Some artists may publish their works under a pseudonym, with a fake name. Artists who do that exhibit a type of selflessness, perhaps that is good?

If I learn something bad about the artist – anything really, I try to reevaluate my interpretation of his artwork in the context of his live.

It’s up to you whether or not it’s important. I see your point on whether or not it’s possible, and I’m inclined to agree with you.

I’m glad that pretty much all of the artists I enjoy didn’t do anything like drug and rape women or come out in favor of oppressive nonsense (as far as we know.)

It doesn’t surprise me that the businessmen posing as artists routinely end up being pieces of shit. It’s always good for a laugh when the morons who liked their art find out for themselves.

Depends on the context surrounding the art and whether enjoying said art is directly funding the artist’s problematic views. Someone enjoying a Lovecraft story isn’t doing shit for him. No one’s views on race are going to change from stumbling upon his cat’s name either. Whereas someone buying a Harry Potter product is directly funding trans people’s deaths. However, someone buying a Harry Potter book secondhand is supporting local business (though I will still judge them for buying a shitty book and promoting the franchise)

Context matters a lot.

You can. I can enjoy Hitler’s paintings because they contains no nazism, even if a nazist mind produced them (you could argue that in his youth he was not yet a nazi, but that still doesn’t matter).

Heck, I’m going even further and say that even if a form of art posses some inheritely bad aspect, you can still separate it from other artistic characteristics.

Let’s say Hitler did a panting of a gas chamber killing people in a death camp, but is painted in such a skillfull and technically relevant way to be revolutionary in the art, then it’s ok if people like it (technically, not ideologically), it’s ok if it’s owned and hang in a museum, even if it depicts real, evil and needless suffering. You can approcciate something technically or artistically without having to embrace the ideals it represents. And it’s important to not cancel things just because bad people did it, because remembering is important.

As for modern bad artist, it’s more complicated because you might not want to financially support an artist who is a criminal/terrible person, but that still doesn’t mean you can’t appreciate their art.

The art is not the artist. You may not want to support an artist based on whatever they have said or done, that’s all fine and good, but only really applies to current artists.

Art won’t stop being art and such pieces that are enjoyable won’t stop being enjoyable. Also people are complicated, they might be a piece of shit, and still have opinions that are worth listening to, or capable of creating something that is a positive influence.

Consider some old art examples, might be a concert piece, or a painting, a sculpture… Think about the artists. Depending on the time and society they lived in, they could have easily been racist, homophobic, sexist… If they had twitter back then we could probably have plenty of reasons to hate them. There’s plenty of art pieces that have been a positive influence to me in my past, and nowadays we unfortunately know how horrible some of the artists involved were. This happens more with current artists because now it’s easier to publish your shitty ideas in a public forum without the option to shut everyone’s mouths.

Some examples, Harry Potter was a huge influence to me and many around me, it was a positive influence that created a more inclusive point of view on us, it’s a pity the author is a piece of crap now, but the art still remains as a positive influence for many. Basically all works by Joss Whedon have been amazing in my opinion and his female characters have usually been some of the best examples of what good writing can be, alas he seems to be abusive and an ass to many people he has worked with. Neil Gaiman is another example, such a brilliant mind capable of creating incredible characters and stories and he is a piece of shit. Yet their art might actually have helped so many people that needed it. No matter what many might say, it’s never so clear cut when it comes to people.

Only purity-testers have difficulty with this.

Imagine saying Alice In Wonderland isn’t good.

Besides, to condemn the art because you condemn the artist, you’d have to be playing the game of giving absolute moral condemnations of people in the first place. That’s a mug’s game. Everybody’s got good and bad in them.

Struggle with it.

Most folks in this thread are taking about paintings.

What about actors, singers and comedians where the art is so much of their persona?

For the longest time I was completely oblivious to what Roman Polanski did and I revered Chinatown.

I still think it is an incredible movie, but when I learn that Polanski drugged and raped a little kid…. After he attempted to do it once and Angelica Houston stopped him.

I used to listen to Bill Cosby records as a kid and holy shit the Chicken Heart routine still makes me giggle when I remember parts of it.

Then all the heinous shit he did has come out and I just struggle with how to handle it.

Another aspect I struggle with should I victimize all the artists involved because of the actions of one of them.

Take Harvey Weinstein. He was horrible. He was basically torturing people. He was a sexual terrorist.

Unfortunately Miramax and later The Weinstein Company made some of the greatest movies. Should I boycott all of them?

I do not have a good answer.

And then let’s take it down to something a lot less EVIL.

I used to revere Paul Newman. I used to think his long time marriage to Joanne Woodward was a thing of beauty and I guess it was. Then I learned about how he basically abandoned his first wife and three kids after she has spend years funding his life as actor before his career took off.

I list a number of his movies as some of the greatest of all time and a number of his performances as some of the greatest of all time and I love them to this day.

How do I reconcile that with the above.

It’s not an all-or-nothing, binary affair. The art reveals parts of the artist at different times, not necessarily their entirety (which you can enjoy and dislike separately), and I can also enjoy it without taking the content seriously, just the nonverbal auditory and the visual but meaningless parts of them.

I’m no Christian nor an antisemite but Yeezus and TLOP haven’t been ruined for me, even if you can feel Kanye’s confidence/arrogance in the lyrics at times (to which I relate to a certain degree). I’m not an oversexual black lady obsessed with white peen but Azealia Banks has been on my playlist since the mid 10s. But I like the energy and melodies, and I’m amazed by the lyricism, even if I don’t agree nor relate. Same goes for Doja, who I’ve been listening to since her ‘silly’ “uWu” days. Sometimes, it’s enjoyable BECAUSE it’s ridiculous and I don’t agree with it one bit. I’m no polygamist/sex pest but both my wife and I enjoy “Ain’t No Fun”. 🤷😅

Everybody draws their own vague red lines in the sand. There is no universal law. If you like it and it doesn’t feel icky, go ahead and like it. If it feels icky, don’t. Or make sure they get no money out of your enjoyment.

I tried but he got mad and chased me down the hall yelling “give me back my stuff, you filthy animal!” 🖼️ 🦝 💨 🤬

What is art and what is commercial product?
Most art is definitely divorced from the artist. Do you know the artist of your favorite App Icon on your phone? Do you have any idea where or by whom was your favorite car designed?
Where is the line when/where it is actually matter of the identity of the artist?
The other day I was reading magazines from the early 1900s. Some of the ad-art is 100% questionable by today’s standards, meanwhile they were put on paper with colored ink when both things were really expensive.
For some people it matters of what kind of sexual orientation the artist has. And you don’t have to go too far where woman’s art is not considered anything of value.
So at the end does it matter? Just vote with your wallet if someone’s ‘artiste’ persona is one that you don’t like.

Is it possible to dissociate the note from the instrument? This note from a violin clearly comes from a violin. The instrument shapes the sound, even though all instruments can produce that note. However, that note belongs to me, now. It’s in my head. I can attach it to sad or happy emotions, or close my eyes and imagine a landscape with it.

I think this art/artist debate misses half of the action. Once the note or the art has been produced by the artist, it belongs to the public, that vibes with it in the way they chose.

I see this discussion a lot with a lot of compelling arguments for either take. over time, this has become my take. it will be bad but hear me out.

depriving bad people of money for their work is good. but enjoying good work from bad people is important. if you don’t want to pay them then don’t, but don’t deprive yourself of art and education based on moral standards that (since we’re being honest) will always be in flux as you change and grow. decentralize moral purity from your personal journey. centralize making informed decisions and embracing complexity.

it’s a bad take but honestly I really don’t like the concept of trying to be a good person as it pertains to consumption. there really isn’t such a thing as good consumption. and in my thirties I’m pretty okay with whatever criticism that earns me.

you can try but if someone is awful you’ll probably find that awfulness reflected in the art too.