The ethics of consuming art
sparkymonster posted today about author Elizabeth Moon making some very prejudiced remarks. She therefore joins a club that includes Amanda Palmer and Orson Scott Card -- artists whose personal views on some subjects many of us find abhorrent.
As usually happens in these situations, some people are saying that they'll never buy another book written by Elizabeth Moon. Some other people are saying that's not the way to go; that despite hating her views and her expression of them, they'll still love and pay for her work.
This is a question that's been rattling around in my brain for a while. What if an artist whose work you enjoy holds views you abhor? Are you honour-bound to stop supporting them by paying for access to their work? Should you stop reading/listening to/viewing/wearing any of their work that you've already purchased? Ultimately, it seems to boil down to the idea that one should do one's part to deny someone with abhorrent views a living -- perhaps with the hope that if enough people do that, they'll change their beliefs.
But is it that simple? If I found out that one of my favourite restaurateurs was a white supremacist, should I stop eating there? What if it's my dry cleaner? Does it make a difference if the product or service is readily available elsewhere in identical form and quality (dry cleaning), compared to something unique (a particular artist's work)?
I don't have any answers to these questions. I don't think any answers are particularly right or wrong. But I find them interesting questions to ask. What do you think?
Edit: Just remembered that the New York Times had a thought-provoking article along similar lines, When Life Gets in the Way of Art, looking at re-evaluating our relationship to an artist's body of work when we learn that they did things we might not like (cf, Ernest Withers, the prominent civil-rights-era photographer recently revealed to be a paid FBI informant, or Larry Rivers, the visual artist who pressured his teenage daughters into being filmed topless or nude).
Edit 2: A follow-on thought: if someone feels that they are ethically required to withhold support from an artist with views they abhor, are they then also ethically required to investigate the views of every artist before supporting them? Is it right to only deny support to the artists whose views you've heard about? (I'm sure there's a fancy ethical name for this -- passive versus active responsibilities or some such -- but I can't remember what Ben the Philosopher said about it.)
As usually happens in these situations, some people are saying that they'll never buy another book written by Elizabeth Moon. Some other people are saying that's not the way to go; that despite hating her views and her expression of them, they'll still love and pay for her work.
This is a question that's been rattling around in my brain for a while. What if an artist whose work you enjoy holds views you abhor? Are you honour-bound to stop supporting them by paying for access to their work? Should you stop reading/listening to/viewing/wearing any of their work that you've already purchased? Ultimately, it seems to boil down to the idea that one should do one's part to deny someone with abhorrent views a living -- perhaps with the hope that if enough people do that, they'll change their beliefs.
But is it that simple? If I found out that one of my favourite restaurateurs was a white supremacist, should I stop eating there? What if it's my dry cleaner? Does it make a difference if the product or service is readily available elsewhere in identical form and quality (dry cleaning), compared to something unique (a particular artist's work)?
I don't have any answers to these questions. I don't think any answers are particularly right or wrong. But I find them interesting questions to ask. What do you think?
Edit: Just remembered that the New York Times had a thought-provoking article along similar lines, When Life Gets in the Way of Art, looking at re-evaluating our relationship to an artist's body of work when we learn that they did things we might not like (cf, Ernest Withers, the prominent civil-rights-era photographer recently revealed to be a paid FBI informant, or Larry Rivers, the visual artist who pressured his teenage daughters into being filmed topless or nude).
Edit 2: A follow-on thought: if someone feels that they are ethically required to withhold support from an artist with views they abhor, are they then also ethically required to investigate the views of every artist before supporting them? Is it right to only deny support to the artists whose views you've heard about? (I'm sure there's a fancy ethical name for this -- passive versus active responsibilities or some such -- but I can't remember what Ben the Philosopher said about it.)