[RD] Morals of enjoying works made by people who have done bad things

aimeeandbeatles

watermelon
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
20,112
I was talking to a online friend and this subject came up:

Me: i've always wondered to some extent is it okay to like the works that somebody did if they were a [crappy] person
Me: like if a musician puts out a bunch of good music and then turns out to have done a bunch of really bad things
Me: is it still okay to like their music?
Me: even if you hate the musician for doing those bad things

I guess this sort of thing also ties into a lot of the stuff that came out in the last few years where it seems that half of Hollywood was involved in either sexual-assault scandals or covering it up.

I might be phrasing this question not so well, but: Do bad acts committed by a person remove the value of their works?

For me personally, I kind of feel a bit uncomfortable watching/listening/reading something, but I try to separate the artist from the work.
 
Abaddon was a poster here who contributed regularly and creatively. He was banned permanently for repeatedly and then more repeatedly breaking rules. Nonetheless, he was a great community member. Not as extreme as all the Hollywood guys, but the principle is the same.
 
I was talking to a online friend and this subject came up:

Me: i've always wondered to some extent is it okay to like the works that somebody did if they were a [crappy] person
Me: like if a musician puts out a bunch of good music and then turns out to have done a bunch of really bad things
Me: is it still okay to like their music?
Me: even if you hate the musician for doing those bad things

I guess this sort of thing also ties into a lot of the stuff that came out in the last few years where it seems that half of Hollywood was involved in either sexual-assault scandals or covering it up.

I might be phrasing this question not so well, but: Do bad acts committed by a person remove the value of their works?

For me personally, I kind of feel a bit uncomfortable watching/listening/reading something, but I try to separate the artist from the work.
I've been in several arguments about this issue, some here in the A&E forum (I am informed that I am no longer allowed to enjoy Leonard Nimoy's performances because he played a non-white character in the Marco Polo miniseries in 1982).

I have also gotten into arguments with various people regarding Marion Zimmer Bradley's husband and her being suspected of aiding and abetting his crimes (he was convicted of sexually molesting children). The online reaction to this has been... hysterical (not in a funny way, but in an overreaction way). First of all, nothing I've read has ever stated that there's ironclad proof that she did this. Second of all, a transcript of her being questioned about it was posted, but what tends to get ignored is that this questioning occurred after MZB had suffered a series of debilitating strokes and her memories were no longer reliable; in short, the police were questioning someone who was no longer of sound mind about events that had happened years in the past.

I am in no way defending what her husband did. If she aided and abetted those crimes, that would have been reprehensible indeed.

BUT... does that take away from her life's work, most of which was creating and writing the Darkover series, and mentoring new writers (mostly women) so they would have a greater chance of building writing careers for themselves? MZB was also a magazine and anthology editor, and there are many SF/fantasy writers with solid careers now who owe their start to MZB mentoring them when they were starting out (anyone here read Mercedes Lackey? Diana Paxson? Jennifer Roberson? They're MZB protegees).

So yes, I can separate what happened/might have happened in her personal life from her writing and have no intention of building a bonfire and burning all my Darkover books (as some fans have hysterically insisted they would do).

Oh, btw... another reason not to go off the deep end about MZB is that she and a few friends started the Society for Creative Anachronism. That organization helped me learn so much, whether various crafts, dancing, history, cooking, and a hundred other things (including Civ; a lot of SCA people are also gamers and SF/fantasy fans). I gained a lot of self-confidence during my 12 years in that organization, and some of the things I learned can be applicable to any other organization (I was the local branch's secretary, treasurer, and media liaison as well as the first contact for new members who learned of us via the newspaper, posters around town, at demos, or me slipping a little note into the public library's copy of Murder at the War - a novel written by an SCA member about a fictitious murder at one of the society's major war events). The SCA is where I first got into writing and editing newsletters.


Now let's take the case of an actor. Mel Gibson is a bigoted <jerk>. But I do enjoy his performance in Hamlet. Or how about the recent revelations about Liam Neeson? I've seen Rob Roy several times and haven't decided to stomp my DVDs into smithereens (either of Neeson's movie or Gibson's). I just won't be checking out any more of their work. As for MZB, she died many years ago and the Darkover series has been 'inherited' by a couple of other authors who still produce occasional novels and an annual anthology.
 
Alfred Hitchcock is a good example of this. It might be hard to disavow one of the greatest directors ever.
 
I don’t care about the personal lives of celebrities. I just assume none are good role models but I don’t let that get in the way of my enjoyment. Occasionally, I defend the least bad celebrities like Aziz Ansari and Louis C.K.
 
Michel Foucault was an appalling human being but wrote some fascinating books.

Klaus Kinski was a great actor but a thoroughly nasty jerk.

Justin Bieber is Canadian.
 
If we were to reject anything achieved by people who were mostly jerks we would still use loincloths and live in caves.
 
I always suspected art history as taught as a somehat bogus subject for people who were neither proper artists nor historians.

When I discovered that Britain's leading protagonist of the theory was Anthony Blunt later revealed as a soviet spy, I became convinced.
 
I always suspected art history as taught as a somehat bogus subject for people who were neither proper artists nor historians.

When I discovered that Britain's leading protagonist of the theory was Anthony Blunt later revealed as a soviet spy, I became convinced.
Art history tends to be taken by people who need credits in an arts course but lack the interest or ability to get through any other course.
 
Related: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/does-immoral-behaviour-outweigh-accomplishment.623978/

Personally, I think it's fine to enjoy content produced by bad people. What they've contributed to society doesn't suddenly disappear simply because they are personally terrible.

This is really all that needs to be said on the matter in my opinion. It shouldn't be that hard for one to separate their enjoyment or celebration of a great work of art or significant accomplishment from the moral failings of the person who produced them.
 
I'm not even sure that I don't enjoy people who have done bad things, much less that I would disavow other things they have done.

First off, everyone has done bad things.

Second, a price of fame is that every bad thing you have ever done gets trumpeted from the rooftops. Being a subject of scrutiny doesn't really make them a worse person.
 
I loved Seinfeld repeats but lost interest after Kramer (Michael Richards) unloaded racial slurs on hecklers during a stand up routine. Took me a few years to get over it.
 
I want to keep enjoying the great paintings by hitler. :D

More seriously: if you dont like the artist or cannot at worst not care about their personality, you just dont follow their work either. Afterall this isnt science/math where character doesnt appear to a notable degree. Maybe music can be excluded too. (When it has no words).
 
It really depends on the person and the things they did to be honest. Mostly I can separate the two but there are some instances where I can't. I no longer find Louis CK funny, knowing that some of his jokes were based loosely on the things he was actually doing. His recent comeback attempt was horrendous and added insult to injury - it was unfunny shock humor where he basically threw feces at the demographics that he felt cheered his downfall. Outside the twitterverse, I don't even think people were cheering when he went down. I have a few friends that were diehard fans that were upset to the point of nearly crying over it and he decided to make fun of people like them in his come back in very crude, mean spirited jokes that just weren't that funny.

But I'm still a fan of American Beauty and I know R. Kelly has produced some great music even if I'm not a fan of it and I don't look down on people that like it.
 
Captain Beefheart was an autocratic junkie, still the best batch yet.

Yeah, but there's a limited supply.

Louis-Ferdinand Céline wrote some beautiful sentences, but much of it was so rabidly anti-Semitic he was even criticised by the Nazis controlling WW2 France.

Céline Dion is Canadian.

Woody Allen's work was awful before his fall from grace.
 
It really depends on the person and the things they did to be honest. Mostly I can separate the two but there are some instances where I can't. I no longer find Louis CK funny, knowing that some of his jokes were based loosely on the things he was actually doing. His recent comeback attempt was horrendous and added insult to injury - it was unfunny shock humor where he basically threw feces at the demographics that he felt cheered his downfall. Outside the twitterverse, I don't even think people were cheering when he went down. I have a few friends that were diehard fans that were upset to the point of nearly crying over it and he decided to make fun of people like them in his come back in very crude, mean spirited jokes that just weren't that funny.

I find this a little strange. I don't follow stand-up comedy at all, but even through my distant aloofness I knew that was exactly what Louis C.K. has always offered. That's why people liked him.
 
Yeah I'm not going to defend my feelings or those of my friends based on rationality. It's 100% personal preference which is all over the place and inconsistent.

I do know that for one friend in particular, they identify strongly with feminism and saw him as a major ally. His humor was funny because it was so absurd but then we found out it wasn't all absurd, that he was doing some really creepy, demeaning stuff and directly contributed to the sexism that my friend hates. Then with his comeback he went hard in on SJW's of all stripes, further aggravating the grievance. Basically it's entirely personal for my friend and somewhat so for me. Though to be honest he was never my favorite comedian, I did have a lot of respect for him as a person.
 
Some of those paintings Hitler did are quite nice really, but no-one ever wants to buy them at auction. Understandable, but they're still nice.
 
Back
Top Bottom