The Problem of Art From a Problematic Artist | Thinkin' Out Loud

[@mokapon_]

I have way too many thoughts on this, I've written and scrapped two comments that were getting way too long. I think I'll go with questions instead: Note : I use "you", it doesn't mean *you*, or anyone personally, just a hypothetical person that's questioning about "separating the artist from the art" and such. None of these are meant to be attacks, just things that are important to consider in my opinion, in no particular order. - Do you believe that one can create something without their views being embedded in it at least to some degree? - Is the author *actively* doing harm? Is the work in itself, harmful? - If the harm is long gone, could it still affect some people due to their own history or life? - Do you care more about justifying your consumption habits, or about doing right by the people that are being targeted by the author? - If you care about the people, are there actually concrete ways you can help them? - If you're a public figure in any way, do you understand that someone from a targeted community may feel insecure about engaging with your own work or yourself if you show support for a "problematic" author or piece of work? I think it's that last point that I want to drive home. You can do whatever you want in your private life. But as soon as you share it somewhat publicly, it will have an impact on others. I, personally, shy away immediately from people on social media who seem to make Harry Potter a big part of their personality. For one, because it hurts too much to be constantly reminded that the author of work I once loved is now actively doing harm and trying to remove rights from me and those I love. And secondly, because I simply can't know if you buy into her rhetoric, or are actually safe to be around. One doesn't have to care about the impact, that absolutely fine. But, if one wants to say create a welcoming, inclusive and safe community, not showing support for actively harmful people is the very bare minimum. Next step is actually being vocal on the issue at hand. To me, it's about trust and safety first. Can I be around this person, or the people who follow them, or is it risky?

[@ShelfStories]

Rowling hacked the system. In a profound way, her fusion of herself with her IP represents the dystopic endpoint of our Western worship of individual legacy. Because she's still around and profiting, and because we live in the real world and not my little fantasy of true communal ownership, I have no issue with anyone taking the stand you articulate. Personally, I'm not repping any Harry Potter stuff publicly. My inner anarchist rebels at the idea that someone like Rowling can profit so thoroughly from gaming the system. I'd love to start thinking about ways to take the power back.

[@garytheosophilus]

Jason, thank you for speaking your thoughts about separating the individualist/capitalist values from using and enjoying the art/culture produced thereby. You give your audience lots to think about ;+)

[@johnratigan3931]

I'm wrestling with this now as well re: one of my favorite a musicians admitting to abusing his family and the rest of the band rightfully cutting ties with him. Purchasing their music is not applicable to me anymore so I'm wrestling with should I/can I still enjoy the music anymore? It still sounds the same but yes, I hear his voice and think of his secret abuse. Should I/can I wear their shirt in public? Most people would probably never make the connection but for the one person who would, that could be harmful and I do not endorse his behavior and do not want to be misunderstood as such. And - what about the other non-problematic band members? They now suffer the scorn on their art because of one problematic member. Continuing to enjoy the art or not? The right response seems both painfully simple and deeply complex.

[@ShelfStories]

Sounds like a really tough personal decision. I have the same struggle with Michael Jackson music. That's the soundtrack of my pre-grunge childhood, more than any other artist. I have a ton of thoughts, but like this video, they're all still baking.

[@jasondanielmalloy]

this is tough stuff and as usual you bring up some nuances that i had no desire to find on my own... thank you

[@beornthebear9023]

I think it is hard to generalize but for the most part I am usually able to appreciate the art while finding some of the beliefs of the artist to be abhorrent. Many great composers, artists, authors etc did or believed things is disagree with. I think it is important to recognize the flaws but I think we can still enjoy what the painted, wrote etc. Plus in the case of some of these IPs you are discussing a large part of why we love them is the work of others. Part of what makes HP great is not only the books but the movies (many great actors) the music score by John Williams, and the jokes and memories we created with our community growing up.

[@sador42]

All I can really say is “it depends”. I think we could come up with examples where the artist and the art are inseparable, especially when the “message” might be overt. HP Lovecraft is a good example, if HP was alive and had just wrote these stories with every word the same and FF put out Eldritch Horror I think it would feel very different. The Harry Potter game is different as well because JK is not directly involved in the making of that game. She gets her % of profits for sure but I don’t think she is directly involved. And hundreds of people of all types are making sure that the game is not crossing any lines into offense and I believe there is “representation” in that game to a degree. It’s a lot easier that HP is dead and his works are inspiring a different take on his “mythos”. Same with MJ, he’s dead. Now JK is putting out work still and I cannot support her financially by watching or reading her work. I won’t judge others but I can’t do it. But there are other artists that I would probably still watch/read new stuff from that are controversial, but it depends on their offense too. Joss Whedon is a good example I think. He seems to be a dick in a lot of ways, but his “offenses” aren’t as egregious, at least to me! Lol😂 - But I still cannot watch any of his work without thinking “damn it, I wish he would apologize correctly and say he wants to be better”. Anyway, I think “it depends”.

[@sarahshipp3473]

Added layer: copy right-free art by problematic favs keeps companies afloat because it sells/draws in donors. Messiah keeps some orchestras afloat; eldritch horror probably has kept FFG in the black in certain years. Capitalism is really hard to ignore when it's soaked all the way through the production of art. Another wrinkle, by programing Messiah and other popular dead white guy art, we aren't programing art made by BIPOC. I like the classic canon, but not to all exclusion. But the capitalist model encourages art produces to continue to marginalize diverse creators (separate problem from, say, not hiring black orchestra members, because racism is also still a problem). The donor/patron model in the arts seems like it should be a move away from capitalism BUT 1)artists still have bills 2) artists are still underpaid 3) donors end up with a lot of power to influence what gets performed BECAUSE ticket sales rarely cover more than half the cost of a performance run, with one symphony I have heard of tickets only covering 1/10th of the cost. Which again is potentially not great money for the workers involved anyway. The most politically conservative arts workers/professors are generally pro NEA in spite of how conservatives generally feel about the NEA for this reason. (Kinda went on a rant here. Money in art is something that I feel strongly about. It's why I'm ok with mass commercial art; at least somebody is getting paid.)

[@ShelfStories]

As always, Sarah, great to hear from you! I suppose I didn't want to posit answers here, but shift the discussion to more of a meta thing. Hate the player? Hate the game. You're so right about the old classics supporting people materially. On the Michael Jackson end, you have entire communities who honestly couldn't care less about what the man did - they truly feel the music belongs to THEM now, not him. Lots to sort through.

[@findle70]

Yeah this one is hard for me too. Although you prob may want to look at the FAQ for the new HP game (Legacy of Hogwarts I think), because the story just says you are training to be a wizard cop in the 19th cent. and you are helping put down a 'goblin uprising' - and with how goblins are shown in HP, that can code as pretty shady. But I do also think enjoying while acknowledging may be the best (and even subverting the original material in how you use it), may be the best way forward. I can think of Becca Scott, who does a lot of Call of Cthulhu content, and she and her group usually start or end their shows with 'remember - F**K Lovecraft!'. And that's a all female pretty diverse panel, so their take on the stories is certainly not one Mr L would approve of. :) HP is harder, because JKR doing things that affect real people, real friends. It's hard to separate that. In a way, the minute Gutenberg got the first word printed, we were headed to this future where people with some horrible/some useful ideas and artistic creations would be preserved and everyone has to figure out how absorb one and not the other? Hard.

[@ShelfStories]

Thank goodness for Gutenberg! I lay the blame more on the birth of intellectual property in England in the 1500s. It's given us a lot, but also saddled us with these fraught discussions. Thanks for letting me know about the Becca Scott streams; that sounds along the lines of what I'm talking about.

[@ShadayAV]

Hey, Jason! I am guessing this would be a good research topic to explore in terms of how had this question been tackled in the past and in other cultures. I think there is always this risk when we transfer any love or emotion for the creation towards the creator, with good reason, as that's the mind responsible for it. Right off the bat, I'd say, and I assume you agree, that nothing really needs to be erased. But then how we feel about it and also how we use it matters: either independent from the author as a person or in subversion to them, that seems acceptable to me. However, sometimes that independence is difficult to achieve. Imagine Lovecraft alive (forget the royalties for a sec) and imagine he's publicly pushing racist views. Could we then enjoy his work without touching on that, ignoring it? I wouldn't. So that distance matters. If Cosby didn't star in his show, maybe it could be enjoyed more a century from now. I can watch him, but I can't keep the mental/emotional distance from his current controversies. I can however discuss and appreciate his work independent from his crimes. So, to tackle that, I personally encourage that we do not ignore the relevantly perverse when we fanboy over a creator because of their work regardless of time, that we prioritize other forgotten creators, voices, use that distance to explore beyond the problematic legacies (even maybe going to other problematic legacies), and to support with your money according to those alive who you want to see succeed. I'm very glad to have discovered, for example, that Neil Gaiman had written The Book of Magic before Harry Potter, with a spectacled young wizard and his owl. Now, it's not a substitute, nor a denial of the enormous gift that HP was to so many young readers particularly. It's Gaiman, for God's sake. No excuse needed. Yet, it's a great opportunity to move on. We know so little and this life is so short, that we can move on beyond without erasing. I bet your wife can benefit from making space for other comedies or things that are not Cosby's shows.

[@jasonpmathew]

I’ve often wrestled with this topic myself. I think about designers like Eric Lang, a person of color who is very vocal when it comes to social justice topics (representation in games, etc.) and has also designed Lovecraftian themed games, is able to separate the art from the artist. I think that’s likely the more mature perspective, because after all, we are all human and flawed with a long history of backward thinking. Should our troubled past take away from those few “sparks of divinity” in art that we all aspire to achieve? Great discussion.

[@geegolly1472]

So many thoughts but most important I think is the personal decision versus the sharing of content. If you can separate the art from the artist, then you can listen to Handel's music and enjoy it. But when you perform Handel's music you are now forcing that decision on someone else without consent (assuming they didn't know the subject of your performance before hand). I think that is the biggest problem when we transfer that issue to board games. Can you bring a Harry Potter board game to the table without the consent of those at the table. Then there is issue of how deep are you going to research any creator or creation. Amazing Grace was written by a slave trader. A former slave trader who later in life worked to abolish slavery. The information you know about creator, especially a creator who is long since deceased, comes from a source and that source will have its own biases. Then there is the issue of giving money to people who's views you can't endorse. I happen to live in the same town as John Green, an author of YA books. During an interview to a local newspaper said the following: "One of the challenges of writing novels these days is that, because we live in such a personality driven culture, and because authors are known as people, its very hard to lose the awareness that the book was written by a person you sort of know." This is the J.K. Rowling problem. When she wrote the books and they entered popular culture she was unknown. If her opinions were as known then as they are now, I don't think the series would have entered the popular culture the way it did. One more quote attributed to John Green, "Things belong to the people that use them not the people who create them." I think that is true for many people and there entire sections of the Harry Potter fandom that have basically separated the artist from the art and have decided that the world is theirs and not hers. But not everyone agrees and I think that is a personal choice and when in shared spaces we have to respect the choices of others.

[@ShelfStories]

Thank you for sharing the John Green quotes. They echo a lot of what I wonder about in the video. You spoke about consent. Normally, that would ring very strongly for me. But here, there’s something wrong. Because of our personality culture, it feels like the idea of the “genius creator”, forever tied to their art, is actually holding our art hostage and forcing these choices. In Rowling’s case, she’s forcing the choice herself. My gut instinct is, as far as possible, not to let the self-serving rules powerful shape my choices. Respect and civility, being mindful and sensitive to others, can get weaponized. Art should ultimately belong to the people. It does in most other cultural contexts except our current one. I don’t know if that’s the right answer, but I’d like to follow that train for a bit and see where it goes.

[@geegolly1472]

@@ShelfStories I agree. The problem is that is not easy, right. There was a time I was sure that I could separate the art from artist, that I could watch a Roman Polanski film without being tainted by the terrible thing he left the country to avoid prosecution for. I also know that I have not engaged with any Bill Cosby content in almost 10 years. The difference is I wasn't old enough in 1975 to understand what was happening. In 2014 I had to reconcile the comic genius and nice man from the Jello commercials who I was very familiar with the sexual predator he was accused of being during that entire time.

[@sador42]

@@ShelfStories I think you are kinda right that this is an American issue to some degree, or at least when it comes to 100+ year copyrights. In many other counties the copyrights do not last as long and things go into the public space a lot faster. This makes it a lot easier to make art based on an IP that is inspired by but different.

[@josephpilkus1127]

As always, Jason, I appreciate you bringing up these topics. I for one, have never wrestled with the separation of the art from the artist. I absolutely love H.P. Lovecraft writing, and it was only after I had read dozens of his work did I read statements by those, including T.S. Joshi on the racism interpretation in his work. I still find Bill Cosby's "Himself" one of the cleanest, funniest pieces if comedy ever written. As for Rowling, I really don't care about her views on anything and while her books have entertained and managed to get tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of teens (or younger) to read, why would that skew in any way how I view her. Just my thoughts.

[@ShelfStories]

Funny you mention Bill Cosby. My wife LOVED the Cosby show as a kid. We had the all the DVDs. When all the stuff came out, she threw them all in the trash. Every individual has to make their own decision about this stuff.

[@sador42]

@@ShelfStories Cosby is interesting, I think you can still love the art but you have to at the same time recognize the artist. Cosby was IN the show, so it is almost impossible to watch it without thinking every time he comes in screen that he is a despicable human. But damn he was funny as hell!! I still love “to russel my brother whom I slept with”, it’s one of the greatest comedy sides to an album ever! If you read my other comment I think a similar thing applies, once Bill is gone from the earth and a lot of time has passed it will be easier to “enjoy” the work again. To an extent….we should never forget.

[@dominicparker6124]

JK Rowling is a very special case when it comes to discussing death of the author. She hasn't allow the public a sense of ownership as she's made sure she's central to the conversation of Harry Potter since the beginning. The whole 'actually Dumbledore's Gay and you know that because i'm saying it and i'm the author even though it's never mentioned once in the books'-thing, is her trying to retroactively add her extra context to the text. Because also she's alive, she's also directly profiting from any support of her works. Pay fantasy flight all you want for their reimaginings of the love craftian mythos and he won't see a single penny, but you can't buy a less JK-rowling'd version of HP. There are plenty of boardgame designers who have troubling worldviews that are knocking around. Why not do a Phil Eklund episode? I have one game of his still, actually, Bios Megafauna 2nd ed, and I broadly enjoy it for it's systems but i wish he didn't have a climate denying essay in the back of the manual. the youtuber Shaun did an excellent retrospecetive/breakdown of the HP series as he came in as a total newbie with no preconceptions. the phrase "how did we get here, with the mounted christmas slave heads on the wall?" lives rent free in my head after watching that video.

[@ShelfStories]

That sounds like a video worth checking out. What is it called? You are right, the Rowling case is unique for the reasons you mentioned. However, I think we catch ourselves in mental traps where we treat any noteworthy author as still "alive", in the form of their legacy. Second looks at JRR Tolkein have some people wondering whether he was a racist. 1) He was not, and 2) from a certain perspective, who cares? Some people care. I can't bring myself to. It's about the work and its ability to speak to today. LotR was as racist as its time. Lucky for us, unlike Lovecraft, it is no more racist than its time, so it can be (and is being) updated.

[@skyelarsen8172]

@@ShelfStories It's a long one, but I can second Dominic's opinion that it's an excellent video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2LMkn2NiNyIkNU

[@dominicparker6124]

@@ShelfStories kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2LMkn2NiNyIkNU Here you go mate. You're right. Pointing out something is 'of its time' is such a neutral statement. You can slice it both ways. Lovecraft is of its time and that time was broadly very racist therefore we can't expect more than that from him and knowing that context we can enjoy the work as is. Lovecraft is of its time and that time was broadly very racist therefore it has a bunch of over racist stereotypes and assumptions that are harmful if not weeded out of retellings and updated to modern sensibilities. The hp video BTW goes in to a lot, its quite interesting. I was the perfect demo for the books growing up, right age, white, middle class, British and as a child and teenager I uncritically took it all in.... And I was somewhat taken aback to see just how mean and uncritical the books are. And the horrifying implications of her worldbuilding with regards to slaves. 'its OK they like to serve'. It's really something. And again is a delightfully dry orator too, but I know some people won't listen to his content on less than 1.5x speed.

[@davidautinify]

@@ShelfStories if you search for "harry potter shaun" it should be your first hit. (he's a big name in left-tube circles. :) ) totally worth your time, it's a solid, critical deep dive. on topic: recently i attempted to call attention to some of JKR's problematic views (and how they are expressed in the HP books/movies) to a couple of my friends who are big HP fans. it... did not go well. it was as if pointing out problematic art that they enjoy was essentially calling them bad people, despite my assurances otherwise. it felt like a personal attack to them, and a part of me gets that. i want the stuff i love to be pure and wholesome and seen as such by everyone. but when it's not -- when art is problematic -- i think it's okay to still enjoy it as long as we're willing to look at it critically and admit (especially to ourselves) that it has problems, and make sure that those problems aren't *why* we like it. you can love something (or someone) in spite of their flaws. the same goes for art. (i do also agree with your points regarding "who profits," wholeheartedly.)

[@jasonpmathew]

Speaking solely about the HP novels and movies, are there some undertones I’m missing? I always viewed the “mud blood” stuff and “house elves” as a criticism of discrimination/slavery/racism and good lessons for children. Is the work being criticized or just the author?

[@shachna]

A few things. First off, money: I'm a big fan of pirating things instead of rewarding bad people. Especially when they money will go towards evil organizations/causes. As for enjoying the art. You're right things belonging to the culture as a whole. Especially as they get repurposed and recontextualized. I've always thought that it's part of the formula for suspension of disbelief. Can you enjoy the art that is from a bad person. For example, I can still watch movies from The Weinstein Company, but it's harder to watch things with Kevin Spacey.

[@hesy8049]

I think there is a difference between the Cthulhu Mythos stuff and Harry Potter. Most stories and ideas in modern Cthulhu mythos are not written by that racist dude. There are countless artists who shaped what the mythos is today. It´s pretty easy to even erase everything that racist dude wrote and still have a Cthulhu mythos. There are also some really high praised works of art sorrounding Cthulhu that specifically reclaimed the mythos for the Black community (like the RPG book Harlem Unbound). Supporting Cthulhu games does not support racist behavior. For stuff like the original Innsmouth story you would have to check if racist ideas of the original author are still present or addressed, but most of the stuff is automatically disconnected from that racist dude. But I do think we should really stop using his name at all. I don´t get why so many Cthulhu games (especially RPGs) have to name that racist dude as a source. First thing you see in a Cthulhu sourcebook is a two page story about a racist author (including a very nice picture) who didn´t even write anything in this book. Just let him be dead and forgotten and give the Cthulhu stuff to the young authors. I see how his work became part of culture like you describe. For JK that´s a different story. Everytime someone buys Harry Potter stuff or even promotes the name of her creations, her platform and funding gets reinforced. She really needs to be deplatformed, because it´s not just her opinion. She is a famous spokesperson for an ideology that is actually responsible for the death of people. She uses her power, reach and money to spread her thoughts. She even wrote a 1000+ book about being cancelled on Twitter by trans people. She controls the narrative and marginalized groups suffer from the mob she is building up and supporting. Let´s just look at the facts. She is rich and privileged and can pretty much do whatever she wants because of that. Seperating the art from the artist keeps that dynamic alive. Right now she is spreading anti trans ideas, people say they want to separate that from Harry Potter, buy more stuff and she gets more money. She could call for mass executions and people would still give her money, because they think artist and works of art are not connected. Is Harry Potter part of our culture? Yes, but that doesn´t change the fact that it´s still connected to a bank account that funds harmful behavior. The last time a trans man was killed on an LGBTQ+ event just 20 miles from here was less than a week ago. A lot of women sharing the same narrative as JK jumped on the social media train and actually misgendered that dead trans man and made it all about womens rights and pushed against trans people at the same time. That´s the message JK supports and amplifies. Having her as a famous and rich person to look up to is the reason such behavior gets normalized. My wife is a psychotherapist. About 1/3 of her clients are transpersons. The last time she had to work outside of her usual working hours because of a suicide call was about 1 hour ago. These are actual results of anti trans propaganda. I don´t care about separation or what is part of culture and what not, I care about defunding and deplatforming harmfull behavior. And for that I really have to cut all ties to Harry Potter, even if I enjoyed it for huge parts of my life. For Cthulhu stuff...well, I can buy a lot of Cthulhu products without funding racists.

[@ShelfStories]

Yeah, Rowling is an entity unto herself. In a profound way, she hacked the system and is wringing more out of it than any modern fantasist. I support the movement to challenge and push back against her cultural position.

[@RealStevieWonderBrooks]

Most famous people in history have done shitty things if you dig deep enough. My view: Don't monetarily support living artists who are problematic. Openly talk about the problems that dead people caused, while still enjoying their art. People are people. Most aren't near perfect.

[@TheHexyBeast]

im one of those people that find it very easy to seperate the art from the artist i believe someone being bad person can still be a good artist. im one of those people that believe censorship does not work and im worried we are headed towards a world where any kind of expression of an idea outside the box is a punishable offence... Im not a transphobic myself and have trans friends but i think at the same time i feel people have a right to be transphobic, ablist ect and i think its important for these people to be able to express those ideas no matter how wrong they are so that we can witness them and understand the problem as well as maybe try and change thier mind or educate them about why some of those ideas are hurtful ... i think its important to understand that our cultural change although for the better did happen very quickly and it can be difficult for people to adjust. im not saying this excuses bad behaviour but i think its much better to open a discussion on the topic than to just shout abuse at the ignorant

[@ShelfStories]

Dunno if you meant to, but you articulated the classic free speech defense from John Stuart Mill. He says people being wrong gives us the opportunity to "exchange error for truth", an opportunity we would not have if the person could not speak. In the case of, say, JK Rowling, though, I don't think there is any kind of threat of that happening. She will make her money and have her platform, but does she need to make as much money and have as big a platform, given her views? That's a live question.

[@TheHexyBeast]

@@ShelfStories i did not know that at all i had never heard of it should i go buy a book now? i have no idea who john stewart mill is tbh

[@TheHexyBeast]

@@ShelfStories haha i think its time i studied philosophy lol

[@jasonpmathew]

To add a little more to the conversation - full disclosure I haven’t kept up at all with the controversy surrounding JK Rowling - I do think we need to be sensitive to religious views and beliefs systems. If someone does not agree with “progressive” ideals that doesn’t mean they hate people. There’s a big difference between persecution and tolerance. In Christianity it’s the concept of loving the individual while still not supporting their actions that run contrary to the held beliefs. Personally attacking someone because they have a different opinion than you is never right. Most controversial topics are gray and not always black and white.

[@amysinger2201]

for me it is about profit and transparency. Our dollars speak. If you buy and the problematic artist profits, you are in a way, approving. But I am also 100% against censorship, so it is tricky. I try to navigate it by limiting the profit and in a way, by placing the ownership in the culture not the artist allows for that. I can check out books from the public library, which belongs to the culture. The profit is limited, but I get stuck in that same loop that by checking it out I am creating a market and am again, in a way, approving.... transparency comes in that we should just be able to talk about it. If you know to expect problematic ideas, you can reflect and make an informed decision. you can still consume the art! not blindly consuming it, but having a deeper conversation about your ideas, your cultures ideas, the ideas of the artist, how those ideas are reflected in the work, etc. being able to talk about it makes it a richer experience all around. I don't want criminals to profit from spreading criminal ideas, but if we pretend those ideas don't exist and we don't discuss them, they don't disappear, they fester.

[@ShelfStories]

If only the world allowed for comfortable binaries :). Which, alas, it does not.

[@swillsswil4817]

I think there is a practical problem with associating a work too closely with the creator. That being the onerous requirement you've just placed on everyone before they can like something. Want to like that book? Better research the author first to make sure they uphold the "right" values... That leads to problem #2. Who defines "right." Sometimes it is easy: racism bad. But what about not so clear issues. Vegans surely believe any harm to animals is bad. Does that mean no vegan is allowed to enjoy any work from a non-vegan, just because they have different values on animal rights? As with many things in life, this comes down to personal choice in what you feel comfortable with, and you should not try to force your level of comfort or discomfort on someone else. Note I didn't say "don't discuss it," just don't "force" it.

[@ShelfStories]

Yup! Knowledge is power! Knowledge of the thing, and also a kind of "meta-knowledge" I explore here, asking the question of why do we care about the artist in the first place? Turns out we care in the Western tradition, but that's not the only way to look at things.

[@swillsswil4817]

@@ShelfStories Another good question: can bad people produce good things? If a misogynist produces a work that furthers the cause against racism, should that be discarded because of their known misogyny? I don't think there will ever be an objective way to say "ignore everything this person has produced because of their stance on X." It's pretty obvious how much of a slippery slope this attitude becomes when you consider that there is no perfectly good human being that has all of the "right" opinions on social issues, as those would be the only ones "safe" to like.

[@nathanaelrobinson4831]

A few more points I would bring up in brief: 1. Divorcing the artist from the art undermines the notion of cultural appropriation. Once we define some boundaries within which our culture can contain some work, then we are excusing ourselves for making use of it as we will regardless of the identity of the person who created it. 2. Being dead matters. I don't have to worry any more about Handel or Lovecraft profiting from the works they made. On the other hand, Rowling is alive, enjoying royalties from the books she wrote and the licenses that come therefrom. She uses them to produce hatred. 3. If things are really part of the culture, then we should be able to find alternatives that are independent of the problematic artist and their work. Wizards, coming of age, and schools were all part of literature before Rowling. Others have followed to explore the notion of the magic school in different, more productive ways. We don't need Harry Potter.

[@ShelfStories]

Outstanding thoughts, Nathaniel, as usual. 1) I'd say 'cultural appropriation' still obtains as a concept. Cultural ownership =/= no ownership. It only means if someone borrows a thing, don't give proper credit and represent it poorly, they're sure to hear it from the origin culture. And they'd be right to question. 2) Yup! Being dead definitely matters, although I would say there's a liminal space that our Western culture creates with the concept of a person's legacy. We revere individual genius and seek to keep those people's memories alive. Lovecraft would certainly count as within living memory for Americans. And our Western culture has created a canon of classical composers of which Handel is one. So now, we're dealing with is amorphous legacy concept - do we want to honor someone's legacy by continuing to enjoy their work? A lot of people struggle with that, even when there's no material benefit to be gained by anyone involved. I wanted to take a step back and question the premise - should we care about legacy so much? 3) This is very reasonable, though that's not really how humans work. So much of it is about branding. Harry Potter successfully branded itself as the cool, go-to "young wizards" IP when we didn't know we wanted it. Now that the psychic brand has been established, it's hard to shake. Given that its not going anywhere, I think we need new approaches for dealing with the fact that, as others have pointed out, Rowling has injected herself into the brand more than others. I think it would be worth thinking about what cultural ownership can accomplish, rather than just focusing on denying her platform and money (which she has in spades).

[@sador42]

@@ShelfStories The only option might be to just recognize the artist and still “try” to enjoy the art. It’s just crazy to know that the “beliefs” are in that work and if it’s recognized by similarly thinking people it kind of justifies their thoughts as well. When we are ignorant it’s easier to enjoy the work. When we don’t recognize the “code” it’s easier to enjoy the work. But once it’s pointed out, well dammit! 😂

[@nathanaelrobinson4831]

Interesting take. Certainly one's creativity draws from the culture, the milieu, the Zeitgeist, whatever, as does that person's vices and evils. However, I do think that there are cases in which the artist cannot be dismissed. I never personally understood the appeal of JK Rowling. Her works dripped with elitism, and I am not surprised that she had problematic politics. That said, she certainly has been unwilling to die as an author. She is constantly telling the world what her works means and what she supports. This is especially a problem when she can use the internet to promote and profit from her transphobia. Our choice is either to accept Harry Potter with her interpretation is or find alternatives. Luckily, there are other artists who offer those alternatives. Some other authors have built on the spirit of Harry Potter without the problematic elements,

[@ShelfStories]

I'd say I articulate a third choice, which is what a lot of people are taking who don't know anything about her twitter - take the characters and fanfic the heck out of them. That's what "Wingardum Leviosa, yo!" was about. Without the kid really knowing, he took this thing and made it his own, without any care or respect for who made it. That can't scale in the realm of copyright and intellectual property, but it's a rejection of creator primacy bubbling under the surface as it has for eons.

[@sador42]

@@ShelfStories I think that taking “inspiration” and creating something new is what the commenter was saying when they mentioned other artists creating work with out the “baggage” so to say. If you are truly “ignorant” of the artists view there is no problem really, it’s once you know the artists view and maybe even the intention of the work that it becomes an issue. Now saying “F JK” before playing the new HP game is a way to still enjoy it and recognize what your playing is from an artists that sucks in real life. 😂 It’s so complicated! 😂