@Batman
If I read the work, I would be thinking of the abused kids. The art is tainted now.
I never have to read a comic, even a former favorite. It’s called choice.
DC can make sure other work that collaborators work on gets published instead, or give other reimbursement, if they wish.
It is DC Universe that said no, not DC Comics. If his work continues to be published, he should be paid. I don’t have to buy it.
Marston and Moore may have transgressed, but everybody was adults, no abuse done.
I haven’t read the other replies but here’s my take:
Alan Moore is a tremendously talented writer. I love his writing.
Alan Moore is kind of out there as a person. I’m sure he’s a good person (I don’t doubt his integrity as a human being at all) but I don’t care to ever meet him.
Kevin Spacey was an excellent actor. I continue to enjoy his movies.
Kevin Spacey is someone I would not care to meet.
You can definitely enjoy a person’s artistic output while not wanting anything to do with them personally. They’re two different things.
A big part of any discussion on this topic has to include whether or not the creator in question benefits.
A good case in point: HP Lovecraft.
Even by the standards of his time the man was horribly racist, a prejudice reflected in his work. Were he a living author I would never support him but he’s dead and his stories are in the public domain so I have no qualms about buying and reading his work (aside from the fact that I don’t much care for his work).
With digital subscriptions like this one the issue becomes a little trickier since I’m not directly putting my money down on the work itself. Still the creator may benefit in some way due to royalties by my reading or viewing. I take that on a case by case basis based on the work in question, the behavior of the creator and whether or not I have certain knowledge of their benefit.
No it doesn’t affect my consumption of the artist’s work. Because it’s innocent until proven guilty. So I believe he or she is innocent unless major evidence is brought in.
@Redhood.55520 What if they are convicted and in prison? Or what if they have served their time in prison and have been released?
Not unless I have good reason to believe that my money will actively fund something nefarious.
A person has many sides, I see no reason why the good sides must be tainted by the bad. Praise what a person does well. Encourage those sides.
@TheDemonEtrigan You raise a really interesting and important distinction. If I wanted to buy the content for myself, then a direct purchase would provide me that choice. If the content is placed on a subscription like this, then the service would be taking away the choice of those who don’t separate the art from the artist. (Someone earlier made the point about choice, but I don’t remember if it was in this context. So sorry if I am not giving credit where it is due.). Thank you @TheDemonEtrigan!
At the very least, it complicates, in potentially unnecessary ways, the choice for those who don’t decouple the art and artist.
Also, if convicted an individual is ordered to pay a fine or restitution to victims. So, putting money in the pocket of the creep artist might actually end up with the victim.
Been mulling this over and I’ve got an extra point to add about the distraction bit. If you’re an artist, you owe it to your audience to present them with your best work. It’s distracting and frustrating to consume art produced by artists who are bad or even just annoying people. Thus, artists owe it to their work and their audience to make themselves worthy of respect. I’ll consume art which is bad for any number of reasons out of academic interest or morbid curiosity, but most people wouldn’t. Again, I’ll probably never read Emerald Dawn, because it’s not particularly academically interesting (except potentially inasmuch as it relates to the histories of the characters involved), and the actual content is not, as far as I’ve heard, particularly bad.
Of course, counterpoint: Thomas Edison was a conman and a ruthless borderline mobster. Doesn’t mean I don’t use light bulbs.
Counter-counterpoint: I need light bulbs more than I need Green Lantern origin stories. Not that art isn’t important, but there are alternative works of art with more respectable creators. If I’m really hankering for a Green Lantern origin story, I’ll read Showcase #22 or First Flight.
If they try to introduce it into their work then I don’t usually get involved with it. I would rather get to experience something cool than hear some person I have never met’s opinion.
Not saying I don’t value y’all’s opinions, but I just don’t want it in my entertainment. I find discussions with others riveting.
Should all the actors, producers, directors, writers and staff behind the cameras not reap continued monetary residuals because of Bill Cosby’s reprehensible actions over the years? Of course not. Do we not enjoy the subtle, brilliant terror of Rose Mary’s Baby because Roman Palansky was a predator? Of course, we do. think the work has to stand apart, and on its own, from the creators in these instances. Collateral damages are not the avenue for punishing the guilty. No matter what the good Sisters of St. Rita’s School believed and taught, the good DO NOT have to suffer with the BAD.
I think you should still enjoy their work, but admit whatever the person did was wrong.
Even more vexing, what about possible unethical behavior vs. lawbreaking or moral issues? A very close to home example would be someone like Bob Kane, the creator of Batman. Would we not read Batman or watch Batman movies based on the fact that Jerry Robinson took Kane’s ideas and added/improved on them to “co-create” Batman? Or that Kane employed multiple ghost writers and artists but didn’t share the millions he made because of his contract that included a percentage of licensing revenue? Or were those artists and writers adults who understood they were engaged with work for hire with Kane? Are we guilty today for an agreement made eighty years ago?
I believe the art should be separate from the artist. I’m sure there are artists, writers, musicians, filmmakers, et al who were/are reprehensible to people for all kinds of reasons. Let the art stand alone.
Hitler was a failed artist. Don’t be a fanboy for Hitler.
I don’t think we have an obligation to seek it out. If you go looking for something you don’t like in someone’s life, you’re gonna find it. And then at what point do you stop? You can’t spend all day looking into the lives of every actor, writer, director, and musician you like. I do however, think there is a point of willful ignorance. If someone you admire is in the news and you don’t want to read about it because you know it’s in a bad context, then that’s on you.
Love the art, even if you hate the artist.
Case in point, I used to love the book Ender’s Game…until I learned the author, Orson Scott Card, was a homophobic jerk. I still think it’s a great novel, but I don’t agree with the author’s political and religious views.
Another case in point, I enjoy many of Frank Millar’s earlier works, especially The Dark Knight Returns and Sin City. Then All-Star Batman and Robin: The Boy Wonder came out and some of us gasped in horror, others laughed nervously at the disturbing nature of how he presented his version of Batman. Then Holy Terror came out and everyone saw his most darkest side in plain view. I still respect some of his works even if I don’t agree with his political and racial views.
Now for a more extreme case: Roman Polanski. Dude’s responsible for some of the most widely-acclaimed movies, but is a truly despicable person. Never seen any of his movies, but he’s got a steady fanbase despite the fact that he got away with sexual abuse of a minor and ran like the coward he is.
I’m not going to lie. There are plenty of despicable people out in the world. Our world operates in shades of gray and not all professional creative artists are heroes. Some of the most talented people aren’t good guys and that’s just how it is. But that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy the work they’ve done despite the circumstances…or it could. It’s, like, your decision, man.
If an architect builds a beautiful house, of unparalleled beauty, do you then tear down that house when it is found out that the architect did some bad things when he was younger, or even while he was building that beautiful house?
And do we know if all that the architect is accused of are things that he actually committed, or is it just someone’s accusation that sparked outrage that spread like a virus, where no one, or too few, even care if what is being said is true, or not? Do people really want to become part of a herd mentality, a mentality that takes over and higher brain functions, like the ability of being able to think for yourself, and causes you to become part of a growing unquestioning rage that leads to tearing down a possibly innocent person reputation, and all their works too?
And even if the architect is, or was, guilty, and it was an ongoing situation, would the herd mentality, that acts like judge, jury, and executioners, be taking the right actions, or would the actions the herd takes be just as awful, even if in a different way, that what the architect was accused of?
Today, in this connected world we live in, fame can come so fast for some, and then be ripped away just as fast, because of mistake, even one made decades before, because the modern human herd mentality is more like a flash rage, made worse because it can spread so much faster, and further.
We all make mistakes, or have character flaws of one sort or another. Many of those in rage at the architect may have even done worse things in their past, but they do not stop to think about this, they just feel the rage of the herd and move with it, just as everyone else in the herd also forgets their mistakes and imperfections.
I do not know who this topic was talking about, or the known, or suspected, misdeeds taken, but I am fully aware of herd mentalities and its rush to judgment its thirst for blood and destruction.
No one is perfect. We have all done things in our past, or if you are young now, you will do things sooner or later, and some of you will do some really rotten things, but you will live, learn, and grow past those events, and hopefully, become a better person as you age. How would you feel if suddenly, that past mistake is suddenly focused on, and now it is you that a flash herd mentality has instantly grown to despise, and now they want to tear your heart out and destroy all of your work?
Also keep in mind the moral and ethics of today are not the moral and ethics of yesteryear, and the moral and ethics of tomorrow might not be the same as they are today. What is considered acceptable, or politely overlooked one decade, may become a moral outrage in a decade or three later. Things that no one took as overly egregious, are suddenly a serious crime, and then someone finds out that you once did something that is now considered unforgivable, no matter how young you were at the time. This is happening more and more often, this, and things like it, from people’s pasts are now being used against them, judging that person for who they were, not for who they are today.
It just gets my goat when I see herd mentalities run amok like that, where too many people just turn off their brains and run into the fray to ruin someone, forgetting that they too are human, and have made mistakes, or very likely will make mistakes, big and small, in their lifetimes. Let us just hope that those in the herd do not one day find the herd has turned against them, and now want to take them apart and destroy their works.
MACJR