The ethics of consuming art

[mzrowan]

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

Comments

[j_v_lynch]

I heard about Moon and Card. What did Palmer say?

[coraline]

http://unnaturalforces.blogspot.com/2010/03/jesus-amanda-palmer.html

[coraline]

also, further ruminations on the topic:
http://4rightchords.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/how-amanda-palmer-killed-amanda-palmer/

[mzrowan]

Ha! Great minds think alike. ;-)

[fenicedautun]

My response would vary depending on what the view/action in question was (being Republican may be distasteful to some people, but isn't quite the same as being part of the KKK), and what percent of the profits generated by my patronage go to the person in question. So, if the waitress at my favorite restaurant seems racist (for example), I'd probably still eat there but might ask for a different waitress. If the owner of the restaurant is racist, I might decide that wasn't OK with me. Although I think racism has degrees as well (there's not liking another race, and then there's actively doing something about it).

Disclaimer: This does not address corporations/organizations with views I find abhorent, just individuals.

[littlehoudini]

I think the biggest problem with this whole, postulatin' post is the word "should" - in my mind, the word "should" comes with an unspoken pact

[heinleinfan]

When it comes to businesses, I have no problem choosing to do business at one place versus another, if I abhor the business practices or owners or whathaveyou. Even if it is an inconvenience, I will pick other places

[mzrowan]

So you come down pretty solidly on the side of denying financial support to artists whose views you disagree with, it seems. My question is: why? What is the thinking or feeling behind that decision? (Note that I'm not saying that it's the *wrong* thing to do, at all -- I'm just curious as to where it comes from.)

[heinleinfan]

Why? It makes me feel better

[dr_memory]

I don't pretend to have a well-considered or perfectly consistent opinion on this, but there is a certain inflection point of personal douchebaggery versus artistic quality beyond which I'm not willing to consider spending money any more. OSC passed it long ago. Palmer's really been dancing around it her entire career, and it completely soured any interest I might have ever had in the EE album, but I might yet pick up her next solo LP, and I'd certainly go see one of the Dolls reunion shows if they hit SF. (Happily, the odds of me ever reading Elizabeth Moon were zero even before she outed herself as a frothing moron.)

But Ezra Pound remains one of my favorite poets despite being a worse person than all of the aforementioned combined. So I guess death is, as always, a good career move.

[mzrowan]

Hm, interesting point! Roald Dahl supported the Nazis, Lewis Carroll might have been a child molester...but that doesn't seem to provoke the same level of gut reaction, or motivation to avoid their work. Of course, because they're dead, any money goes to support their estate, not them personally. Is that the critical difference? *ponders*

[coraline]

er. I'm fairly sure dahl did not support the nazis. he's been accused of being anti-semitic, which is different, but given his war record, i think "nazi supporter" is a misnomer.
http://www.27east.com/story_detail.cfm?id=173404

[mzrowan]

Ah, okay, my bad. I should have looked that one up before mentioning it.