Judging Art by the Artist

[plastroncafe]

Do you judge a work by the artist who makes it?
Or accept a given work as something separate from the artist themselves?

For example, else thread people are saying they view the vocal work of Jason Biggs has been tainted because of things the actor has said on his personal Twitter Feed.

Is this something you've experienced?
If so when, and if not why do you think not?

[BubblyShell22]

If you're talking about artwork as in drawing or writing, then, no, I have not had this happen to me. Mainly because people like my stuff and that's that. Sure, I've had people criticize my work but not because of me personally, and that's fine. If people don't like my stuff, I'm fine with that.

As for judging people by artwork or writing and how they are as a person, I've never really had to do that because most of the artists and writers I look at are nice people who I have no problem with.

Yeah, I did say that about Jason, but what I meant by that was not that his voice acting was horrible, but more about how he acted outside of the company was the reason I didn't want him voicing the character, and I stand by it.

[plastroncafe]

In this instance "work" is any form of creative work.
Acting, Voice Acting, Writing, Screenwriting, Showrunning, Directing, Dance, what have you.

I'm not suggesting the work itself is of poor quality, I'm asking specifically if people, as consumers, view the work differently if it comes to pass that the creator of the work is less than savory for personal reasons.

[BubblyShell22]

Ah, I see. I didn't know if you also meant fan works such as fan fiction or fan art, so that's why I was referring to that as well. But to answer your question, it depends on the person and what they've done. I didn't really care for Jason's American Pie movies, but I was able to separate him from that when he voiced Leo because it was a different character and I thought he could pull it off. But when the Twitter stuff started coming out and kept on going, I just became so disgusted with how he acted, so I just couldn't separate his work from what he was doing.

It just depends on what the person has done. For instance, I have no problem with Seth Green because I'm a fan of Family Guy and have watched that show for a long time, so I'm able to separate him from that and from voicing Leo and to enjoy his work on both.

Lindsay Lohan is another actress I used to like, but after she kept messing up, I began to lose respect for her as a person and never really wanted to watch any other movies she starred in.

[Dirty Blond]

I don't conflate the two. I still like Woody Allen's films despite the Dylan Farrow situation.

[Ninjinister]

Being an a-hole doesn't change the work's quality, especially retroactively.

[Katie]

I can barely tell you different actors names...I typically only know them by a role. And i couldn't recite a director or producer's body of work to save my life.

Voice actors are nameless to me. Who cares who does a voice. It's the character I care about.

That level of caring about what goes into my entertainment baffles me. It's very nearly like saying a movie you've never seen is horrible just because of some actor in it...or who directed it.

same with books and authors

Or music

[CyberCubed]

90% of the time I don't even know who the artist/writers/directors of something are unless I purposely go searching for it.

[Powder]

I typically don't knock a person's efforts because I dislike them as a person or whatever. Talent is talent.

[Jester]

I guess it depends. Being a general jerk might not, but in the cases of Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, and lately (and more dishearteningly) Bill Cosby it becomes hard to separate them from the very serious alligations.

[Netkeeper]

It depends on what their art is and what the person in question supposedly did. I will never go near Moffat's work, I toss it in the trash if it has Seth MacFarlane's name attached to it, etc, because their influence on the work is undeniable and will inevitably piss me off.

For something where the person's reputation taints the work less, I may still be okay with it, while acknowledging the artists' flaws. I absolutely hate Vic Mignogna as a person, but I can't help but like his voice work since it's legitimately enjoyable on its own and the person's gross nature isn't reflected in it. Though it doesn't stop me from wishing the bastard would stop getting work.

That said, if I hear about the person's reputation before viewing the work, I'm not likely to go near it if I don't like what I hear.

Also, music artists are usually exempt from this, because I almost never know anything about what kind of person a musician is.

[Leo656]

I love Seth MacFarlane, ya grouch.

I'unno, depends on the situation, for me. Like, I have a hard time enjoying any of John Lennon's lovey-peacey stuff, knowing full well that he smacked a bunch of women around and pretty much abandoned his kids. Also, that he knew he was a hypocrite and wasn't all that ashamed of it. Kinda bugs me, and it probably wouldn't if everyone didn't love the guy so much. Maybe it's not so much that HE did that stuff, but that lots of famous people have and are demonized, while Lennon gets a free pass because he did a few pretty songs. Like, people get mad if you talk about the stuff he did. Really mad. You Are Not Supposed To Acknowledge That John Lennon Was A Serial Woman-Puncher Under Any Circumstances... but he was. I think it's the hypocrisy of his supporters at large that bothers me more than the actual misdeed. Because I'm pretty forgiving in general, and actually have much less of a problem with people who did similar things and at least owned up to it, and it wasn't treated by the public like some kind of Thing Everyone Likes To Pretend Never Happened.

I'unno, strictly case-by-case for me, depending on the severity of the misdeed and the circumstances surrounding it. Face it, we're all hypocrites with this stuff ourselves. We'll hate an actor or musician we already dislike because he did Something Awful, but we will totally excuse the exact same misdeed if it's someone we're a huge fan of and we found out what they did way, way after the fact. Like, nobody hates Sean Connery for admitting he slapped his wife; after all, You Don't F'n Step To Ramirez and everyone knows it. But that's because everybody already loves Sean Connery and most chicks have wanted to bang him at one point, so it's easier to overlook than when some NFL player who already has a criminal reputation does it. There's a ton of Extenuating Circumstances when it comes to how we choose to Celebrate or Demonize our celebrities.

So, it's either case-by-case, and we're all hypocrites to some degree, OR, you stop enjoying pop culture entirely. No music, no TV, no movies... "Creative" and "Talented" people are, by definition, somewhat broken, some more than others, some to a criminal degree. So if you ever want to enjoy listening to "Stairway To Heaven", you simply have to get over the fact that the guy doing the wicked guitar solo had his goons kidnap a 14-year-old girl, then kept her under lock-and-key for a year while he gave her tons of drugs and banged her a few thousand times. And he was never punished for it. Ever.

To some degree, you have to separate artist from art in order to ever enjoy anything. At the same time though, Wow, artists and actors and musicians are a bunch of f***ing scumbags, by and large.

[pennydreadful]

One could argue that humans in general can be a pretty awful crew. I do agree that someone being heinous doesn't change the quality of their work - and if you choose not to enjoy a book, movie or band because someone's horrible, your entertainment options are going to be severely reduced (see aforementioned point: humans in general can be pretty awful).

Myself, I compromise - there are certain things which are "make or break" for me and if someone crosses that line (for example, being a homophobe), then I exercise the right to not spend my money or time on their book/movie/music.

But yeah, there's not really a perfect solution, unfortunately. Sometimes you have to make concessions and prioritize, for the sake of your own sanity, if nothing else - or you'll go mad.

[ProactiveMan]

Sometimes I think we should be less judgemental. We don't always know as much about people as we think we do, especially nowadays that our information comes from stupid tweets and self interested media hacks. Like pennydreadful said, people are floored in general. Even the most upright of us are dirty in some way.

I'd love to say I follow that advice myself, but I don't. I can't always separate artist from creation.

[pandaderek]

Well, it depends on what aspect of the art that people appreciate. Most people, they appreciate the mediums of art. Like, people appreciate drawings of Batman. But, that drawing is just a medium to convey what the artists want the audience to understand. For instance, Christopher Nolan used Batman as a medium to convey the complexities of justice, like, how they built a justice system on the lie of Harvey Dent being "untouchable," in the Dark Knight.

So, I don’t think you should judge an artist, based on the medium, but, rather, judge their art on their personal expressions. Like, Justin Bieber can sing great (medium), but, he needs writers because his personal expressions, based on his personality, sucks…because he’s a ****-bag.

[DarkFell]

I try not to overjudge too much. Sure, I've come across a few well-known people and celebs that could have come off as a little more friendlier *and who hasn't?* but I liked the work that they did and that helps out in allowing me to enjoy the media.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

I can only think of a few times I've done this. The one that immediately comes to mind is Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. I was never a big fan of his work to begin with (Frankly, I thought the entire premise of the book was laughable) but then I learned of his political views regarding women and gays, and now find him to be a complete douche. I didn't even go see the movie and would not support his work with a single penny, as A)I didn't even like the book the movie was based on, and B) his beliefs combined with the fact that he tries to put said views into his works makes me think of him as a petty, little man, and I can't justify enjoying his books (I never did like them much anyway) while knowing what the creator is like.

In contrast, I LOVE Piers Anthony, a writer who works in the same genre(s) as Card, but is, IMHO a FAR better human being. I have always enjoyed his books, but he also has helped fans in ways I doubt Card ever would. He wrote letters FOR YEARS to a fan who was first in a coma, then paralyzed, then slowly recovering mobility and function. And even went to visit her several times- at his own expense. This was a teenaged girl who was nearly killed by a drunk driver. And he has done similar things for other fans, most notably a woman who was contemplating suicide, but was "saved" by his correspondence. He even made her a character in one of his books.

Sometimes it's hard to separate a work from the person who created it, because once you know something about the personality and views of the person, it often changes the meaning of the work, because you know WHERE it came from. (ie what kind of mind created it.) When the person is a horrible a** in real life, sometimes it shows in their work, and even when it doesn't, you still have to consider that the kind of person who created it does have an influence on the work itself.

[pennydreadful]

Orson Scott Carde was actually the exact person I was thinking of when I made my post.

[Davetello]

Nah, I don't let my feelings towards someone affect my judgement of what they do. The footballer Cristiano Ronaldo seems like a pr1ck (going by his public persona, which can be very misleading given the cult of celebrity, but it's all we have to go on). I could give you examples of things he's done which are pathetic and imply a severe lack of humility and self-awareness. However, it doesn't stop me from admitting that the man is an excellent footballer (even if I'd rather he wasn't, as he's an embarrassment to the game). I like some of Brian Michael Bendis's work, but he's said some terrible things. I don't let it stop me enjoying Daredevil or Ultimate Spider-Man, though.

This is a good thread though. At first I thought it was simply asking if we would judge a piece of art based on who produced it. I thought it was gonna simply be about artwork, which is something I enjoy looking at but don't think about extensively. So the thread originally held little interest for me. But I opened it anyway, and when I seen that it was referring to 'art' in a more general manner, and seems to be asking if we're likely to underrate someone's work if we don't like the person or their previous work, the topic became more fascinating to me.

Perhaps we should be more moral. Perhaps we should take a stand and if someone is talented but has done unethical things we should boycott their work. I too don't conflate the two, but if someone is a bad person, or a misogynist, or a racist...are we guilty by association for enjoying their work? On the other hand, there are so many flawed people in the entertainment business, and sometime it's impossible to know what people are really like anyway, so trying to be ethical about the art we consume seems like an impossible mission.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Leo656

So, it's either case-by-case, and we're all hypocrites to some degree, OR, you stop enjoying pop culture entirely. No music, no TV, no movies... "Creative" and "Talented" people are, by definition, somewhat broken, some more than others, some to a criminal degree. So if you ever want to enjoy listening to "Stairway To Heaven", you simply have to get over the fact that the guy doing the wicked guitar solo had his goons kidnap a 14-year-old girl, then kept her under lock-and-key for a year while he gave her tons of drugs and banged her a few thousand times. And he was never punished for it. Ever.

To some degree, you have to separate artist from art in order to ever enjoy anything. At the same time though, Wow, artists and actors and musicians are a bunch of f***ing scumbags, by and large.

I feel as though just chalking DickRinse behavior to creative types not only gives people who exhibit DickRinse a pass, but it also serves to glorify that kind of thing. Like: I'm a jerk because I'm an artiste! And not I'm a jerk because of the things that I do which are jerkish.

I try to avoid the work of people who do DickRinse things because I'd rather they not get my money.

It's been alleged that Michael Fassbender beat a lover of his, and as such I try to stay away from financially supporting his work when I'm able to.

(Having said that, watching Gina Carrano beat the snot out of him in "Haywire" made the entire movie for me.)

"Firefly" and "Chuck" have been soured for me because of the online antics of Adam Baldwin. Both he and the titular Chuck, Zachary Levi, couldn't possibly be more different politically, but only Baldwin's been a DickRinse about it.

I normally steer clear of Tom Cruise movies as well, but have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. "Edge of Tomorrow" is a fantastic movie that I highly recommend.

There's a saying on tumblr: Your Fave is Problematic.
That no person is perfect, and that if we just ruled out everything that anyone has ever done wrong as a reason to avoid what they do we'd never see/read/listen/experience anything.

It's important to know and acknowledge that the people whose work we enjoy are fallible, and that it's our job as consumers of media and art to call those people to the mat when they deserve it.