|
|
Post by goodson on Aug 22, 2018 10:33:04 GMT -6
i'd love to hear an argument from someone who voted "yes" flat-out as that makes no sense to me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 10:33:37 GMT -6
I also don't think it reflects "privilege" to make a concerted effort to avoid certain movies, television shows or books because you do not want to be seen as supporting a person who did something reprehensible. But maybe I'm misunderstanding that reference. are u referencing when i mentioned "privilege"? i was trying to state that someones ability to still enjoy works of art created by people who do reprehensible things, and blocking this knowledge out, is an ability of someones privilege, oftentimes as a straight white male who isn't affected by the reprehensible acts oh wait xam explained it Yeah, my initial reading of your post suggested the opposite, and I was thrown off a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Tweet on Aug 22, 2018 10:41:21 GMT -6
i'd love to hear an argument from someone who voted "yes" flat-out as that makes no sense to me And to actually answer the question, yes. We do it all the time, or at least I do. It's a very privileged thing to be able to do |
|
|
|
Post by alady on Aug 22, 2018 10:45:04 GMT -6
Also what in that Amy Schumer account indicates that she is a rapist?
|
|
|
|
Post by Xamnam on Aug 22, 2018 10:49:47 GMT -6
Also what in that Amy Schumer account indicates that she is a rapist? Pretty sure that's the focus. Not in a state to give proper consent. |
|
|
|
Post by neader on Aug 22, 2018 10:50:18 GMT -6
Yeah that's what I was alluding to.
|
|
|
|
Post by ultravisitor on Aug 22, 2018 10:51:56 GMT -6
Is there a good example of separating the art from the artist when the artist is a woman? That phrase is almost always used when making excuses for men who have done shitty things, because they also happened to create some good art ("good" as defined generally from the straight while male viewpoint) Anne Sexton, who sexually abused her daughter? I'm not sure many people even mention that about her and she's still pretty widely studied. |
|
|
|
Post by ultravisitor on Aug 22, 2018 10:54:50 GMT -6
i'd love to hear an argument from someone who voted "yes" flat-out as that makes no sense to me Roald Dahl was an antisemite. Many people have no problem continuing to enjoy Charlie and the Chocolate Factory despite knowing that. |
|
|
|
Post by alady on Aug 22, 2018 10:56:35 GMT -6
Also what in that Amy Schumer account indicates that she is a rapist? Pretty sure that's the focus. Not in a state to give proper consent. OK but literally every action in the piece is done to her without seeking her consent or even really acknowledging her presence. So if a woman lets a drunk person grope them until they can safely make an exit, they are actually the rapist? Interesting take (not really). |
|
|
|
Post by venom on Aug 22, 2018 10:57:58 GMT -6
i'd love to hear an argument from someone who voted "yes" flat-out as that makes no sense to me i'm saying it can be separated. i'm not saying that it is the default position. i mean, i loved dr. seuss books when i was a kid. twenty years later i found out he was probably not a great human being. does that now stain my enjoyment of his books when i was 7? not particularly. i read The Naked and the Dead in college. years later i found out norman mailer stabbed one of his six wives and then stopped a bystander from helping her. do i still think the book is pretty good? yes. do i need to read the wiki page of every single painter whose work i enjoy seeing in a museum? no. does it disappoint me that great artists are bad people? yes. can i still enjoy their art? many times, yes. the way i see it, swap out "art" and put something else in there. if i found out the architect of my apartment building was racist, would i have to move immediately? no. |
|
|
|
Post by Tweet on Aug 22, 2018 10:59:01 GMT -6
i'd love to hear an argument from someone who voted "yes" flat-out as that makes no sense to me i'm saying it can be separated. i'm not saying that it is the default position. i mean, i loved dr. seuss books when i was a kid. twenty years later i found out he was probably not a great human being. does that now stain my enjoyment of his books when i was 7? not particularly. i read The Naked and the Dead in college. years later i found out norman mailer stabbed one of his six wives and then stopped a bystander from helping her. do i still think the book is pretty good? yes. do i need to read the wiki page of every single painter whose work i enjoy seeing in a museum? no. does it disappoint me that great artists are bad people? yes. can i still enjoy their art? many times, yes. the way i see it, swap out "art" and put something else in there. if i found out the architect of my apartment building was racist, would i have to move immediately? no. Thank you for putting that a lot better than I can |
|
|
|
Post by Xamnam on Aug 22, 2018 10:59:23 GMT -6
i'd love to hear an argument from someone who voted "yes" flat-out as that makes no sense to me Roald Dahl was an antisemite. Many people have no problem continuing to enjoy Charlie and the Chocolate Factory despite knowing that. On the Dead Authors Podcast, Ben Schwartz was playing Dahl, and had no idea until H.G. Wells/PFT informed him, which leads to the fantastic line, "I had no idea I was so racist." |
|
|
|
Post by ultravisitor on Aug 22, 2018 11:03:19 GMT -6
I have zero problem watching and enjoying Midnight in Paris or The Pianist. My mind isn't thinking about who directed either of those the entire time. I'm absorbed in the storytelling.
And I don't adhere any sort of ridiculous delusion that I know someone because I heard a song they wrote or read one of their books.
|
|
|
|
Post by neader on Aug 22, 2018 11:05:51 GMT -6
Finally, the door opens. It's Matt, but not really. He's there, but not really. His face is kind of distorted, and his eyes seem like he can't focus on me. He's actually trying to see me from the side, like a shark. "Hey!" he yells, too loud, and gives me a hug, too hard. He's fucking wasted.Pretty sure that's the focus. Not in a state to give proper consent. OK but literally every action in the piece is done to her without seeking her consent or even really acknowledging her presence. So if a woman lets a drunk person grope them until they can safely make an exit, they are actually the rapist? Interesting take (not really). Nah this is a good point. Her going over there does seem more romantic in nature than sexual. As I interpret it her disgust with the act seems less to do with what is happening and more on his incompetence tho. |
|
|
|
Post by venom on Aug 22, 2018 11:05:59 GMT -6
And I don't adhere any sort of ridiculous delusion that I know someone because I heard a song they wrote or read one of their books. this too. i don't want anything to do with these people aside from what they have put out for me to consume. |
|
|
|
Post by teekoh on Aug 22, 2018 11:06:23 GMT -6
Finally, the door opens. It's Matt, but not really. He's there, but not really. His face is kind of distorted, and his eyes seem like he can't focus on me. He's actually trying to see me from the side, like a shark. "Hey!" he yells, too loud, and gives me a hug, too hard. He's fucking wasted.Pretty sure that's the focus. Not in a state to give proper consent. OK but literally every action in the piece is done to her without seeking her consent or even really acknowledging her presence. So if a woman lets a drunk person grope them until they can safely make an exit, they are actually the rapist? Interesting take (not really). I think the hope is that upon recognizing that the person cannot give consent, she would not enter the room. She acknowledges that she's battling this throughout the whole story, and I think it merits sympathy and kudos for addressing the issues of taking advantage of someone despite it not being in either of your best interests. I think the second scenario is a false equivalence. |
|
|
|
Post by Xamnam on Aug 22, 2018 11:08:08 GMT -6
Finally, the door opens. It's Matt, but not really. He's there, but not really. His face is kind of distorted, and his eyes seem like he can't focus on me. He's actually trying to see me from the side, like a shark. "Hey!" he yells, too loud, and gives me a hug, too hard. He's fucking wasted.Pretty sure that's the focus. Not in a state to give proper consent. OK but literally every action in the piece is done to her without seeking her consent or even really acknowledging her presence. So if a woman lets a drunk person grope them until they can safely make an exit, they are actually the rapist? Interesting take (not really). Let me be clear, I was not trying to stake any claim of my own here, just pointing out what she was criticized for. And obviously the example you give there is ludicrous. As you mention, the majority of the actions in the story happened to her. That said, removed from that context, the issue of the sober person choosing engage in sex with someone "fucking wasted," even if the other party is initiating, is still a real thorny issue. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 11:09:41 GMT -6
Woody Allen so clearly inserts autobiographical elements into his films, so using him as an example of "yeah, it's possible to separate art from the artist" doesn't seem like the best route to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by ultravisitor on Aug 22, 2018 11:12:47 GMT -6
Woody Allen so clearly inserts autobiographical elements into his films, so using him as an example of "yeah, it's possible to separate art from the artist" doesn't seem like the best route to go. Okay, maybe for some people. But if he's not staring me in the face the entire time, it's pretty easy for me to forget about him. If you can't let go and lose yourself to a story, well... don't assume everyone else is the same way. Similarly, when I watch Rosemary's Baby, my mind isn't thinking POLANSKI POLANSKI POLANSKI the entire time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 11:15:36 GMT -6
Or maybe I don't need to watch Midnight In Paris again that badly.
|
|
|
|
Post by goodson on Aug 22, 2018 11:16:00 GMT -6
And I don't adhere any sort of ridiculous delusion that I know someone because I heard a song they wrote or read one of their books. this too. i don't want anything to do with these people aside from what they have put out for me to consume. separating art from the artist would be a great crtical theory in a vaccuum, but we live in a world where imbalances exasperated by fame, power, and influence are used by awful men constantly, and engaging with these pieces that you have designated as simple "consumption" literally gives them money (even if you don't spend money you are still contributing to their fame and influence which can then be utilized by them) by excusing awful behavior commited by men for the sake of quality art, we directly perpetuate a culture that rewards this behavior as well as makes it more difficult for their victims |
|
|
|
Post by alady on Aug 22, 2018 11:16:32 GMT -6
And I don't adhere any sort of ridiculous delusion that I know someone because I heard a song they wrote or read one of their books. this too. i don't want anything to do with these people aside from what they have put out for me to consume. But the fact that they often get a pass for what they've done and are able to continue to live their lives blithely creating content (and getting paid, often handsomely) rather than, say, rotting in jail doesn't bother you? *edit* nvm my wokeson got this |
|
|
|
Post by goodson on Aug 22, 2018 11:17:36 GMT -6
i'm not saying i'm perfect at all here - i still have to adjust my thinking every day. but it's important to at least be conscious of what you are consuming
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 11:17:37 GMT -6
And I do think it's impossible to separate Woody Allen from the movie's he has directed because he is such an outsized figure/influence. It has nothing to do with losing yourself in the story. That's just being willfully ignorant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xamnam on Aug 22, 2018 11:20:21 GMT -6
this too. i don't want anything to do with these people aside from what they have put out for me to consume. separating art from the artist would be a great crtical theory in a vaccuum, but we live in a world where imbalances exasperated by fame, power, and influence are used by awful men constantly, and engaging with these pieces that you have designated as simple "consumption" literally gives them money (even if you don't spend money you are still contributing to their fame and influence which can then be utilized by them)by excusing awful behavior commited by men for the sake of quality art, we directly perpetuate a culture that rewards this behavior as well as makes it more difficult for their victims I'm asking this sincerely, I'm curious what you would say: Say a director makes a strong, thought provoking movie about...race relations in America, and you purchased a dvd/whatever of it at the time. Twenty years later, it comes out that they physically abused their spouse, (edit: after the production/distribution of said movie) in an undeniable way. Would you argue you have an ethical imperative to no longer watch your copy of that movie? |
|
|
|
Post by ultravisitor on Aug 22, 2018 11:21:10 GMT -6
this too. i don't want anything to do with these people aside from what they have put out for me to consume. separating art from the artist would be a great crtical theory in a vaccuum, but we live in a world where imbalances exasperated by fame, power, and influence are used by awful men constantly, and engaging with these pieces that you have designated as simple "consumption" literally gives them money (even if you don't spend money you are still contributing to their fame and influence which can then be utilized by them) by excusing awful behavior commited by men for the sake of quality art, we directly perpetuate a culture that rewards this behavior as well as makes it more difficult for their victims Pretty sure that everyone's faves are problematic to someone for some reason. Let's all just stop consuming art altogether. Amy Schumer? RACIST BITCH Polanski and Allen and Sexton? SEXUAL ABUSERS Dahl? ANTISEMITE This list could get very long. |
|
|
|
Post by sthubbins on Aug 22, 2018 11:21:45 GMT -6
since the question is "can you.." the answer is yes. Whether it's useful or ethical to do so is more complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by ultravisitor on Aug 22, 2018 11:23:28 GMT -6
And I do think it's impossible to separate Woody Allen from the movie's he has directed because he is such an outsized figure/influence. It has nothing to do with losing yourself in the story. That's just being willfully ignorant. Thanks for informing me of my actual ability to consume media the way I believe I do and judging me accordingly. Do you happen to be a white man, by chance? |
|
|
|
Post by neader on Aug 22, 2018 11:23:41 GMT -6
since the question is "can you.." the answer is yes. Whether it's useful or ethical to do so is more complicated. This is the equivalent to the teacher responding, "Yes you can go to the bathroom, do you mean 'May I go to the bathroom"? |
|
|
|
Post by sthubbins on Aug 22, 2018 11:24:04 GMT -6
yeah you're right. I almost immediately regretted posting that
|
|
