But in a more general sense, I imagine there are a lot of people who have enjoyed some movie or other work without a clue about who created it, or anything about them.
And there are probably people who express a liking for a particular artist, but have not yet experienced all of their work, or perhaps don’t like some of it and ignore it as though it doesn’t exist.
People very routinely separate the artist from their works and vice versa. It’s incredibly common.
There are plenty of works of art I’ve experienced for which I know absolutely nothing about the artist, beyond whatever I can deduce from the art itself. Heck, there are a good number for which I don’t even know who the artist is, and a few where I’m not completely sure there even is an artist, or if it was just a natural phenomenon. How can I view any of those artworks, if not separately from the artist?
I enjoyed “The Miller’s Tale” even if I didn’t know anything about Geoffrey Chaucer. Richard Wagner was an antisemite, but I still enjoy “Ride of the Valkyries.” To separate the art from the artist just means you can enjoy the work without considering the personal beliefs or actions of the artist. To be honest with you, I don’t know a whole lot the authors of the vast majority of books I read.
Of course learning about the artist can shape how you view their work. I knew nothing about H.P. Lovecraft the first time I read The Shadow Over Innsmouth, and I interpreted it to be about fear of insanity or other disease inherited from one’s ancestors. Given Lovecraft’s racism, others interpret it as a tale of miscegenation which I certainly think is valid. Despite Lovecraft’s personal failings, I still enjoy some of what he wrote.
I can separate Gaiman from his work. I’m not going to suddenly start hating Stardust,Coraline, or Good Omens because Gaiman was involved, but I’m not going to buy or watch anything he was involved in. Not because I can’t enjoy his stories but simply because he’s an odious, unrepentant man and I don’t want my money to support him.
The unknown artist is a blank slate upon which you project a fiction you create from the work. That artist is whatever you need them to be to enjoy the work, be it sensitive, wise, or tortured.
The artist as a real person may disappoint. And we can ignore those disappointments and rumored failings most of the time if the art is good enough. Some failings harder to ignore than others.
His works being the only means for me to interact with him because (thank Hera) I don’t know him personally and will never encounter him in life anyway. So the only means available for shutting him out of my life in any sense is by rejecting his works. Who needs 'em? There are tons of great women authors who write as well and enjoyably as he does.
I don’t dispute any of that, it’s just that you seemed to be talking about the notion of artist and work being separate as if it were some fundamentally impossible thing.
While I don’t own anything by either artist, and won’t because of their histories with groupies etc., on Mattix herself I’m a bit uncertain - I mean, she claimed both Page and Bowie were her first. That’s obviously conflicting statements.
I don’t think there’s any doubt on the Page side, on Bowie, I’m less certain. It doesn’t really matter, though, like I said, I already don’t have their stuff. I can’t avoid them any more than that.
I think there is a bit of a difference between a) underage groupie enthusiastically pursuing sex and being accommodated vs b) anyone emphatically saying ‘no, no, no’ and being forced anyway, completely against their will.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying either of those things is right, we have legal age boundaries for pretty good reasons and young people don’t necessarily make sound choices or want good things.
But the two things seem like two different categories of thing maybe.
Whether that makes a difference to how we should treat them is yet another matter. Maybe it makes no difference. Maybe accepting the advances of a minor is worse than overriding the consent of an adult. I dunno. Maybe I don’t have a point here.
No-one said DD wasn’t entitled to have a say. And others are free to say what they think of that say. And what the act of saying that say says about the sayer (in another thread, of course)
Considering that “who’s considered an adult” has varied wildly from society to society, I think you do have a point there. And I think that, if we’re talking about teens who are claiming that they’re willing, that overriding consent is worse.
However, in this society, sex between a significantly older adult and a teen is extremely skeevy; even if the teen is over the age of consent. And, if the adult is a lot older, even if the younger person’s in their twenties; especially early twenties.
I think there’s a quite complex set of possible feelings going on in this sort of scenario, including (but I’m sure not limited to):
Am I, by continuing to consume the art, financially supporting the artist?
Am I contributing to the continued popularity of the artist?
Am I in any way condoning, or appearing to condone, the thing the artist did?
Does continuing to consume the art cause further hurt or harm to the victim?
Does the art itself now have a different interpretation now I know this about the artist?
Can I enjoy the art any more, without being reminded of the thing the artist did?
Am I happy with myself for continuing to consume the art, knowing what I know?
Does continuing to consume the art reflect badly on me?
(and probably a whole load of things I haven’t thought to list)
I think it’s probably reasonable to imagine that not everyone will think it necessary to resolve an answer to these and more questions - for example if the answer to either 6 or 7 is an emphatic ‘no’, then none of the other questions need to be considered, but on the other hand, there are people who might answer 8 with ‘don’t care’, and might stop there instead (maybe they shouldn’t stop there, but some will).
Question: Would it be better for us, the general public, not to know what Gaiman did? I admit, there has been part of me that has wanted to say “Wait—at least give me some time to read my Neil Gaiman books (or listen to my Bill Cosby albums, or whatever) before you tell me about the accusations against them.”
I prefer knowing and not further contributing to his pin money jar. For one thing I’m one who actually can, to a certain but not total extent, separate the art from the artist. Also much as I’ve enjoyed some of Gaiman’s work it was never an emotional lifeline. I started consuming it as a semi-secure adult and I don’t have any mental baggage associated with it. But even if I did have a really profound attachment to Gaiman and his work such that these revelations were psychically damaging to some extent, I think I’d still want to know.
Same here, I think. In the case of both Gaiman and Cosby, I’ve derived enough enjoyment and benefit from their work that I’m thankful I had a chance to experience it long before the accusations came out, but not enough that I would be a different person or there would be a huge hole in my life if I had not ever experienced their work. I could perhaps have described myself as a mild fan, and I could still say I’m a mild fan of who I used to think they were. (And if I was an admirer of some of their work, and their work hasn’t changed, does that mean I’m still an admirer of that work?)
Absolutely not. I want light to shine into every dark nook and cranny where rapist creeps hide, to expose them and put a stop to their crimes. The Me Too movement is necessary. Me too, I’m a rape survivor. I say destroy those %@#!$&*s.