Asked by Anonymous
It depends entirely on a few different factors.
The big question is, do the artist’s ass-clown opinions about social issues/minorities/ectetera leak into the art they’re creating?
If the answer is “yes”, then yes, it does matter and I’m likely not going to partake of their work. For example, Larry Clark is a gross ephebophile who fetishizes teenage boys and you c a n n o t escape that shit in his movies, which linger on sweaty 15-year old abs for way too long in every other shot. His movies do have some good qualities, but the ephebophile stuff is so rampant that I can’t sit through his work.
If the answer is “no” and I think the person is a pretty good artist in spite of his or her shitty baby opinions, then I’ll generally partake with a caveat in the back of my mind “this was made by an asshole, but so long as it isn’t a sermon about how much they hate gay people or whatever, I’ll observe it as a piece of questionable art and judge it afterward”. Many of Mel Gibson’s movies fall into this category for me. Gibson is a disturbed alcoholic abusive bigoted monster who also made some really good movies that have nothing to do with any of that, like Apocalypto. I’d have missed out on a really striking film if I’d skipped that due to Gibson’s monster status. I think it’s still worth observing art made by incredibly troubled people, so long as they’re also talented people making interesting things that aren’t just drenched in their godawful bullshit. I mean, most of the old Renaissance masters were bizarro-world sister-fucking weirdos, but we ignore all of that because they painted inspiring beautiful works of art that enrich the world. It isn’t black-and-white “this artist thinks [terrible thing] so I can’t find any value in anything they create ever or that means I’m somehow agreeing with [terrible thing]”. It’s case-by-case, artist-by-artist, your subjective choices based on your personal philosophy on this subject.
But the one constant, at least for me, is that if I’m going to even kind of tolerate one of these asshats, their art has to be really good. I’m of the opinion that Orson Scott Card is a boring writer with boring ideas (no, I don’t think Ender’s Game is particularly good - it’s alright, I suppose, but nothing special) so I can safely ignore his work while also knowing he’s a terrible bigot. That’s handy when that happens, since you can just wash your hands of it all completely. “Oh, he’s a homophobe and also not much more than a middling talent? Cool, I can ignore him!”
The important thing when it comes to art and your relationship to that art via the artist is, chiefly, your personal philosophy on what you can tolerate, what you’re willing to overlook, and what’s most important to you in terms of art appreciation/observation. I’d be curious to hear how other people interpret this question and what their criteria are.
Available September 2, 2014
ABOUT GATCHAMAN CROWDS
A secret war rages in the shadows of Tachikawa City, where every day its unsuspecting citizens fall prey to the unseen and unfamiliar foes around…
Please. Please please please.
Stop linking to illegal downloads of episodes.
The survival of Sailor Moon Crystal depends on people legally viewing the show on provided portals.
And — for once — there is no shortage of these. More or less globally.
So come on, guys.
Not to mention the viability of future shows being released online internationally in a similar fashion.
Asked by edenliaothewomb
Ah yeah, and it looks like the one I photographed was the edited MPAA-friendly one too. Too bad, it’s always disappointing when we have to get subjected to US censorship.