art and you probably doing exactly this subconsciously, but I see it in a lot of arguments about artworks and it bothers me. I know I am more on the "just the artwork" side, but the inconsistent way how artworks are highlighted is one of the reasons why people have so much trouble with discussing art. Great video, I love the careful look on our perception.

I like a lot of the points you make and I personally agree that art should be viewed separately but I also think educating is important. We also shouldn't separate what the artist has done and not highlight it when we're talking about it. I also won't hold it against someone if they don't want to support an artist for something they've done.

Content aside, I really love and appreciate the attention to repetitive horizontal lines in this video.

Finding out that a photographer sleeps with their models changes how I view the photo.

Thank you for this - you've been able to articulate some of the feelings I've struggled with a lot recently.

I've seen quite a few video on this subject and this was by far the most informative and insightful. Nice work!

Amazing video^^ I also feel that issue gets more complicated when the artist is alive. Because even if you decide to appreciate only the art and not the artist, you can't control how the artist might perceive that appreciation. If people flock to Woody Allen's movies, it is very plausible for him to think he has been forgiven.

I think the Wagner thing is a bit overwrought. I mean he’s actually blamed because Hitler enjoyed his music long after his death. (Very little he could do about that.) Also: Hitler liked vegetables, Snow White, dogs, hiking, painting, and probably sunsets. Shall we put those on trial also for the crime of being liked by a psycho?

Media and Social Media are playing a big role in this. I don't like this, it contributes to the continuous suffocation of any prominent art collective there is, like any artist is a saint...you can't expect that. We'll have to get used to problematic artists as they have been part and are still part of our society and are shaping it.

Earth without Art is just Eh

The Art Assignment, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ALL MY LIFE?! How am I just now finding this channel?! Excellent video on a really interesting topic. Nicely done.

I've been watching art assignment for last 5 days, i think I'm learning at least something about ART.

Yeah this is an incredible channel and I’m really grateful for all the work and thought that goes into it. For me, Hannah Gadsby shone light on several paths of thoughts that can be difficult to face, but ultimately I think it would be a disservice to turn a blind eye to them. You’ve helped me walk a little down one of those uncomfortable paths today, and offered a very considered take on it. Thanks!

Kanye West for me. Love his art and design work but I sometimes hate the things he says 🤦🏾‍♂️

Hum? I hear you! Most of the art I buy I am very concerned about the story of the artist - but because I am not rich it is easy for me - most of my art is from local and young artists - but come to think of it, we found out some troubling things about a local artist and used the artists painting to catch the dripping motor oils from under our our car in the garage! It was too painful to look at the art! Love these funky videos! Steve aka The Talking Fly...

Wrongdoings of the artist are just another context in which a piece should be considered. I don't think it has to ruin the art, but should be acknowledged as apart of it. This extra context might even make the piece more interesting and impactful. It's okay to appreciate that. It doesn't make you a bad person, as long as you aren't supporting the bad deeds themselves. I think this is especially true for dead people, since you aren't financially supporting them. It's like in history class, where you might study someone who you think had a super interesting life but was still an awful person. I think people just feel worse about this connection with art because it feels more intimate.

This is a hard topic, but one that deserves attention. As you said at the end, not only artists but scientists; do we have to forgive them for their black side just because they had a bright side? I mean, everyone has both sides, all of us have taken good and bad decistions, and we have affected possitively and negatively other people. I think we can forgive, but never forget some attitudes, sure, their art may be incredible, but that can't justify their actions. They can be judged and they should, because you've got that information.

basically almost every Abstract Expressionist really

Thank you for this. I have a feeling that this will never stop being a dilemma, in art and in the wider world, and I really appreciate your thoughtfulness on the matter.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged" "Let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone" Wise words. Be guided accordingly. By the way, if any of you "good folks" have a Picasso that you'd like to throw out, please give it to this poor sinner.

Arglglg, yeah, this is a tough one to grapple with. Especially since it's pretty much impossible to not find something unpleasant about everyone (including ourselves; we do all make mistakes, alas). I do like how you put it -- art has always been a participatory and interpretive medium, we are always part of the equation, and just as we find/create meaning (or not) in as well as pass judgement on the art we experience so too then must we with the artist. Artist intent, the artist's actions, and what the art is invoking, and what you see/feel in it are all important in the continual dance we have with the art itself. "The art should be viewed alone!" or "It should forever be rejected!" are extremes that serve neither the art nor ourselves well. We humans can be messy in many ways, so I guess it should be no surprise that our art, and relations to it and the messy humans who made it, can be delightfully messy as well. Which, in a way, makes art all that much more special, doesn't it? If art is about evoking that which is the human spirit within us, then this just adds to it. As you note, the key is to engage with purpose. Very well put together and thought provoking episode! Also some lovely cats. :D

Do u own a pair of nikes or iPad because we all know there made in the best of conditions

I don't know, I guess the way I see it is, that art has it's own life and soul, separate from the artist. The artist being merely a conduit for art to express itself into existence.

This came into my recommended after watching surviving R Kelly.

I think this is a part of a broader question of human forgiveness and generosity even to those who don’t deserve it. It’s difficult, but I believe that we should strive to “hate the sin, not the sinner.” We’re all just people.

Yes, I can ignore the crap an artist does in order to enjoy his/her art. I think the only time it doesn't work is when the shitheadedness takes an actual part in the art itself. Then it gets really hard, and sometimes I can't.

I feel this problem when listening to the beatles, John lennon was an abusive husband who misstreeted his first wife, cheated on her and abandoned his enfant child, he also cheated on his second wife yoko, and was a very unstable guy, paul mccartney cheated on his girlfriend, George harrison cheated on his wife with ringo's wife, and all of them had some prety big problems with ideas of the 60's regarding gender role and drug use, so what i do is to think about all of this while listening to their music, think of them as flawed humans, they did some good and some bad, but they are fine artists, never ignore how messed up they were, but never deny the fact that their music is so great

For my fellow people in 2020: Makes me think about people who liked Shane Dawson documentaries and Jeffree Star makeup but feel like they can't "cancel" these artists because they want to enjoy those things. There are ways around not contributing to their wealth. Adblocking KZfaq videos and buying secondhand makeup (unopened if possible). Another option is alternative content/items. There are many smaller creators that make conspiracy theory videos. Look up the subjects you're interested in for alternative options, I can guarantee that they are there. As for makeup, it's even easier, there are many brands out there with just as pigmented and creamy formulas. Personally I enjoy NYX cosmetics, they are cheaper and have a great variety of colours. J* tried to cease and desist a "dupe" of his palette but in my opinion, dupes exist because you can't copyright colours.

This is interesting! As an artist that has recently taken up KZfaq, I'm trying to have a transparent and honest relationship with my audience, however, through the process of filming and editing, I am forging a, still developing, character of myself. It's a learning curve to see how how to be honest, yet still create interesting stories that people can learn from. Thoughts??

I personally actually like the art more if I know the person behind it was/is kinda twisted. The the crazy and troubled story behind it brings so many more layers to the art. And if you think about it, the most genius artists have always been insane

The gatekeepers in the art world, as well as other fields need to be held accountable too. Being subjected to the criticism of peers within the field who only respect optics and stature rather than moral integrity, talent and skill set. Needing to not only "go along to get along" but actively support your "betters" who behave badly in order to have your own work even looked at is soul crushing.

I don't think Pablo actually wanted to burn woman alive. He just wanted to forget the past and grow from it. It's similar to the mythology of the Phoenix.

I've had to learn how to separate the artist from the art, and its difficult because we tend to instinctively associate the two. But i'm glad I learned because it's given me the ability to 1) prevent myself from getting too attached, and 2) allowed me to focus on what the art says to me and how to look at it. Having a complex and bittersweet relationship with the art takes a lot of the "magic" out of it, but I prefer it most of the time because it keeps me from getting too distracted.

I doubt if there is a single person here who would give up their cellphone if they found out it was designed and manufactured by Jack the Ripper.

I appreciate the nuance that goes into this, frankly, endless discourse. One thing that still challenges me is that I’m staunchly against the view that the meaning of the art goes only as far as the author’s truth. However, I can’t help but question my own belief on that when I know how impactful it is on my reading to know that these things happen

I went to a comic convention in 1985 and 2 artists I admired were there. I arrived late and they had finished their talk and were leaving the stage. I asked one (only I was walking up to him) if he could sign a couple comics for me, and he waved me off saying maybe tomorrow. I explained I’d not be there tomorrow. He just walked away. The other artist (who later became way more famous) said sure. Sat on the edge of the stage and signed about 5 things I had. To this day I avoid work from the first artist and am gravitated to art/movies from the second one. I can’t seem to change this.

Personally, I think about this in relation to a Marxist complaint about the exploitation of workers: They make things, but the things they make aren't "their" creations. As a result, I try to consider how much of themselves the artist put into their works. How much of the work is essentially "from" them and are they things that are necessarily things that these specific artists need to be the makers of in order to be truly "effective"?

I’m a bipolar artist and an artist friend of mine kept encouraging me to be open about my illness. I’ve always taken art in without external context. I usually don’t title my pieces so as to allow the viewer to come to their own conclusion. But, he gives his works brilliant titles that make me appreciate his work more. Since coming out as an artist with bipolar I’ve had countless people tell me they have it as well, artist and non artist alike. That’s been an interesting journey. I too struggle with knowing disturbing things about any artist, musician, actor, etc. it’s like a gum ball machine, one ball is good and another bad and yes, I often wish I could put the cat back in the bag, and I love cats!!!

Interesting, I totally understand the dilemma. Recently i attended the Dali museum in Florida. I knew some about Dali but not a ton, he just seemed like a fun, quirky, artsy guy who created surrealistic paintings like melting clocks. However, after going to the museum and learning more, my view of him changed in a negative way. So initially I wanted a fun little melting clock souvenir. However, as I learned more I now don’t want to display anything from Dali in my home.

Another thing to consider is the impact of artist on other artist. I'm sure many newer comedians were highly influenced by Bill Cosby for example, comedians that hopefully don't have such terrible history and behaviors and are themselves generally good people. The impact of an artist on future artist can't be overlooked. How many "good" people did someone like Picasso inspire to pick up a brush? How many of those people who were influenced and inspired, in turn caused others to do the same? Who knows? The people influenced are just as much a legacy of an artist works as any work created. Can you separate the art from the artist? It's like a Zen Koan...Mu.

I should personally consider a work of art to be a separate entity from the author once it reaches a certain degree of maturity. It’s literally “brain child” that learns to walk and live independently of its creator. That way, we enjoy art without endorsing the values of the artist, yet by the same measure we can honour the artist by honouring his art

Wagner is a VERY controversial figure in the classical music world. I'm so glad you mentioned him

I found the point about how we excuse scientists who used unethical research practices, but not artists who did similar things, super fascinating. There are HEAPS of medical researchers, psychiatrists etc. who completely abused their test subjects’ basic rights, but of course, we still praise those researchers because their work led to significant and valid discoveries about the human condition.

If every artist had a purity test that must be passed for us to enjoy and get something from their work, we’d have no art to enjoy. Part of art is the ambiguous spaces that exist between the work, its creator, and the world that produced and is (in part) created by one another-that is where the discourse about those things happens that is the true value of creativity.

My mom used to refuse to listen to music or watch films with Frank Sinatra or Elizabeth Taylor (and others) because they married too often. I thought it was silly of her. Seems pretty mild compared to what we are hearing about today. If I refused to listen to music performed by drug addicts, or books written by alcoholics, much of the music I grew up with and many books I love, would be off limits. In general, I think artists who are passionate about their work are often passionate in their personal lives, and if they become famous, often go to extremes, because they think they can get away with it. I hadn’t heard those allegations about Chuck Close and admit I will think about those from now on when I see his work, but can’t deny I still admire his art. I have to remind myself that no one is perfect and decide whether or not to reject someone’s art, depending on what I believe to be the most offensive of behaviors.

Let's all say it together, "there is no such thing as ethical consumption in late-stage capitalism." Given the limits of our current social and economic structure, I think that keeping that awareness at the forefront of our thoughts when engaging in media or materal consumption, while trying our best to mitigate the harms that have been or may be done in the process, is the best we can do.

I'[m reminded of a one-man show Leonard Nimoy presented. He played Theo Van Gogh, Vincent's brother. An art dealer Theo was married and his wife didn't begrudge the money Theo sent to support Vincent. The play takes place shortly after Vincent's burial where Theo was so overcome by emotion he couldn't speak. When he learns that Paul Gaugain has been besmirching Vincent's memory Theo "hires a hall" and invites anyone who will listen to him talk about his brother's life. Theo paints a picture of Vincent: Vincent the failed missionary to the poor, Vincent the artist hungering for and terrrified of success, Vincenta the unhappy and unfulfilled lover. Theo asks, "what do you want from your artists? They create art to decorate your homes. Must they also go to your tailor?"

Don’t have impossible expectations and you can’t be disappointed

THANKS for THIS! This is obviously a very difficult topic but your insights here are very well stated... We definitely should NOT damn all art into oblivion just because the artist was not a very good person... but its really important to try to take as much of the truth of the sordid past into account while also trying to enjoy the work on its own merits... Awesome Work!

Very well done. I'm glad you had that line about scientific knowledge in there too. It highlights the connection between the knowledge created by the arts and ethics. I wonder how formalists theorists would respond who don't find value in artistic narrative and can't logically make that connection between the creation of aesthetic value and ethics. In the case of deceased artists I personally think the astrix approach is important because the study of art is so closely linked to our human narrative and the fact that certain cultures worshipped a horrible human being who made beautiful art is part of that narrative. The way a culture respons to a cat being let out of the bag is part of the context in which the art was produced. We just need to make sure art historians in 500 years don't identify a pattern of worship for the odious in us. Thank you.

There has been many times where I give up my support of an artist because of their actions and/or beliefs. Usually, once the artist has passed away, I can appreciate their art despite the artist behind it. However when the artist is still alive and making art, I feel guilty for enjoying their works because that could be perceived as supporting the not-so-moral artist.

Not to excuse anyone, but it is good to remember that artists, writers and poets are no less immune from the conventions and philosophies of their own times. I have often found their "character" and "inspirations" were brought on by what was going on around them, meaning, they were quite often "damaged" people who had experienced things that most of us will never have to endure. If I went the route of boycotting their works, then I would have to give up such experiences as those afforded by Celine, Hemingway, Bukowski, Orwell, Schiele, Munch, Pollock, etc., etc. ad nauseum. No, I don't have to like everything they did, but I can admire that part of their psyche that found such beauty and joy as I could not discover on my own. Lastly, e.g., you mention Picasso, well, you have to remember the rising fascism of his time, the philosophy of machismo, the way everyone treated women in his era and the stress of his experimentation along with many other factors. Was he a misogynist? At times a coward? A rake and at time a cad? Yes, he was those things at different times. However, the softness of his Rose and Blue periods proves to me there was some what of a loving romantic mixed in as well. I think we should save the harsh boycotting stuff for painters like John Wayne Gacy..................................

What I learned from this video is that the only "good human" is a cat. Preferably the one in the paper bag. Awww. I stopped listening after that. Does that make me a bad human?

This definitely reminds me of a conundrum that popped up a short while back on tumblr specifically, where people werent sure how to handle people and content creators they used to love, turning out to have done bad/questionable things. And especially some cases where there were known artists on tumblr who got big backlash over things like transphobic depictions of characters, blatant trans exclusionary rhetoric, and a case or two of not knowing how to draw PoC, and thus coming off as very white washey. Now some of those artists can be more forgivable than others, but context definitely matters, and maybe each of those cases you'd unfollow, block, possibly even report the blogger, because of their actions, and I can definitely agree with that action. But if you love the art, and want to find ways of either reclaiming it, or sharing it, taking inspiration from it, while still keeping the artists themselves at an arms length, that's all fair. A lot of it depends on personal experience, and what your boundaries are on how bad something is. A lot of people can really learn how to be thoughtful consumers, and decide how they want to consume things, while still being mindful of the context they're created.

I love art, I hate talkative critics

As an artist, im finding it difficult to separate the artist with their art, any art, music photography. Anytime I find out something horrible or whatever, about my favourite artists, i literally get cross and a bit overwhelmed. My art therapist is helping me through this. I never realized how difficult it is. That old saying "never meet your idols" i remember meeting a comic book artist i really liked and when talking with him he was really disgruntled and nasty. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Year later, maybe two years later, I went to talk with the same artist and he still was a nasty, pretentious f@!#!😅 Seriously. I stopped buying his books and never look at his art anymore. Same with music. I used to love led Zeppelin, then after finding out about jimmy page stealing music and being a pedo.. dating a groupie 13-14 years old..i was the hell with him and his band/music....like bloody hell man.. you can date any woman, why a teen.

Damn woman, this was well said 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

The artist does not own his or her art, he or she is but the projector of an idea that inhabits object reality. It is also a conversation on the subjective picture of an objective reality. And if we got rid of every artist whose don’t something or said something offensive we would have no art.

the best is to publish anonymously, not that I support offensive artists, but often a piece of art whether it's a movie album painting or a book is holding the artist's brand. art becomes a like any product, you buy it just because someone famous made it regardless of its value or artistry.

"Not knowing anything about them" while zooming in on legendary composer Philip Glass's face. Then says that this is strange when it is a famous person after switching to another famous person.

To attempt to "divorce" an artist from their art is a pretentious, elitist, self-centered and egotistical endeavor. The artist forms a valuable relationship with their art, the product of which are their exhibits. but there are always those who wish to create a flowery, romanticized, and socially acceptable depiction of things they care about. Those misguided people are part of the reason I bury myself in my artwork. The fact is that some of us are "monsters". we do our work in spite of what society believes is polite or appropriate. We trust our eye. We trust our hand. We Trust our instinct, and we express ourselves through our mediums. nobody should hate anybody. rather humans should be trying to understand where each other is coming from especially now. the world is changing too rapidly to write off any particular person, group, culture or Walk of Life even if it differs entirely from your own. we all have something to teach each other.

I think that this is not a problem for me, as the art I enjoy and view mostly is art from loads of centuries ago, to understand the social climate of the time that can be is seen in the art, or to explore an idea that the art explores that reflects within me. These two things rely on the “beholders share” of the art, so it would be hard for me to look up to a singular artist and credit them with any emotion I felt looking at the art

To me, the solution is easy: when an artist whose work I love is a jerk and/or spreads questionable and hateful messages... 1: I admire and praise their work as objectively as possible, but not them as an artist. LOVE THE ART 2: I always explain to people and keep in mind why I think they're a terrible person. HATE THE ARTIST 3: I NEVER pay for any of their works, so I can send a message that says "don't be a jerk and your work will be more appreciated financially. Don't work with jerks and they'll be more profitable to your business."

I take music as an example. If I like the song, then I buy it. If I concerned myself with the private lives, behaviors, and morality, or lack of same, of rock stars, then at least half of my music collection would have to be scrapped. I have often disagreed, and even strongly disagreed, with the lyrics of some songs in my collection. But the question I ask myself is: "Is it a good song?" Is it good art?" I take the same view of lost wax bronzes, prints, poetry, and literature. A friend who was an English Professor found me reading a particular poet's work. She said, "I can't believe that you are reading that! Don't you know how he treated his wife?" I said that I knew nothing about the author. And then asked her, "If you look at the words as they sit upon the page, is it good poetry? Is it good art?" She said nothing in response, which I took to mean that it was. Even flawed people can be capable of creating extroardinary beauty. Perhaps out of both the flawed and the noble aspects of their natures comes an inner drive or need to create beauty in the world around them as a counter- balance to the ugliness that lives within.