BPX079: Separation Anxiety

[Neon Ignition]

Thanks to the soul sucking existence of Youtuber videos aimed at driving drivel at young kids, mine have got it in their heads to regularly start singing parts of R.Kelly's I Believe I Can Fly

It obviously plays different to us in the post-jail sentence era we now live in and the death the other week of Rolf Harris was another reminder of someone who I have distinct childhood memories of watching on TV, familiar with even some of his released songs such as Two Little Boys - a song who's title sends a nervous tick out even though boys weren't on his hit list

Kevin Spacey has been annexed from the industry as his court cases continue amidst the run of allegations against him overshadowing a career littered with acclaimed performances in films such as Seven, The Usual Suspects, American Beauty and LA Confidential

JK Rowling has faced many calls for boycotts thanks to her connections to pushing against transgender rights, a long running dispute that went large with the release of the latest game this year seeing millions opt to pass the debate over and continue buying the game

Johnny Depp is still pushing to escape his largely cancelled film career despite winning his court case against Amber Heard last year, Disney remaining unsure of how to proceed with his Pirates franchise


Can you separate the art from the artist and if so/not, why?

[Asura]

Can you separate the art from the artist and if so/not, why?

For me, it's entirely down to two things - the individual accused/guilty, and the individual watcher/listener/whatever.

For example, I used to be massive fan of Rurouni Kenshin, the manga and anime franchise. I had all the anime on DVD (I mean, I still have it, but it's in a box somewhere), I had graphic tees, bits of merch, the PS2 game. It was my favourite anime franchise, bar none. Then, a few years ago, the creator of the manga, Nobuhiro Watsuki, was found to have so much illegal material (involving children) that he was tried as a dealer of such materials. That ended up being false, but he was still found guilty of posession (which due to a complex legal situation in Japan, just resulted in a seizure and a fine). This led to a very difficult fallout because he's a popular individual, with people taking sides and fans having to make their own decision about him.

But the main thing, in this case, was that something was absolutely clear - he was paying his legal defense with the royalties he was receiving from the sales of his work. This was widely known. So if you bought any of the stuff, knowing this, you were knowingly contributing to the legal defense fund of a (soon-to-be, and later) convicted pedophile.

For me, while I love the Kenshin franchise, there was no question about "separation". I boxed up his stuff, removed the shows from my watch-lists, started using the tees as sleepwear and threw them out when worn-out. I don't watch any of it anymore, and rarely even talk about it outside of this context. This was, effectively, my "Lostprophets situation".

But this is unique because it has three specific qualities.

1) Watsuki was convicted of an actual crime, and one of a disturbing nature (not, like, minor larceny or tax evasion)
2) Watsuki is still alive and continuing to enjoy their work may financially support them
3) Watsuki is something an an Auteur; he is absolutely central to the brand, and Kenshin arguably couldn't exist without him

To use another anime example; a few years ago, there was a great show called Net-juu no susume, or Recovery of an MMO Junkie, which was a romantic comedy about a woman in her early 30s who, after losing her job, became a shut-in who just plays MMO games; however, the few people she interacts with online and in real life are more connected than she realises, and gradually she starts to come to terms with her life. It was fantastic fun, one of the best shows of that year.

After it aired, the director outed himself on Twitter as a Nazi. And not "ooh his thoughts on fiscal policy are a bit right-wing" type - I mean a proper says-awful-things-about-particular-segments-of-people type.

This was a different situation because he wasn't the show's writer, and it was made by a massive team of people of which he was just one, and there was considerable debate about whether he earned royalties from the show (I'm not sure where that landed).

I also ditched this show, and don't recommend it to people (whereas before, I recommended it a great deal), but I'm not going to look down on others who still love it, for the above reasons.

With people like Rowling, again, the tuning of the problem is different. Rowling has, since an early point, pitched herself as a Lucas-type, where she is the brand, the brand is her, and you really can't separate the two. Rowling has, as a result, benefited enormously from that. But it's a double-edged sword, because I feel WB or anyone else asking people to separate her is disingenuous.

But Rowling hasn't been convicted of a crime. She's said things (and promoted people) that may bother you, but that's not criminal. Personally, she's done enough for me to step away from any of the Potter franchise, because I have numerous trans friends and I find her actions problematic.

The point, I guess, of this meandering essay is that it comes down to the individual. But the only part of this which grinds my gears is when people do mental gymnastics. I've literally seen people say they're not going to watch any more Kenshin, and you shouldn't, but then say they're still going to watch Harry Potter - and not for the reasons above. It's because they like Harry Potter, it's their childhood, and they don't want to.

The other thing to know, also, is that there are thousands of new content creators, every day, making new and exciting things. New books, new games, new streamers, new YouTube channels... Maybe, if you're finding it hard to step away from these people who have disgraced themselves, you just need to find something new.

[Lebowski]

I draw the line at people that have actually done real harm, Jim Carrey i cant enjoy anymore without thinking about the harm he has done via his Anti Vac stance, he used his popularity and his platform to promote fear of vaccines and promote a qwak doctors study into links with the MMR vaccine and Autism. The doctor that started all this Andrew Wakefeild was financially involved in proving that vaccines cause autism his study was disproved and found to be fraudulent and he was struck off. But it stuck and it still sticks today he still gives talks and Carrey still supports him like hes some sort of lone voice who is being silenced.

This wave of misinformation and mistrust of vaccines kicked off the whole mainstream anti-vac movement worldwide. And that babys and children are now dying from preventable diseases because of a celebrity promoting and still promoting a qwak doctor is pure evil in my book. It got pretty nasty at the time with doctors who spoke out getting death threats.

more info on it here

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/magazine/anti-vaccine-movement.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/andrew-wakefield-anti-vaxxer-trump-us-mmr-autism-link-lancet-fake-a8331826.html

[gunrock]

I can't really separate the art from the artist. I prefer not to listen to Michael Jackson (though on mainstream commercial radio that is difficult) but The Jackson 5 are okay by me, I guess because at that time, he was just a child in a world full of controlling adults, who was himself, going through some ****. Big no to Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris, etc.

I mean if someone turns out to have shoplifted from Boots when they were a kid, no real problem (unless it was a sustained and malicious campaign to steal as much as possible and sell the stuff to make cash). I'd hope they would have some remorse.

As for people you like the work of, who reveal racist beliefs or are wife-beaters, then no, they have to be excised from my viewing/listening pleasure. So no Mel Gibson or Ron Atkinson. Could never understand why my Mum continued watching Eastenders once it was widely known, Leslie Grantham was a murderer, for instance. You could argue that his conviction was spent, but he never seemed very remorseful and made a pot of excuses about youth, but from what I read he was robbing the taxi driver with a gun. Same goes for hero worship of gangsters like the Krays and Ronnie Biggs.

Mike Tyson is an odd one, because he is a convicted rapist and I would normally avoid content by him, but find myself watching him because of his unique viewpoints. I guess I'm a common or garden hypocrit. :/

[wakka]

It's at significant personal cost but I do manage to resist the urge to listen to 'Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport' as much as I used to (daily).

[Cassius_Smoke]

I guess it depends what the crime is and if they've redeemed themselves.
Mike Tyson is an example. He genuinely seems remorseful over his actions and now he seems to focus on being calm and peaceful.
Sean Penn is one I avoid. You might not like Madonna, but tying her to a chair and beating her is ****ed up. He seems like a prick too.

[Golgo]

Freud says you can't. Jung says you must. I'm a Jungian on the whole and have enjoyed the works of historical artists, writers and architects with truly reprehensible views, from H. P. Lovercraft to Philip Johnson. But they are not my friends, and some are simply products of their times, reflecting views that we may hold we were to have grown up within the same milieu (as Nietzsche cautioned, we are not necessarily better than the past, but merely subsequent to it).

There have got to be limits, though, particularly when it comes to outright criminality or abusers, and contemporary examples where the person's ideas are so unintelligent, unsympathetic, self-centered and beyond the pale as to be hateful and dangerous - which vetoes entire swathes of society and media, and not just artists.

[Asura]

Freud says you can't. Jung says you must. I'm a Jungian on the whole and have enjoyed the works of historical artists, writers and architects with truly reprehensible views, from H. P. Lovercraft to Philip Johnson. But they are not my friends, and some are simply products of their times, reflecting views that we may hold we were to have grown up within the same milieu (as Nietzsche cautioned, we are not necessarily better than the past, but merely subsequent to it).

Ditto for Lovecraft.

He was a terrible person, by some of the stuff I've read... But he's also dead. That's an important factor. I know a few people who say the same thing about Michael Jackson.

[speedlolita]

Absolutely not, and for this reason I will never be playing a Sonic the Hedgehog game again.

[Atticus]

Too many variables. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

[QualityChimp]

It's easy to bin your Lost Prophets albums, Jim'll Fix It mug and "I'm in Gary's Gang" t-shirt.

It's tougher when it's a grey area.

[Dogg Thang]

I can’t separate the art from the artist and I think you can’t when an artist will profit directly. That’s an active stance of support, whether you want that or not. Of course it’s very different if an artist is dead or can’t profit from what they create.

But yes, there are grey areas and larger considerations. For example if an actor gets cancelled, to boycott their films is essentially cancelling everyone else who worked on it too, punishing people who haven’t done anything. That’s the same with many forms of media so then the question is about how much the artist represents that art - are they part of it or are they the author of that art? I’d be less likely to avoid a Kevin Spacey film than to avoid a Harry Potter for example.

It’s not an easy question.

[Cassius_Smoke]

I can’t separate the art from the artist and I think you can’t when an artist will profit directly. That’s an active stance of support, whether you want that or not. Of course it’s very different if an artist is dead or can’t profit from what they create.

But yes, there are grey areas and larger considerations. For example if an actor gets cancelled, to boycott their films is essentially cancelling everyone else who worked on it too, punishing people who haven’t done anything. That’s the same with many forms of media so then the question is about how much the artist represents that art - are they part of it or are they the author of that art? I’d be less likely to avoid a Kevin Spacey film than to avoid a Harry Potter for example.

It’s not an easy question.

Harry Potter is an odd one. I'm not a fan really, but I wouldn't avoid the films probably because it kind of has some distance from JK. I'm not looking at her face, and I can ignore that the films are based on her books once the film is on. The films are made by other people using her work as a guide. But I don't know if I could read her books directly.
Kevin Spacey on the other hand, I have to look at him on screen and my brain will be constantly firing off.
Same with if I saw Art by Rolf. I'd know it was directly by his hand and I couldn't separate it.

I guess its difficult. Distance from the person is key maybe. But then if someone covered a Lost Prophets song, I wouldn't listen to it. So...

[Neon Ignition]

Context is definitely key, I'm not going to be listening to Glitters stuff etc but on the flip side a film with a problematic actor is easier to roll with because as others have said it's less singularly about that one individual.

Jacksons stuff is easy because the claims are highly likely BS against him (and the media clearly doesn't genuinely buy into them either) whilst the likes of Saville are more clear cut. It's interesting though as to how some celebrities get 'second chances' whilst others with less major claims against them don't.

[Asura]

It's interesting though as to how some celebrities get 'second chances' whilst others with less major claims against them don't.

There are numerous wife-beater celebs who seemingly, perplexingly maintain their success.

I'm convinced it's one of two things; in some cases, it's because while they have skeletons in their closet, they know powerful people who have bigger closets with more skeletons, who will ultimately pull their punches. In others, I just think it's because they're physically attractive and charismatic, therefore desirable.

So if a celeb gets away with it if they're powerful or hot. If they're old-or-ugly or not powerful enough, they don't.

The Halo Effect is a powerful thing. I mean, there are plenty of internet celebs who are successful almost entirely on the back of them being attractive and charismatic. There are plenty of high-up streamers, for example, who are fine; like they do a good job, but they wouldn't be anywhere near as successful without that animal magnetism. There's unfortunately a lot of misogyny which comes up in those discussions (some people are just twats when it comes to this stuff).