People don't know what "separating art from the artist" actually means

[@Ali94749]

I have been using this phrase wrong my whole life! Glad I finally know. I will be correcting my friends and feeling smart from now on. 😂

[@tyghe_bright]

It really struck me when JKR once responded to criticism about her views on trans people with a comment about enjoying all the money from people buying her books. She literally takes people buying her work as tacit support of her views. And in capitalism, she's absolutely right, even if the people buying aren't aware.

[@PumpkinMozie]

This is why as a lifelong HP fan I have made the decision to no longer buy anything from her or the franchise. I’ll keep the books I already have but that’s it. It’s sad that she had to ruin her legacy with bigotry.

[@ValeVin]

I do appreciate her coming out and saying that people who buy her books do so because they support her transphobia, as it forced a lot of my cishet acquaintances to really stop and reconsider Death of the Author as a justification for being Harry Potter super fans while not being outwardly transphobic. I had a moment listening to a podcast recently where the person said "I'm just going to assume that if you're still listening and subscribing to my podcast, it's because you believe that AI cover art, AI-written books, and AI marketing is okay and you're excited to hear more about it." I quickly hit the unsubscribe button. (I just had a feed that was keeping up with publishing news and that podcaster/author happened to be on it, but her saying that really put things into perspective. I read books because I love the humans who write them and the artists who bring the worlds to life. While knowing about how AI affects them is useful from a student of the publishing industry perspective... I really did not want to be supporting AI-written books, which is apparently what having been subscribed was doing.)

[@SarastistheSerpent]

⁠@@PumpkinMoziesame. I love HP, but I can’t in good conscience keep giving her my money, especially knowing what she’s spending it on.

[@AScreenwritersJourney]

Great information. Thanks for sharing. A couple of days ago I participated in a Zoom where participants were given feedback on the first 10 pages of their screenplays. The twist was that we removed the title pages, so that the reader didn't know who wrote which scripts. It was called a "blind read," but it also sounds like "separating art from the artist."

[@cabarnone]

“Leaks queerness from its pores” Best thing I ever heard re Frankenstein. Great video.

[@Amoscrts]

Yes!!!! I’m a big proponent of reader response theory. I teach my students by holding up one hand and telling them it represents the author and the author’s life experience. Then, I hold up my other hand and tell them this represents them as readers in that particular moment. I put my hands together to form a book, concluding that you the reader and the author create the experience of reading together.

[@didiii90]

That was really educational, thank you for bringing this up in such an easy to digest way! As someone with very strong morals I really hate the idea of accidentally supporting an artist who is an awful person by engaging with their art. I try to do as much self education as I can but most of the time I don’t have enough spoons to always do it and if then my mistake comes out, I feel horrible about it. That’s why I appreciate you and your channel so much because your recommendations are certified to align with my morals and I can just go into them without the fear of messing up.

[@tirarosaurioreads]

I had NO idea that is what it actually means! On a side note, I share your view about JK... just mentioning her name makes my skin crawl tbh.

[@HannahsBooks]

I love the criticism that emerges from this strategy-including “reader response” criticism. Refusing to accept the idea that books only reflect specific authorial intent is essential to understand what books mean to readers-especially over time and in changing contexts. Thanks for this discussion.

[@esliet]

When I get an alert for one of your videos I know I will learn something. Brilliant content as always

[@literarylove123]

I am glad you use your gift for teaching in a way that brings you joy. I learn so much from your videos.

[@tanyaestes6276]

One of my favorite videos of yours. I would like to see more of these short academic takes. I realize all your books are insightful and analytical, but stuff like this is wonderful too.

[@danielaweberdani]

curious about your teacher days, you say you hated them furiously yet people are here learning from you on a regular basis: you are totally right as usual, baddies don't deserve fans. 🍎

[@WillowTalksBooks]

I hated the stress, the paperwork, the bureaucracy, the long nights, and the kids. But I enjoy the act of teaching. If being a teacher was just teaching, I’d go back tomorrow. But being a high school teacher in the UK is 10% teaching, 90% depressing extra stuff

[@isirlasplace91]

Please keep educating us on topics such as these!! Loved this!!

[@greenonionbabey]

I've been trying to explain this distinction to people for YEARRSSSS but this video is so clear and concise I'm just going to send it to people now

[@Barryislarge]

Oh god, i've been using this term wrongly for so long 😵‍💫 it's always so nice to go into a gallery and look at paintings before reading the artist statement. Then the meaning is a pleasant surprise (or frustrating letdown - looking at you, Mr Glin). With media consumption comes a sense of responsibility, I guess, to look into the artist. We all consume consume consume in a capital-based society, so there'll always be surprises when digging deeper. Impartiality always sides with the aggressor. Take a stance, or get out of my dance class! 💃

[@etiennesportfolio]

Big Frankenstein lover here too ❤ I didn't know about the phrase and I'm glad now I know because it's a nice thing to read blindly and then look up the info and realize a lot of things, even though it comes with a cost sometimes 😢

[@carriemoscoe3159]

I agree! The politics of the time and where the author stands is *always* going to subconsciously affect the text that is written!

[@Gen-yh1jz]

I had no idea what the phrase meant. Thank you for the video.

[@mariahmoo]

Would recommend "Monsters" by Claire Dederer for anyone interested in a deep dive on the question of problematic artists and our love for their art.

[@m8nswell]

Thanks for explaining this, always love to learn new stuff. Also, while I'm at it, I've been really enjoying your videos and thanks a lot for making them!! 🌷🌼✨

[@EmilyParagraph]

Oooh, you should do one on the related but still very annoying issue of people saying "Death of the Author" when they really mean "I'm ignoring canon in favor of my headcanon I like better" Great video!

[@ithrahmunchswallow468]

Yeah I bought the Cormoran Strike novels before I knew that JK was the author. Pen name was a clever ploy.

[@WillowTalksBooks]

And the pen name is the same as the guy who invented gay conversion therapy. How strange 🤔

[@ithrahmunchswallow468]

@@WillowTalksBooks Ah the more you know 🤦‍♀️ if that's not an argument against her I don't know what is. I never liked the Harry Potter books so I wasn't in the know.

[@Usortert]

@@WillowTalksBooks For f's sake?! Really? I have not had enough interest in her current writing to look up what her pen name is, and to google it would probably not even occurred to me. But bloody warmplacenotcensoredbyYT, talk about hiding in plain sight.

[@nicohobson5251]

This is such an important point. It’s almost like the original phrase of focusing on a creation without considering the creator (like in bake off when they do the part without knowing which contestant did it 😂) has been appropriated to allow yourself to enjoy things created by awful people with awful view points.

[@pablobarquero9733]

I would love to watch more videos like this, I love when people share their vision and knowledge so I can expand my vision of the things ❤

[@ThatNerdyMystic]

When I have repeatedly told my coworkers why I don't participate in anything related to potterverse , or anything owned by Disney... and they repeatedly just... forget because they either are secret, behaving-in-public sorts of b1gots , or they truly have the motivation and understanding of moral-social responsibility the size of a sesame seed... I feel like screaming and tearing all my hair out.

[@vortexvibes5944]

😮 I was blind but now I see

[@nightmotherasmr]

I like your channel more and more :)

[@o_o-lj1ym]

I've also seen people use "separate the art from the artist" when it comes to unlikeable characters reflecting badly on the author. Just because an author writes an immoral character it doesn't mean they themselves are immoral.

[@WillowTalksBooks]

Oh yeah for sure, I’m all for unlikeable protagonists!

[@gamewrit0058]

Brilliant video, with fantastic intro. My middle school teacher friend also looks like a teacher of middle school students. 🥰Her style is stunning. ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜🖤

[@tortoisedreams6369]

As usual you give me a lot to think about. Does this concept then relate to Barthes "The Death of the Author"? And aren't there levels of badness? Such as an author who was cold and distant to their children, or one who beat their spouse, or another who actually worked for and funded oppression of marginalized groups. How bad do they have to be for me to give up their art? So many artists are secretly terrible people that we don't find out till after their death. Thank you for feeding by mental appetite (hmm, odd image) and please keep the videos coming.

[@banjowarrior365]

4:45 On the topic of Orwell, it's also important to know that he provided lists of black and queer leftists to the British government, and was a imperial police officer in Burma. He never supported the revolutionary struggles of colonised people around the world (you can't actually over throw capitalist imperialism and move towards socialism, that's authoritarian!) There's a reason 1984 is so effectively used as a tool of liberals and the right, it's anti-communist propaganda that has turned many people away from socialism and communism. And don't get me started on animal farm, complete nonsense.

[@chriscze6153]

Nice video - I understood it to be both things, actually, with modern day consensus leaning more into the first iteration. I recently read Manhunt by Felker-Martin without knowing anything about her or her controversial online history. To be honest, even if she is an edgelord or twitter troll, I am not that upset by whatever I am aware of she has spouted online. Would I get along with her in person? Probably not. Was I willing to give her book a chance? Well, I purchased it before the fact anyway, but I hated it. still, knowing what I know, I'd give Cuckoo a chance if I hear good reviews because I saw potential in her writing. So I think it also depends on what exactly you take offense with in the first case. As for the second case, yes, every piece of art is subject to whatever the individual reader interprets, and everything is valid. Thanks for the clarification!

[@judegrindvoll8467]

The first case is interesting to me because I don't get offended by artists, even those I profoundly disagree with. I just cannot seem to have emotional reactions to debates which, in my mind, are fundamentally intellectual. Maybe my literature degree taught me to separate too well! Behaviour on the other hand, yes. One of the saddest developments in public discourse over the past few decades is the shutting down of debate where a well thought out argument would suffice.

[@chriscze6153]

@moyinoluwaseriki7324 if that's directed towards me I simply mean I might not condone someone's behavior or what they say. In the case of this author others have canceled her or put her on do not read lists. I see why they have. I don't see her spreading hate speech though like Rowling, she's just a twat online. If someone bases their platform on hate or the dissemination of false information then that's a separate matter

[@judegrindvoll8467]

@moyinoluwaseriki7324 I didn’t say that they have to be separated, simply that I personally don’t have emotional reactions myself. You’re getting annoyed here by something you think I said rather than something I actually said. Which appears to me to be part of the problem in modern discourse. Take JK Rowling, for example. The ‘essay’ she wrote about trans women was abysmal - every argument she made could be easily pulled apart from an intellectual perspective; it was woolly, meandering, subjective, and often times irrational. I particularly disliked the way she assigned herself to be a mouthpiece for domestic assault victims. While I respect that many people cannot stomach her as a creator now (absolutely fair enough in my opinion), I just cannot accept that a better way deal with these types of people is to ridicule the person rather than their viewpoints. And if we do attack their viewpoints, this has to be done in a somewhat disengaged way simply to be taken seriously. My issue really is that we spend more time cancelling people now than we do robustly rejecting their stances simply because it’s easier. (And yes, of course, you can do both if you wish).

[@jacforswear18]

⁠​⁠@@judegrindvoll8467I think your clarification shows that the other commenter was actually addressing what you were saying-people who have emotional reactions should still be taken serious. Expecting people to be disengaged to be taken seriously or even suggesting that being taken seriously requires disengagement is the actual problem with modern discourse. People who are impacted directly by misinformation and hateful rhetoric and have an emotional or human response are not any less worthy of being taken seriously nor are they any less capable for being logical and intellectual. The absolutely best and most impactful champions of human rights and social change on the front lines have always been human first intellectual/academic second and have all fully and explicitly brought themselves into their work. Having just finished a theory-heavy social work degree I have seen first hand how apathetic and frankly useless purely I intellectualized social change can be. Also, a person is their view points. JKR *IS* transphobic. It is how she wants to be known (she has explicitly stated that she is proud to be transphobic). The view points are not separate from her.

[@judegrindvoll8467]

@@jacforswear18 Sorry I really didn’t mean to imply that people responding emotionally are not to be taken seriously - can you point out what I said that implied this so I can amend appropriately? I can’t stress enough that I was referring to myself in my original post - not other people. And I certainly wasn’t trying to imply that it is ‘wrong’ to have strong feelings towards people saying harmful or hurtful things. Disengaging from emotions is not always a choice either - some people who have had traumatic childhoods sometimes just cannot respond emotionally. Fighting harmful discourse/rhetoric can be multifaceted too. I think fighting for social justice has to be done in a way which is comfortable for individuals. I would love to be a Greta Thunberg for example, but that way beyond my comfort zone! We all have unique strengths that can make a difference I like to believe.

[@heathereads]

Thank you Willow I found this video very helpful

[@kawaiikitty4569]

This is very interesting. I enjoy these little snippets of learning. I couldn’t hear the lawnmowers if that helps!

[@rachel1021]

If I heard this without knowing its intent, I would assume it means literally separating the artist from their art. As in taking away the means to do their art (like stealing the drum kit from the drummer in SOAD. FUCK THAT GUY I HATE HIM SO MUCH!) LMAO Also, happy birthday Willow :)

[@MyTeaandCrumpets]

Its a strange one, i read alot of philosophy an i think it was Epicteus that said "read like a spy" which is why i find it hard to not read certain authors like take murakmi's works for example the way he portrays woman is clearly messed up but with out reading some of his works i wouldnt of understood what was so wrong about it.

[@honeyxmoony]

that's very interesting! however now I'm curious whether there is an actual name for "appreciating the art of an artist without financially supporting them since they are not a good person", because it is quite a mouthful😂 Thanks for educating us willow!

[@koruscott6514]

I love that I know we would get along so well because this is such a pet peeve of mine ahahahhaha 🤣 THANK YOU

[@angelaholmes8888]

Yes it's so important to know the artist when i found out about Rowling i stopped supporting her i have made this decision with other artist like Emily a duncan and jaime McGuire

[@BemuzedBookworm]

Haha naming your cat after Mary Shelley's mother is only weird if you don't know who her mother is😂

[@andeeharry]

Thanks for sharing, I always wondered about this one

[@maiiau]

It's funny, separating the art from the artist was one of my favorite ways to approach readings in college, but I remember very clearly breaking from it when I thought what I was reading might suggest the author had negative views of queer people. I've always wondered if having that moment of discovering an author you've read has bigoted views happening when you were younger makes you more ready to deal with it. My moment was reading Orson Scott Card as a kid--very glad I took those out of the library instead of buying them. When the Rowling stuff became known, maybe it was easier for me to recognize and deal with because I'd had experience? No faster way to clear space for more books than tossing seven of them in the trash, too.

[@zachreads]

Since you named your cat after the author do you know if Jane Austen got the name of Sense and Sensibility from A Vindication of the Rights of Women by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelly? The phrase appears several times in AVotRoW and I know Sense and Sensibility wasn't the origonal title (origonally titled Elinor and Marianne). That's my personal theory but i don't know if it's true.

[@Persewna4]

I would actually disagree that people are using the phrase "wrong", rather that they are generally unaware of its origin from literary criticism. Yes, if they are speaking from a literary criticism standpoint and using the definition of "can I engage morally with a piece of work while disagreeing with or objecting against the creator's views?", then they are using it wrong. But if they are speaking from a cultural, consumption-based perspective, I don't think it's wrong for them to use the phrase, as it is likely that the people with whom they are conversing will understand their meaning based on the context. The beauty and frustration of lamguage is that it evolves and changes with the times, and words or phrases that meant one thing can morph or accrue additional meanings and uses. Personally there are some current slang that make me cringe, that I would never use myself, but I also don't want to put myself in the position of becoming the "Well, actually" person in a group. As long as meaning is adequately conveyed (and the words or phrases used are not actively harmful toward a group or individual), I don't see a need to "correct" the word choice of another person.

[@valeusagi1911]

Thank you for this ❤ i did not know that!

[@PlatoKaramazov]

I'm big into historical criticism myself 👍 I always want to know what was happening at the time a book was written, or what idea the author is trying to get across.

[@Readatrix]

In the former case, with the wrong definition, I think people generally are okay with reading dead authors who were some degree of horrible. I saw a piece you did on Agatha Christie, who as I'm sure you know liked to sprinkle a little bit of bigotry across everything she wrote. I think there's too much important writing in the past to leave it all behind, which is almost what you'd have to do to avoid all values dissonance. As to the correct definition, because I am clear I want to support marginalized authors, I have to work to separate while reading, and only want to do so to a certain extent. A plot I find trite might be so because the authors who've come before have overused it, but this latest author might represent a group that never had a bite at the apple. I think remembering that is important in terms of how I want to review the story. I think your relationship with Frankenstein is lovely. It makes me want to find a book that I know that intimately. Is your cat the full Mary Wollstonecraft, or just Wollstonecraft? (I keep meaning to read the 1818 edition, maybe reread it because I have no idea which one I read originally.)

[@SarastistheSerpent]

I completely agree, although it think the colloquial definition has eclipsed that real definition. And regarding the former, unfortunately until recently made a lot of excuses about how I could still buy Harry Potter merch without supporting Rowling’s horrible views. I even, to my great regret, bought Hogwarts Legacy. It wasn’t until Rowling somewhat recently donated £75 thousand to an anti-trans organization that it got through to me that by buying her products, I was also directly funding that anti-trans organization. It was a brutal “come to Jesus” moment for me, knowing that I consequentially participated in stripping away trans people’s human rights, but it needed to be done. I now honestly think that the colloquial version of “separating the art from the artist” can really only be done if the artist is long dead.

[@jasmin5246]

Looking good, sister! 😍

[@umbre04]

I can even do this easily, even with Lostprophets for example. It’s the Welsh rock band where the lead singer committed depraved child abuse in his private life. But what’s that got to do with the band, the other innocent band members and the great music/albums they made though? Ian Watkins’ crimes are irrelevant to the music etc imo

[@pavlabrisudova4251]

I don't have to like the creator=artist to be able to like and enjoy their creation(product)=art. And honestly? I couldn't care less what they do in their personal life

[@WillowTalksBooks]

I’m so jealous of your privilege. Enjoy your life.

[@WhatTheFunct]

Ooh. This is so interesting! I had never thought about it that way, but it seems like you're saying that separating the art from the artist really amounts to allowing yourself to interpret a text in your own way, regardless of authorial intent. Have I got that right? As always, thank you for another excellent video! :) P.S. I will never support any project that J.K. Rowling participates in.

[@dalblauw]

Oh thank you for this video, the way this phrase is used always bothered me so much, it takes away all responsibility from both artist and audience. Now I know it wasn't even the correct usage.

[@Written_World_Views]

Separating the art from the artist means ((in the case of an author)) that you can read their book and give 0% interest in their appearence, their personal life as well as their views and opinions on anything. That is what it means to Separate the art from the artist. It is not the case that I do or don't align with someone's political opinions because of buying their books or not. Which I wouldn't know anyway because I don't look up what the authors do on a day to day basis because I have zero interest. I read the back of a book to see what it is about and I make my mind up there and then. Of course I have several authors works but that is because I read a book of their's liked it and decided to give their next book a try.

[@nikeestar]

It's not uncommon for a phrase to have different meanings in different contexts. With 'separating the art from the artist (in common parlance) ' - my concern is making a blanket rule that bad people's art should be ignored, we're stripping away a lot of great work from the world. There's ways to still like an unethical person's work without giving them money for it. For example I still have my Potter books, and haven't purchased anything from the HP franchise since she has been saying terfy things. But I still keep the books I purchased years ago. What worries me the most is if any artist does anything that's considered to be unethical by anyone (whether it's true or not) there's a movement to destroy their careers. I'm not saying that's what you're talking about Willow. But it happens a lot. There's a very puritanical aspect to that unwillingness to separate art from the artist. And I say this as someone who has much in common with you. I am not just queer, but marginalised in multiple ways. And a creative/artist too. Considering the rampant false allegations against LGBT people by GC's, it worries me that a unwillingness to separate art from the artist will have a negative impact on queer people.

[@jacforswear18]

This is my thing; people LOVE to use JKR as their primary (sometimes only) example because she’s so loud and proud in her bigotry. However, if I… as a queer, disabled, Black mixed race femme, were to not support through consumption and/or advertisement (talking about something I love) any person who was a bigot, abuser, ecological destructor, or who I personally held qualms with based on my own moral convictions (say… I really am disgusted by people who cheat on their spouses) I’d have very little left, especially when it comes to classics and foundational texts. Hell, I wouldn’t be able to read Frankenstein every year! The amount of racism and colonialism alone in the histories of most authors prior to like… 1990 is staggering. Also none of us would be watching movies or TV because I genuinely think Hollywood is irredeemable as a whole.

[@84paratize]

But surely, at some point, if the vast majority of people using that phrase are using it incorrectly, then the meaning of it changes? But anyhow, I think it's silly that people try to separate the art from the artist when the whole point of art (at least in the modern world) is about self-expression. You would be a pretty weird artist if you said to everyone "my art has nothing to do with me"

[@amysmith1044]

Thank you for highlighting that some of the most beloved creators are problematic and you encourage us to stop supporting them❤ Sarah J Maas and Rebecca Yarros both support the genocide of Palestinians and I will never support them

[@readingfuriously]

Part two on “death of the artist/author”

[@idkwhatimdoing1713]

thanks for explaining! yeah capitalism wants people to just consume blindly, to not care about the origins and even how they can affect the messaging in a certain piece of art (reminds me of that meme that's like "ppl when the artist that sings about disrespecting women disrespects women😱" lol). It can also come out in a lot more subtle ways, which can seep in subconsciously. Personally, I really like learning about the contexts for different medias- which includes the views of the artist- because of what you said about a deeper understanding. I can't help but think a lot of t also stems from an anti-intellectual point of view, from you describing the real, more academic, meaning of the phrase, to people just not wanting to critically engage with the media they consume. I think people have such reactionary responses to people just wanting them to acknowledge that someone has weird beliefs, like this whole cancel culture stuff- but who has actually been affected by this? Most of the people that have been 'canceled', at least from I've seen, still have thriving careers, fanbases and people that don't even know about what they've said/done (like jk Rowling for example). I think a lot of people are also afraid that if they connect to piece of media that's made by someone who's been called out for harmful things, that means it reflects on them and it's a moral judgement somehow which is an understandable first response. I really enjoyed and connected to the film Black Swan when I first saw it but since have found out Darren Aronofskey signed the Polanski Petition, which goes completely against my morals as a survivor myself. I can recognise that he produces great pieces of art and appreciate that but I don't have to support him publicly/monetarily, and honestly, there are so many other brilliant filmmakers out there that I now get to spend more time on. Also 🏴‍☠ing exists if you really can't live without something, or even buying second hand dvds/blu rays/cds. I was recently listening to a podcast ep talking abt rosemary's baby (directed by polanksi) and they talked abt how his crimes might have influenced certain messages/decisions in the film, since the things you do/believe in real life comes from your brain and your art also comes from that same brain so it's probably going to have an influence on each other. Anyway, I find this discussion quite interesting but also frustrating, like it's great that get to not care abt racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and general bigotry but not all of us have that privilege since we are sick of having to deal with it in everyday life. And, of coarse, it must be so annoying to have to hear that phrase used in a perverted way all the time, I'm glad to know about that practice it seems very interesting.

[@06Yvonne06]

It's a bit more complicated though. Take that one Japanese author that you do not review anymore Yukio Mishima. He obviously tried to re-instate an emperor in Japan back in the days and had world views that we might deem fascist these days. However, his writing and his actual life proved him to have been the opposite. He was bisexual, wrote fascinating stories about human behaviour, desires and the destruction of the inner self that he probably also understood as connected to the modernisation of his home country and the loss of its traditions. The fact that Mishima had the most modern problems and identity issues, without him being aware of it, made his work survive the times and important for the Japanese and world literature canon. So, whilst I totally respect your decision to stop talking about him, I do not think that buying a book of his would support a wrong cause. Maybe it's easier with people who are not alive anymore but I also think that we can be critical, read and take from a piece of literature what it offers to the world without needing to agree with everything an author says or does. Nobody who bought books by J.K. Rowling 20 years ago could know how she would develop and it's super delusional of her to think everyone who buys a HP book supports the opinions of the author. I get that especially buying books by questionable politicians or people involved in that realm will mean financially supporting their cause but I urge everyone to read what the opposition or the "enemy" thinks, otherwise there is no way of having a bigger picture and understanding of their ways. Maybe one can go to the library instead and thus have a way around putting money in their pockets. Sorry for half-essay here.

[@nope5657]

Idk, the often used, non-academic way the term is used will always be contentious. I do think your "you can never separate art from artists because capitalism" is a bit shaky, because a dead artist doesn't make money, for example. Obtaining the art from second-hand methods does not make the artist money. Sharing the art does not make the artist money. I think when people say "separate the art for the artist" they are advocating for a holistic, nuanced approach to engaging with said art even if the creator happens to be a morally objectionable person. The people who "cancel" (I know, I know...I'm just using the word as shorthand) art by problematic people often take on overly-simplistic, bad faith readings of the art once the artist is exposed - suddenly every word they wrote, image they directed, is meant to be a sick reflection of their character. And that kind of mindset is just absurd and childish. Bad people can, do, and will continue to produce good art. It's just a harsh reality we need to accept if we want to continue to engage with art. This may be a fairly pessimistic attitude, but I assume for every scandal we know about with artists, there are 5 we will never know about. And I don't think capitalism is the only blame here, lol. Everybody has their lines, and I respect that. If someone doesn't want to support a piece of art due to whatever the artist has done/said, fine. No judgment. What I DO take issue with is the policing of other ppls morality and character if they don't think the way you do about the situation.

[@SarastistheSerpent]

I think there’s a big difference between buying books by, say, HP Lovecraft, a racist who is now long dead and who’s estate, at least as far as anyone knows, does not fund neo-f*scist or racist organizations, and buying books by Rowling, who is alive and not only actively bigoted, but has explicitly stated that she uses the money she makes from her work to fund anti-trans extremist organizations, and even pay legal bills for people who’ve committed misdemeanours or outright crimes against trans people. I also think there’s a difference between people who are actively and passively bigoted. For example, one of my favourite authors, Hilary Mantel, made anti-trans comments before her death, but I know that she wasn’t using wealth she made from her books to actively harm trans people, whereas Rowling is/has.

[@jacforswear18]

I would argue that it means both at this point. Common use is just as legitimate (especially after decades) as academic origin if we accept the evolution of language and meaning!

[@WillowTalksBooks]

Sure :)

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

Art can be an essential nutrient but it can also be another consumable. Ignoring the bad smell that the artist's corruption gives it, in the hope of being able to continue consuming it, is a selfish juggling act. But every artist is the most sensitive part of the population and most significant artists are deeply damaged people. On the one hand, guilt and on the other, good sense. Should I discard (is it possible?) my viceral reaction to the music of an artist whom I discover to be very morally failing, if my viceras do not react with rejection?

[@frannook]

I confess my ignorance, I didn't know what the phrase actually meant and I want to thank you for your video. It was so simply put and well explained, so educational... and I now finally know how to properly answer to people who call themselves allies & co and still enjoy and share their love about HP and JKR. Thank you.

[@Elizabeth-Reads]

I like your teacher vibe, with the chains and tatts you’re the teacher I wish I’d had! How do you feel about reading these books without paying for them? I don’t read them myself, because knowing what the author has said taints my reading experience even when their views aren’t reflected in the novel. But I went through this struggle when debating whether to let my child read HP, remembering how much I’d loved the books myself. I did get them out from the library (but felt weird about it.)

[@WillowTalksBooks]

Authors still get financial compensation when you use libraries (which is why libraries are so great!) and I personally still wouldn’t do it because the art has been spoiled for me by the artist. However, to each their own 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@Elizabeth-Reads]

@@WillowTalksBooks Thanks, that’s good to know, I didn’t realize. 🙁

[@markhnk]

I would disagree because I find the distinction between academic and non-academic interpretation not very useful. In both cases, you consume art. Whether you connect that art to the artist or separate it is a personal choice. I understand your choice and the morals behind it, and why you would want everyone to feel the same, but it's still a personal choice that shouldn't be confused with a universal definition.

[@JackFsk]

100%

[@therookerybookery]

Thank you so much, Willow! As for the incorrect meaning of the term, I and many others have used for the moral dilemmas around enjoyment of certain horrible authors works... what is your opinion/advice for older works where the author is long gone, but their works are still highly regarded, often part of the canon? For example, if I'm reading a Victorian work and enjoy it, but then find out that the author was racist or anti semitic, I would no longer want to champion that book or author and would tell people what I found out if they mention that author. But I find often with classics, people will defend sexism, homophobia, paedophilia, incest, abuse, etc. as being part of that era, so to be expected and allowed. I love reading Edgar Allan Poe stories but then the more I found out about him and his life, felt uneasy, but people would say to me "in those days people would marry their 13 year old cousin at 27 years old to save them from destitution" but I felt like if it had been a different author/poet which they didn't enjoy the works of, they wouldn't defend that marriage at all. This is only one example, because I think sometimes I purposely don't research authors anymore for fear of what I'll find, but I don't want to be ignorant on purpose. It seems like most of the respected authors of the 19th and 20th C. were abusive in different ways to women (especially their wives) which seems to be laughed off as "a typical artistic temperament". (James Joyce, Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Phillip Larkin, etc. etc.) But if I'm brutally honest with myself, I tried the have your cake and eat it too separation of art from artist excuse, not with Harry Potter but with Father Ted, I used that show to calm down after every bad day since the 90s but Linehan's transphobia is abhorrent, I cant support him, but streaming his shows supports him financially and therefore backs his views, so I had to find somot else to cheer me up than the silly priests!😅

[@jacforswear18]

I mean they were all colonialist and undoubtedly all racist too. You can do it all-you can be informed and still enjoy something without making excuses. I love Edgar Allan Poe’s writing. I do not love Edgar Allan Poe. I can talk about how shitty he is and still care about the foundations of the text.

[@starmantheta2028]

OK, honest question: in regards to the critique here of the colloquial (mis?)use of, "seperating art from the artist," are we just talking about JKR or are we talking about any artist, alive or dead, with immoral or problematic views or actions?

[@davelewis8270]

What if you steal the art though?

[@WillowTalksBooks]

That’s called theft 😊 *nose boop*

[@oh5793]

so basically it's similar to the concept of "death of the author" by Roland Barthes?

[@karidru5272]

Please can this video go viral I hate this so much... Regarding the phrase in the google sense: I think reading the books by absolute scumballs, Like Charles Dickens for instance, I said what I said; matters a lot less when they are dead. Especially if you know how racist they were and won't be picking up any views through osmosis unaware. But oh my gosh I really need people to stop reading JKR even used or pirated because it all keeps her work relevant, and it needs to not be. Relevance is her secondary superpower, right after money.

[@thelemmallama]

What constitutes "support"? Is pirating their work "support"? Is talking about the work without mentioning who the artist is and therefore giving them no clout as a person "support"? Capitalism is a problem, why not try dismantling the assumptions our capitalist society is built upon and abolish the property relation an artist has to their works? Thanks for informing us of the academic definition though!

[@jstamps9578]

I felt a big loss when jkr exposed herself as a low intellect bigot. But I couldn't betray my ethics and put another penny in her pocket. Nope.

[@Ms.HGL.]

Love the shirt!

[@carl_oak]

Willow you can count on my despise of that woman. Another writer that really made me stop reading her stuff was Marion Zimmer. It says a lot about you as a person to be conniving with the work of deranged people. Do we ask ourselves what subliminarities were absorbed when we were reading their books? To know the author is to give meaning to their words.

[@willcacti8302]

I had wondered why I got so confused by art/media discourse with that phrase, and that’s because I saw people using the phrase wrong and other people using the phrase correctly and not knowing that

[@amyschmelzer6445]

I’m in the midst of Animal Farm right now. It’s a weird reread. I’m both not clicking with it and seeing how relevant it is in the political climate around me. Ugh, I think I would rather go stick my head in the sand and not think about the 2024 presidential election. I liked Animal Farm okay last time I read it but at that point I had never read 1984, but now I have. Both books are the same except one does it with talking farmlife and the other doesn’t.

[@WillowTalksBooks]

I mean, it is a kids’ book 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@Nixx0912]

I have a little preference for "Animal farm". Comming from Poland they were acctualy band when we were "socialist" country (lighter name for communist). Animal farm acctualy retels the Russian revolution, as 1984 is the aftermath.

[@noone9472]

In the video you mention George Orwell positively, and a few weeks ago a saw a video depicting him on a less positive light: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHjdYXyVjcShnNEsi=nxPq2jBsvLatPSEC I was wondering if you knew about that aspect of him? And I would be curious to know your take ❤

[@ssreya5592]

If you feel comfortable can you please share what you feel about dead artists? Because then the captialist argument takes a different form... I mean Just want to know your thoughts. Sorry if it is disrespectful to ask this question.

[@WillowTalksBooks]

It’s a big question, but I tried to explore it here in this old video of mine: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rIO4fWCLhZqZlcksi=hD5gFx7vhTl9BhcX

[@aldakendall4921]

Well shit, i am so queer by all meanings of the word and Gothic genre. Is noir a subset of the Gothic? Mystery?

[@Nixx0912]

I tough youtube proposes mi your old video when you had short hair 😂

[@WillowTalksBooks]

Hahaha!

[@Adeodatus100]

Hence the 467,812 times (approximately) I've found myself yelling "I don't ****ing care what the artist intended!" at various people over many years.

[@CriminOllyBlog]

😂 this was great

[@melaniechristina7361]

🤗

[@littlejohnuk]

So if someone gives you a duplicate Wagner CD just refuse it?

[@WillowTalksBooks]

There’s something gross and very telling about people who get upset by other people’s morals, and take a decidedly animalistic approach towards them. You can just settle down and go about your life, guy!

[@littlejohnuk]

@@WillowTalksBooks I'm only asking a question

[@Ju-pk7bh]

Interesting! I always point out, while having this discussion, that I can't separate the art from the artist because every fact that I learn about an artist and their art, and the meaning that they put into it, changes my feelings or sensations while experiencing it, like the thoughts on your mind while hearing a song and the feeling that it evokes. Now I understand that it's an exercise!

[@nope5657]

This is assuming that, because the artist is outted as a problematic person, that this MUST be present in all facets of their art. It's not the simple. It's too easy a cop-out to think: "Oh, this artist turned out to be a bad person! That means everything they ever put out is just a 1 to 1 reflection and affirmation of their true selves!" No...like, that's not how art works. Part of being an artist is telling a story separate from yourself. That's not to say parts of a person are totally absent in their art. It's impossible not to have a piece of yourself in your art. But the idea that "oh, this artist turned out to be Islamophobic. Guess that means all of their work is inherently Islamophobic now!" Bad people can make great art. It's a rough, tough pill to swallow. But its a pill one must swallow in order to continue to enjoy the arts, imo.

[@Ju-pk7bh]

@@nope5657 I didn't mean only negative or 'cancelable' information about the author, but rather all the details I remember or learn about a work that shape my perception. For instance, understanding how an artist felt when creating a particular piece. However, I suppose the significance of these 'discoveries' depends on how closely related they are to their art. I also think that there are more ways of analysis; one valid way is from the artist's context and experience, examining how their beliefs or values influence the stories they create. But, I was referring more to the personal experience with the work, how our perception shifts based on the information we know. For me, this occurs most with music; remembering certain details about a song can alter my emotions while listening. And sometimes I such a fangirl, that I know a lot of stories behind various songs and about the artist lives... and the same goes for certain writers, lol

[@amysmith1044]

I don’t mean any harm here dear Willow and I must admit that I am not 100% clued up on this issue because I never really read Harry Potter; but apparently there is evidence to show JK Rowling is not actually transphobic and her comments have been taken out of context, I attach a video link from Brett Cooper explaining this phenomenon kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJ_CqKGZi8mgicUsi=eI8pkHkFN0h6VmtN Again I could be wrong but I thought maybe you want to look deeper into this before cancelling a once beloved author, however, if she remains problematic after this then cancel away! I would love to get your thoughts on this please as you are my go to authority regarding trans issues❤

[@WillowTalksBooks]

Sad thing is that, in this case, I can’t really be an authority. And that’s solely because she threatens to sue anyone and everyone who ever calls out her transphobia. If I say too much, she could easily come for me like she’s done to many others recently. I think the easiest way to see for yourself is just to read some of her recent tweets and see for yourself 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@amysmith1044]

@@WillowTalksBooks thank you! Great response, I appreciate it🙌🏻

[@WillowTalksBooks]

Yeah you’re transphobic

[@amysmith1044]

@@WillowTalksBooks I am not transphobic, I meant no hate or harm