Art vs Artist

[Blackhawk]

I'm bringing this discussion in from the Blizzard thread in gaming. I put it here, as it is about philosophy, ethics, morals, art, and business - all controversial topics, but neither religion nor politics, and nothing suggests that all controversial discussions need to go in that forum.

In the original context that launched this thread, Blizzard and/or Activision-Blizzard management has been accused, quite widely and convincingly, of some pretty extreme sexual harassment, assault, and at least one person has ended their life (it's implied in the source article that it was related to this treatment, but it isn't completely clear if that's so.) It's probably the most extreme example of gaming industry sexual misconduct I've seen to date. Ubisoft had similar issues just last year, and other studios and developers have as well.

The discussion led here:

Not to turn this into R&P, but how much bad behavior would it take for it to affect your buying decisions? There's already a suicide involved.

I don't know, how much should? Should we not watch Polanski movies? I'm not being contrary; I often ask myself and others these questions, and I don't know the answer, or if there's a universal one. (I sure as hell don't want anything to do with Marilyn Manson anymore, but then I never liked him much to begin with... I just enjoyed some of his tunes. But now I can't stand the idea of listening to him.)

Is not buying the company's product sending them a message? What if I continue playing Hearthstone every day but just don't buy anything? Are these the right actions? Or just the only ones we have? It's a bit different, but there are many other destructive companies I pour money into. What about the "good" people still working for this corporation? Presumably a boycott won't actually be big enough to shut the company down, so then is there any point at all? A glowy feeling? And if it does shut the company down, was that the right thing to do? This culture needs to be challenged everywhere. What are the best ways to do that? Other than calling it out and not participating in it oneself, obviously.

I thought it deserved a focused discussion, and I'm not just talking about gaming here. Film, music, art, writing, TV, and any number of other issues.

We live in a world where all sorts of ugliness is coming out of the closet, from hostile environments to racism to sexism to straight up rape. We have already mentioned Polanski, Activision/Blizzard/Ubisoft, Marilyn Manson. I could bring up Mel Gibson, Bill Cosby, OJ Simpson, Woody Allen, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Jackson, Ryan Adams, R. Kelly, Jimmy Page, Johnny Depp. You get the idea.

Then you get peripheral examples. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon knew what Harvey Weinstein was doing and didn't act. Piers Anthony wrote some really disturbing stuff into his books, including bestiality and pedophilia, but other than writing about it, never (that we know of) did anything in the real world. Do we react to thought crimes and/or mental illness if not acted upon? Or Joss Whedon, who was basically accused of being an aggressive asshole.

Lots of people have been accused, but it isn't entirely clear what happened - did they or didn't they? Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example. Do we react to the accusation if we don't know the truth? Is the accusation enough? Can we allow ourselves to think, "It's so common for men to do this that we have to act as if it were true"? What happens then when a life is destroyed and then the accusations are found to be questionable? Are we the ones who did the harm? Chris Hardwick comes to mind, as does Randy Pitchford of Gearbox.

-------------------
So, back to the topic. Can we/should we continue to appreciate art when the artist is rotten?

I still feel creepy watching Mel Gibson. And holy crap, I don't know if I could re-watch Smallville after Allison Mack's utterly over-the-top stuff - sex trafficking, forced labor, blackmailing women for rape, brainwashing, hell - she branded her initials onto women's genitals! Wall of weird - no kidding!

Some are easy. If one artist does something terrible, it's easy to avoid their work. Bill Cosby's stand-up, for instance. But what about when one terrible person is involved, but the work of many innocent people is also affected? Roman Polanski is blech. It's easy to justify avoiding his stuff. But what about Mia Farrow's work in Rosemary's Baby? Does his skeeziness mean that we should avoid her acclaimed performance? Is that fair to her, and is avoiding Polanski worth the cost of the harm to her (and every other person involved with that film?)

Back to Activision/Blizzard - If a company is run by multiple terrible people, do we punish the company by boycotting their products? Doing so stops our supporting the terrible people, but comes at the cost of harm to the employees and the shareholders? Activision-Blizzard has ~10,000 employees (most of whom rely on profit sharing) and ~2,400 shareholders. Does boycotting the putrid boys club management justify the harm to the 12,000 others?

Seriously, I'm asking - I don't know the answer. I don't want to give money to Blizzard. I don't want to support what they are and what they're doing. But at the same time, I don't want to push and participate in a response that has a negative impact on thousands of employees (including the ones who signed the open letter, including many of the victims themselves.)

Where are the lines? The lines between punishing the abusers and harming the innocent? The line between accusation and guilt? The line between thought and action?

The line between artist and art?

[Jaymann]

What did Dustin Hoffman do?

[Blackhawk]

What did Dustin Hoffman do?

Stuff

I did do at least some research on all of the names before I posted them, but I'm not going to cite all of them - the info is out there aplenty.

And no, not all of them are of the same severity. Not all of them were a Cosby or a Mack. I'm already two hours in checking things before listing them. Breaking them down to that degree was a bit more than what this thread needed.

[noxiousdog]

As I was working through this myself, I asked myself, "Would I continue to give money to an organization that openly used slave labor?"

If the answer is no, then it should be a similar answer for sexual or racial discrimination.

I understand there are employees that will get hurt if gaming companies go bankrupt or TV shows stop paying residuals. But in the slave labor example, they would also get hurt.

Until organizations feel they are not getting rewarded for illegal and immoral behavior, they will continue to allow it to happen on their premises.

Look how quickly BLM made a difference in corporate behavior last year and then slowly disappeared as interest waned.

[Blackhawk]

As I was working through this myself, I asked myself, "Would I continue to give money to an organization that openly used slave labor?"

I think it's more like, "Would I continue to give money to a harmless organization that supports thousands if I found out that select members of the board used slave labor?"

Ideally, I think, you address the wrongdoers - the board and those that enabled them - and not the entire organization. At least if it is possible - if not, the organization should end. But if a means exists to stop the wrong and punish the wrongdoers without hurting the innocent, isn't that at least worth consideration?

And if the answer is "That's a lot of work - It's easier to just hurt them all and call it collateral damage", then that's a problem in my view, too. (I am not saying that you are espousing this.)

[noxiousdog]

As I was working through this myself, I asked myself, "Would I continue to give money to an organization that openly used slave labor?"

I think it's more like, "Would I continue to give money to a harmless organization that supports thousands if I found out that select members of the board used slave labor?"

Ideally, I think, you address the wrongdoers - the board and those that enabled them - and not the entire organization. At least if it is possible - if not, the organization should end. But if a means exists to stop the wrong and punish the wrongdoers without hurting the innocent, isn't that at least worth consideration?

And if the answer is "That's a lot of work - It's easier to just hurt them all and call it collateral damage", then that's a problem in my view, too. (I am not saying that you are espousing this.)

If you're restricting the conversation to actors, authors, and directors, I see your point. My reference is more to Activision Blizzard where it's enough of the companies culture where thousands of employees have said it's happening.

[Zaxxon]

Some are easy. If one artist does something terrible, it's easy to avoid their work. Bill Cosby's stand-up, for instance. But what about when one terrible person is involved, but the work of many innocent people is also affected?

Where are the lines? The lines between punishing the abusers and harming the innocent?

It largely boils down to your questions above, IMO. And I don't think there is a simple answer.

Taking ND's stance (which is the one I initially gravitated toward, but am not sure I'll stick with) indisputably also causes harm to innocent folks. In the Blizzard instance, by intentionally working to harm the company's financial standing, which both harms the company's employees:

• implicitly (through lack of industry cred as the gaming community ostracizes the company and its products) and
• explicitly (through reduced profit to share via profit-sharing programs, folks getting laid off, etc)

Even if you believe that this behavior was rampant at Blizzard (I sure do!), what percentage of the 4,700ish employees deserves to be punished by us? 5%? 10%? 50%? Even if it's 50% (it's highly unlikely to be 50%), does that make our vigilante justice serve the public good? Are we truly helping right a wrong, or are we introducing our own collateral damage atop the existing situation?

I lean toward ND's view of the likely legal outcomes moreso than Lorini's (they'll pay fines, some folks will get axed, the culture will improve, but will it truly resolve the core cultural issue?). If the legal system won't fully resolve the issue, then is it right to just take no action on a personal level? I don't know the answer.

But I'm wavering in my initial belief that 'burn it all down' is the appropriate reaction. And I have taken a similar tack in other areas relating to the examples you gave above:

• I'd never pay for a Bill Cosby stand-up ticket, as that's a pretty clear-cut instance where the overwhelming majority of the benefit/harm my choice brings goes directly to Cosby.
• But I'll sure be watching Buffy with my kids when they're old enough, as Buffy wasn't a one-man project. Punishing the entire cast, crew, writers, producers, etc seems absurd.

If you're restricting the conversation to actors, authors, and directors, I see your point. My reference is more to Activision Blizzard where it's enough of the companies culture where thousands of employees have said it's happening.

I don't think there's a measurable delineation between 'actors, authors, and directors' and Activision/Blizzard. It's not the entire company. Since it's not the entire company, where is the line where our harm is justifiable because a subset of the company is causing harm?

Specifically when one is changing their purchasing behavior for the explicit purpose of causing harm to the company and therefore to the (IMO large majority) subset of employees who are not part of the problem, why is our intentional harm good/appropriate where their intentional harm is bad/inappropriate?

[Sudy]

I think there's an "actual right choice" element, and a "personal discretion" element. Would going to a Bill Cosby show now be ethically wrong? Yeah, I certainly think so. Is listening to one of his old records you've owned for years, or re-telling one of his old jokes wrong? I don't know. We were talking about that briefly in the favourite stand-up thead. I think an important question is, could my stance possibly propagate harm?

Some strong reactions are more of distaste, however. And that's understandable. Maybe even desirable. (At least until a mob is formed.) Emotion vs. intellect and the never-ending struggle to unite them in the most truth-seeking, beneficial way.

[Blackhawk]

And that's the classic question of separating the art from the artist. I won't go to a Cosby show because I don't want to support him. But I don't want to go to a Cosby show (or listen to his records, or watch reruns of the Picture Pages segments from Captain Kangaroo) because I deeply despise him, and when he talks, all that's in my brain is what he did and what his victims went through. I cannot separate the art from the artist.

When I look at Mia Farrow in Rosemary's Baby, I don't see much Polanski. I'm seeing his work, but not just his work. I'm also seeing her work, and the set dresser's work, and the makeup artist's work, and... I can separate the art from the artist.

(That was a researched example, by the way - I've never seen a single Polanski or Woody Allen film.)

[noxiousdog]

I don't think there's a measurable delineation between 'actors, authors, and directors' and Activision/Blizzard. It's not the entire company. Since it's not the entire company, where is the line where our harm is justifiable because a subset of the company is causing harm?

Specifically when one is changing their purchasing behavior for the explicit purpose of causing harm to the company and therefore to the (IMO large majority) subset of employees who are not part of the problem, why is our intentional harm good/appropriate where their intentional harm is bad/inappropriate?

Have you read the Blizzard accounts? A large set of employees absolutely was the problem. When cube crawls are allowed in the offices. When women are routinely kicked out of lactation rooms for meetings. When it's on multiple campuses, it is not a subset. It's the majority culture even if it's permissive and not active.

When things like this occur in 2010 and most of the panel sticks around until 2019 as a company leaders; it's pervasive (4:21 in the clip):


And this is just their public face.

Oh, and boo to the gamer culture that allows it to happen as the cheers for a credible take were drowned out by boos.

[noxiousdog]

There's clearly a balance in what you are saying. For instance, if Activision Blizzard had immediately come out and apologized and said they would cooperate and do a full investigation, I have no issue continuing to play the franchise. Perhaps I wouldn't have even cancelled my subscription.

However, that's not what happened. Management immediately went on the attack.

That being said, Blizzard Employees are staging a strike. If they are successful and shareholders/management listens and makes changes, then the calculus changes. Penalize the behavior you don't want and reward the behavior you do.

[Blackhawk]

However, that's not what happened.

I see a distinction between 'what happened' with management and what's 'going to happen' to management.

Perhaps it's pervasive. Perhaps they continue to make excuses and pretend it didn't happen until the news dies down, and I walk away from Blizzard. Or perhaps people with clout apply enough pressure that the board room gets a colonic that trickles down to the rest of upper management, and the bro culture scurries under the rug for good.

The more I think about it, it's the end result that I'll react to. Right now it's 'wait and see' over a knee-jerk reaction that I'll regret later.

[Blackhawk]

Although to be clear, this wasn't meant as a substitute to the actual Blizzard thread, just a discussion of a single aspect of it that keeps coming up with actors, directors, musicians, etc.

[noxiousdog]

However, that's not what happened.

I see a distinction between 'what happened' with management and what's 'going to happen' to management.

Perhaps it's pervasive. Perhaps they continue to make excuses and pretend it didn't happen until the news dies down, and I walk away from Blizzard. Or perhaps people with clout apply enough pressure that the board room gets a colonic that trickles down to the rest of upper management, and the bro culture scurries under the rug for good.

The more I think about it, it's the end result that I'll react to. Right now it's 'wait and see' over a knee-jerk reaction that I'll regret later.

You don't have to do anything permanent. I can always reinstall or re-subscribe. I didn't do anything like delete my characters (though I did think about it for about 5 seconds).

I like the thread. It's something I have struggled with too. I think the calculus is how much of a difference will your actions make? I know that directly affecting Activision Blizzard with user counts and subscriptions will make a difference.

Watching re-runs or watching already purchased DVDs? not as much.

[Zaxxon]

When it's on multiple campuses, it is not a subset. It's the majority culture even if it's permissive and not active.

A majority is a subset.

That being said, Blizzard Employees are staging a strike. If they are successful and shareholders/management listens and makes changes, then the calculus changes. Penalize the behavior you don't want and reward the behavior you do.

And this shows that there's a sizeable portion of the company that is not a part of the problem (or at least, that is doing Concrete Things to address the problem).

There's clearly a balance in what you are saying. For instance, if Activision Blizzard had immediately come out and apologized and said they would cooperate and do a full investigation, I have no issue continuing to play the franchise. Perhaps I wouldn't have even cancelled my subscription.

However, that's not what happened. Management immediately went on the attack.

Management needs to go, for sure.

Although to be clear, this wasn't meant as a substitute to the actual Blizzard thread, just a discussion of a single aspect of it that keeps coming up with actors, directors, musicians, etc.

And I apologize for immediately pushing it to focus on Blizzard.

[Blackhawk]

Actually, I haven't give Blizzard a dime since... last year some time when I took another break from WoW. I wasn't planning on going back anytime soon (I often play in the winter), so waiting to see how this all pans out isn't really going to have an effect on me. It's a couple of months at least before Blizz was going to be getting any money from me to begin with (the new D2), so there's time to be patient and see what happens.

And arguing (with an open mind) is how one forms better opinions, so yeah. Discussions are good, even with disagreement baked in.

[Blackhawk]

Although to be clear, this wasn't meant as a substitute to the actual Blizzard thread, just a discussion of a single aspect of it that keeps coming up with actors, directors, musicians, etc.

And I apologize for immediately pushing it to focus on Blizzard.

Immediacy meant that was going to happen regardless. I hope that this thread will get business long after the Blizzard example is resolved.

[LawBeefaroni]

As I was working through this myself, I asked myself, "Would I continue to give money to an organization that openly used slave labor?"

I think it's more like, "Would I continue to give money to a harmless organization that supports thousands if I found out that select members of the board used slave labor?"

Ideally, I think, you address the wrongdoers - the board and those that enabled them - and not the entire organization. At least if it is possible - if not, the organization should end. But if a means exists to stop the wrong and punish the wrongdoers without hurting the innocent, isn't that at least worth consideration?

And if the answer is "That's a lot of work - It's easier to just hurt them all and call it collateral damage", then that's a problem in my view, too. (I am not saying that you are espousing this.)

This isn't just a select few on the board. This is management up and down the ladder who engaged in or allowed this behavior. You can't pick and choose where your money goes.


The corporation exists to enrich shareholders. Nothing more. Supporting it so that some percentage of workers keep their job is propping up an immoral/unethical entity. Blizzard employees can find other jobs. They don't have some sacrosanct right to keep the same jobs regardless of the health of the parent.

[noxiousdog]

A majority is a subset.

.....

And this shows that there's a sizeable portion of the company that is not a part of the problem (or at least, that is doing Concrete Things to address the problem).

There's an OO semantic argument if I've ever heard one.

Unless 100% of a company is behaving illegally, there will always be a subset of people acting proper. How big of a percent is too low to stage a boycott?

There are blizzard employees angry that folks that have signed the petition are part of the problem. Kudos to them that they want it to change.

So, now with your dollars, you can help the shareholders by continuing to fund revenue, or you can help the employees by recognizing their demands and boycotting along with their strike.

[Blackhawk]

That does help the employees. So does ensuring that they don't end up unable to pay their rent. It can't be both, and I'm still not sure which one is the lesser evil (or greater good - mental fatigue is setting in.)

And if the company's rot is so deep that getting rid of it would require ending the company entirely - does that help the employees, or is that curing the disease by killing the patient?

Perhaps the simplest solution would be for the healthy chunk to voluntarily break away and found a new company, with some mechanism to veto 'problem' people from the old organization. It would be a risky move, though, and would likely require outside funding.

[LawBeefaroni]

On topic:

Can we/should we continue to appreciate art when the artist is rotten?

No.

I haven't watched a Roman Polanski or Woody Allen movie since I was a kid (and I remember hating Allen even then).

It's a personal scale but generally rape/sexual abuse/pedophilia and you're out. Murder, out. Everything else is matter of degree.


Here's the thing. There is so much art to enjoy, and so much other stuff to do,.why on earth knowingly give your time and attention to a rapist pedo (or their art)? No single artist is indispensable.

[noxiousdog]

That does help the employees. So does ensuring that they don't end up unable to pay their rent. It can't be both, and I'm still not sure which one is the lesser evil (or greater good - mental fatigue is setting in.)

And if the company's rot is so deep that getting rid of it would require ending the company entirely - does that help the employees, or is that curing the disease by killing the patient?

Perhaps the simplest solution would be for the healthy chunk to voluntarily break away and found a new company, with some mechanism to veto 'problem' people from the old organization. It would be a risky move, though, and would likely require outside funding.

This is a false dilemma. You can replace senior executives. Likely, you can replace them far easier than masses of employees.

Strikes happen all the time. That doesn't cause all the employees to be fired or organizations to go bankrupt.

[Zaxxon]

A majority is a subset.

.....

And this shows that there's a sizeable portion of the company that is not a part of the problem (or at least, that is doing Concrete Things to address the problem).

There's an OO semantic argument if I've ever heard one.

Unless 100% of a company is behaving illegally, there will always be a subset of people acting proper. How big of a percent is too low to stage a boycott?

Yes, that's the question I asked above. I think you're taking from my posts things I'm not actually saying. I'm not suggesting that boycotting is the wrong course--rather that it's not an obvious conclusion that it's the right course. My point (such as it is) is that it's not all of Blizzard culpable for the current brouhaha. What is the line at which the harm we inflict is worthwhile relative to the harm the problem folks (be they 1%, 5%, 51%, or whatever) inflict?

So, now with your dollars, you can help the shareholders by continuing to fund revenue, or you can help the employees by recognizing their demands and boycotting along with their strike.

False dichotomy. These employees are chastising leadership and staging a walkout, not quitting. And I see BH has already addressed this...

[LawBeefaroni]

Here's what's happening right now.

Lots of people have said they're done with subs/purchases. Employees have been exposing the rot. ATVI made massive PR blunders.

Shareholders have made for the exits, dropping $6B in ATVI market cap. This is how change happens. Not petitions and platitudes. The board is in crisis mode and execs are sweating. It takes lost revenue to make that happen.

[LordMortis]

The corporation exists to enrich shareholders. Nothing more. Supporting it so that some percentage of workers keep their job is propping up an immoral/unethical entity. Blizzard employees can find other jobs. They don't have some sacrosanct right to keep the same jobs regardless of the health of the parent.

I'm torn with dealing with sentiment. I'm always sad to see people lose jobs and to see relationships fail. Even knowing, jobs and relationships can be flat out bad for you. And even knowing that marriages can do a number on their children and that good people can be doing good things a bad companies.

I struggle with a response to this. In the case that inspired this I choose my hypocrisy, made easier by the fact it is no change for me. I elect not to contribute to a 150 million dollar bonus and insider informed sales of millions of dollars a year while the company cuts staff and promotes culture I find abhorrent and goes the exact trend of R&P methods I despise to defend itself.

It's easy to preach that people should leave their job but for most of us it's hard to leave a job that affords us a living for the unknown or a known step backwards, especially if it's in a field you worked toward being a part of for your whole life.

I don't know if there is a right answer but I'm comfortable (though sad) in making a choice to terminate consumption over something like this. It's a hypocrisy I won't be tormented over, very much unlike the hypocrisy of every time I throw away a single use plastic.

There's a certain irony, a gladness I've felt toward the volume of people who have left the workforce and have hesitated to return since we provided an unemployment net. People who have felt empowered to not be part of a toxic or demeaning workforce, people given a choice to reject the benevolent dictatorship of the "job creators." I've commented on this more than once or twice or three times in R&P.

I don't know what's right but I know what's wrong for my conscience.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's easy to preach that people should leave their job but for most of us it's hard to leave a job that affords us a living for the unknown or known step backwards, especially if it's an a field you worked toward being a part of your whole life.

I'm not saying that they should leave their jobs. They should stay in there as long as they can, provided they aren't being harassed or abused. I'm saying it's not a customer's responsibility to continue to spend money at ATVi so they can keep those jobs.

[LordMortis]

It's easy to preach that people should leave their job but for most of us it's hard to leave a job that affords us a living for the unknown or known step backwards, especially if it's an a field you worked toward being a part of your whole life.

I'm not saying that they should leave their jobs. They should stay in there as long as they can, provided they aren't being harassed or abused. I'm saying it's not a customer's responsibility to continue to spend money at ATVi so they can keep those jobs.

I know. But I don't think that's the sentiment expressed by those who would not see this example as something to affect their pursuit of entertainment. I think the sentiment is that artwork x is something I enjoy. And there are good people making a living by selling me artwork x. I am comfortable with the promise of a better tomorrow from entity y to support the good people making artwork x for me to consume.

[AWS260]

I like to tell myself that I draw the line at giving Bad People my money. I may engage with their art, but I don't want to enrich them. J.K. Rowling is a case study -- I won't spend any more money on Harry Potter stuff, but I'll read the books and watch the DVDs that I already own.

In practice, it's rarely that cut-and-dry. I own a few R. Kelly albums, but I can't in good conscience enjoy them knowing what he's done, even though it's not giving him any more money. Maybe it's because the subject matter of many of his best songs (sex, basically) is so closely tied to his misdeeds. But even then, I'm a hypocrite: I didn't stop listening to R. Kelly until the mid-2010s, years after credible allegations emerged.

[Blackhawk]

I don't think that anyone's suggesting that it's our responsibility to spend money to pay for their jobs. It's more about questioning whether deliberately avoiding spending money does more harm than good.

It clearly does both. And when you're considering an action that causes harm, you take time to consider it, and consider alternatives.

[Archinerd]

On topic:

Can we/should we continue to appreciate art when the artist is rotten?

No.

I haven't watched a Roman Polanski or Woody Allen movie since I was a kid (and I remember hating Allen even then).

It's a personal scale but generally rape/sexual abuse/pedophilia and you're out. Murder, out. Everything else is matter of degree.


Here's the thing. There is so much art to enjoy, and so much other stuff to do,.why on earth knowingly give your time and attention to a rapist pedo (or their art)? No single artist is indispensable.

Stay away from Gauguin's paintings.

And close your eyes if you ever go to the Getty Center in LA.

[Blackhawk]

Stay away from practically anything from the first half of Hollywood's history.

[LordMortis]

Stay away from practically anything from the first half of Hollywood's history.

To say nothing of Rock music and Hip Hop. Some of that I have a hard time coming to reconcile. Some of it easily accept as hipocracy I can live with. I don't know why. I also own books by Jean Genet and William S Burroughs.

[Holman]

Stay away from practically anything from the first half of Hollywood's history.

I think the debate only matters when it's about financially rewarding bad people.

Once they're dead, buying or even praising their work doesn't support them in any way.

[gameoverman]

So, back to the topic. Can we/should we continue to appreciate art when the artist is rotten?

A thing is what it is. If I hear a piece of music and think it's beautiful, then someone tells me the composer killed kids and drank their blood, the music is still beautiful. If I knew that about the composer before I heard any of their music then I might avoid listening to any of their music. If I did hear their music anyway for some reason, then my opinion of it might be very different because of my previous bias against it.

Spending money on it is a separate thing in my opinion. Would I give money to an artist even though I know they killed kids and drank their blood? Probably not. Would I spend money on a recording of an orchestra playing that music, knowing that the composer died a couple of hundred years ago and therefore will be receiving nothing from the sale? Yeah I might.

When I first saw Chinatown I wasn't enough of a movie fan to note the names of directors. Certain famous movie stars were recognizable to me of course, but no one else involved in film making was important to me. I thought Chinatown was one of the greatest movies I've seen. Later I found out about him, but you know what? Chinatown is still one of the greatest movies I've seen.

The movie Joker uses a Gary Glitter track at one point. Does he get money from that? I don't know, and I don't care really. It works well in the movie so it doesn't bother me. Even if someone says he doesn't get a dime from it how am I supposed to know that's true? I'm not going to get into accounting just so I can decide if I can watch a movie or not.

In short, IF someone makes serious allegations and IF those allegations are proven to be true and IF the person/s affected ask for a boycott, I will not spend any more money on that art(movie, game, music, whatever else). If I have already spent the money, I will continue to enjoy the thing since for me boycotts don't work retroactively.

[Isgrimnur]

LA Times

For “Joker,” much of the criticism is centered on assumptions that Glitter was personally profiting from its use in the film, but Glitter sold away all his rights to the recording and publishing of “Rock and Roll Part 2,” co-written by the late Mike Leander, as well as his other songs more than two decades ago, according to Snapper Music, the London-based label that now owns Glitter’s master recordings.
...
Snapper purchased the masters to Glitter’s catalog in January 1997, several months before the singer’s legal problems began with the discovery of child pornography on his laptop and in his home. His new label’s plans for a retrospective album were quickly canceled. Unlike other legacy artists on the label, Snapper does not sell physical copies of Glitter’s records, which are available only as digital streams and downloads.

In the U.S., rights to the songwriting on “Rock and Roll Part 2" belong to Universal Music Publishing Group, which represents Glitter, and BMG, which represents Leander. A representative for Universal’s publishing group stated: “Gary Glitter’s publishing interest in the copyright of his songs is owned by UMPG and other parties, therefore UMPG does not pay him any royalties or other considerations.”

[Holman]

Leni Riefenstahl is a good example of this dilemma.

She was one of the greatest cinematic geniuses of the early 20th century, and it would be stupid to pretend otherwise. But it was absolutely correct that she never be allowed to escape her complicity with Hitler and the Nazi regime.

She was allowed to sort of remake herself as a documentary photographer in the 1970s, but IMHO she should still have been shunned.

[Exodor]

I'm struggling with my response to these revelations. I play WoW a LOT - a couple of hours a day. It's a pretty big part of my entertainment life and would leave a void if I stopped playing but I hate the idea that playing the game is an implicit endorsement of Blizzard or their management.

Years ago I made a conscious decision to stop following the NFL after watching the league turn a blind eye to abusive players (and a few years later my Chiefs drafted Mahomes. *sigh*). I don't want to spend my time, money or energy following a league that perpetuates all the ills created by football (starting with High Schools covering up player misdeeds and continuing through college).

For now my WoW subscription remains active. I'm waiting to see how this shakes out before making a final decision.

[Jaymon]

Some of this discussion was covered in the show "The Good Place". For those who haven't seen it.

Spoiler:

No one is getting into heaven, because the modern world is so complicated and so interconnected that no action or inaction, no matter how well meaning or altruistic, can be done without negative effects

Some portion of the company is evil, or allowing evil to happen. There is no realistic way for us to punish that portion, without also catching innocent people in the crossfire. We cannot allow this evil to continue, but if we bring the hammer down with a boycott, regular good folks will suffer, and they will probably suffer more than the golden parachute execs who allowed the evil to exist in the first place.


So when you are deciding what to do, and how much to do, consider this.


“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.” John Stuart Mill


Some have paraphrased that as "evil wins when good men do nothing". I also think about this. Each of us must do what we can, when we can. No matter how small, and no matter how much you think it won't matter.

There are many choices we make on a near daily basis which cause direct financial impact to innocent employees, and that can be a difficult choice. But, in the end, you must do what you feel is right. And we may each of us come to a different conclusion about what is right.

[Madmarcus]

In practice, it's rarely that cut-and-dry. I own a few R. Kelly albums, but I can't in good conscience enjoy them knowing what he's done, even though it's not giving him any more money. Maybe it's because the subject matter of many of his best songs (sex, basically) is so closely tied to his misdeeds.

I don't know if I have any new insight into the topic but I find the connection between the art and the problematic actions to be a big deal in my moral view. I agree with your statement about R. Kelly. Cosby stands as a counter example to me; his actions are vile but to me at least they do not taint his stand up work. I wouldn't pay to see him even if I had a time machine to go back to a show but I'll still quote Chocolate Cake for Breakfast.

[Pyperkub]

I still have some of Bill Cosby's old albums ripped to my audio library. Sometimes on random shuffle they pop up.

Sometimes I listen instead of skipping ahead, and there is still wisdom and humor in the words and performances.

Do I cringe a bit? Hell yeah, but the Art is still there, even if the persona was a false face on his double life.