Separating Art From Artist
-
Technically, fish-scaled people with webbed fingers in the service of Cthulhu or Dagon is techincally diversity. They gave up their whiteness for fish scales.
-
I don't think, fwiw, that Kestrel or GreenFlashlight are suggesting the equivalent of 'comin' to take our guns!' re: any works of fiction/etc.
I know I heard a lot of talk like this at the art shows I did around the holidays. Not 'we should do this!' but about concerns that dumb shit they said in the 1950s -- things that were norms of the 1950s, and these are things they no longer think or believe today as they've changed with the times with evolving opinions like the rest of the world -- have kept them up nights re: acceptance at things as simple as fire hall craft shows. It's really not a joke.
I feel for them. There are shows I am very uncomfortable applying to -- many churches here run them cheap, and for the $25 for a table? Yeah, if I make $150 (which is fairly easy) I'm still ahead and frankly, I'm not too proud for that like my mother was when she was running things. Still, I'm a neopagan, I wear my chosen symbols like other people wear their Star of David or crucifix, etc. and I've had concerns for years about being asked to leave.
I know that 'you think wrong, so you're unwelcome' feeling well. It's not something I wish on more people, which is what's happening, and I'm seeing it happen up close.
It is not charming in the least.
-
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
Censorship begins with someone's personal views on a work or body of works.
Censorship also takes power and enforcement. I have my personal views on art, and I wouldn't make recommendations that go against those views. That is not, in any way, the same as saying that nobody can view art I disapprove of.
He/Him
-
@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
Censorship begins with someone's personal views on a work or body of works.
Censorship also takes power and enforcement. I have my personal views on art, and I wouldn't make recommendations that go against those views. That is not, in any way, the same as saying that nobody can view art I disapprove of.
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
Obviously OP is not the gatekeeper of the world's literary access, but this is the sentiment expressed and espoused by those who celebrate Cancel Culture and pretend they haven't seen in oppressive regimes what the end result of such behaviors is.
Emphasis mine.
ETA: Like, I added that preface to the sentence because I thought to myself, "Self, someone is going to make the nonsensical accusation that I am saying OP can single-handedly rain down book-burnings and op-ed bannings, better make sure to close up that loophole." I am a failure.
Tinuviel about 9 hours ago
I hate you with the power of a thousand Pandoras. -
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
ETA: Like, I added that preface to the sentence because I thought to myself, "Self, someone is going to make the nonsensical accusation that I am saying OP can single-handedly rain down book-burnings and op-ed bannings, better make sure to close up that loophole." I am a failure.
Heh. I'm reading you clearly. It never once occurred to me that you were trying to say that.
Unless OP actually does wield the power to Thanos-snap and determine which content is or is not acceptable for people to view. In that case, now is the time to start binge watching harem anime and Sons of Anarchy.
-
I don't like erasure of works, because they often whitewash the problematic concepts that people are trying to protect others from.
I think one of the most amazing impacts that I've ever seen (like really seen, as in watching the faces of the students during this presentation) in a classroom setting was in college, when one of the professors I was helping in our department, showed about an hour of extremely horrifically racist Bugs Bunny and other famous cartoons, complete with the year in which they were displayed for the public. Including stuff into the 60s. Especially the stuff from the 40s-60s, because the discussion immediately beforehand was about what impacts people thought the media culture had on black and Hispanic people in particular during a time period that is often kind of idealized as perfect Happy Family time.
I knew what to expect, since I'd been through this class before with her, but it still felt like a punch in the gut to see familiar, childhood characters in this context because that kind of thing was scrubbed almost (but not completely) from the reruns that I was watching as a kid like less than a decade later. I never saw that displayed in a class were people did not have visible expressions of shock and some people always cried. Even in a very racist city in a racist state. But none of them forgot it either.
Same thing with reading certain stories and works /when also accompanied by a discussion about events going on in the world at the time/.
Removal allows white people in particular to pretend things weren't so bad or didn't happen.
I don't like it.
Some of this may be more an American problem than anything else. It still amazes me to be living in the Seattle area and having 4 kids go through public schools and talk for less than a day about what happened to the Native Americans in this area, no discussion of how treaties came into being and why and the conflicts around them that persist to this day, the impacts of racism on those communities. We don't talk about the sundown laws in our state that lasted longer than Jim Crow laws. And at my eldest's 18 birthday party, where he chose to go to a Japanese restaurant in Seattle that has been in operation for 100 years except for the time period that the family was interned in Idaho, one of the kids that was attending asked "What's that?".
I do not feel the same about modern authors, I'll be honest. But I think works that were the "products of their time" should still be looked at preferably with the context and the ugliness highlighted. People need to see it.
-
@surreality said in Separating Art From Artist:
I don't think, fwiw, that Kestrel or GreenFlashlight are suggesting the equivalent of 'comin' to take our guns!' re: any works of fiction/etc.
For my part, and I know this is probably lost because it was in an entirely different thread, my original point was only that I think it's dishonest to try to divorce art from the person who created it; and I think attempting to do so is usually an admission of the problem they're trying to avoid, because if they didn't think it was a big deal, they wouldn't be deflecting. Like, if someone thinks the literary importance of a white guy whining that the Abrahamic God not existing means the universe is unfair because it won't prioritize man to the degree he wants them to be prioritized is more important than him being an explicit fan of Hitler, then I wish they'd just say so instead of asking us to pretend there ain't some fucked up stuff going on in those stories.
-
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
@GreenFlashlight said in Separating Art From Artist:
I really hope I'm misinterpreting you here
You are, and that's okay. People who understand the words I typed get it.
Oh, no, in that example you're just being stupid. I agree with the general idea that people shouldn't seek to ban or otherwise prohibit works, but the quote you offered doesn't attempt to do that.
Your opinion is noted.
There's a difference between "It's not a name I intend to pass on to future generations" and "Nobody should ever at all ever mention this person again ever." The former is fine, if stupid. The latter is bad.
Censorship begins with someone's personal views on a work or body of works. Like I said though, your opinion is noted. We're not in the Hog Pit, I'm not going to derail the conversation getting into why arguing with someone calling everyone's opinions stupid is not a great use of my time.
I happen to think Margaret Atwood is an overrated writer, and I like the show adaptation better than the literary original version of the Handmaid's Tale. I share her political views, I just find her prose and plot unengaging.
Do you think this personal opinion is cause for concern that I might want to censor her?
I also think Twilight and EL James are overrated writers, for entirely different reasons. I think their works are misogynistic.
I didn't like the new Ghostbusters, not because it was feminist, but because it was a bad film.
I'm not trying to censor any of these things. I don't enjoy them, each for entirely different reasons. Some out of disgust, some out of boredom, some because I have a different sense of humour.
Sounds to me like the one trying to censor people is you. No one's allowed to have opinions if those opinions are political?
OK, Boomer.
-
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
Censorship begins with someone's personal views on a work or body of works.
Slippery slope.
-
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
ETA: Like, I added that preface to the sentence because I thought to myself, "Self, someone is going to make the nonsensical accusation that I am saying OP can single-handedly rain down book-burnings and op-ed bannings, better make sure to close up that loophole." I am a failure.
No, we're not saying that. Stop groping that straw man.
You're the one equating personal views with advocacy for censorship.
He/Him
-
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
ETA: Like, I added that preface to the sentence because I thought to myself, "Self, someone is going to make the nonsensical accusation that I am saying OP can single-handedly rain down book-burnings and op-ed bannings, better make sure to close up that loophole." I am a failure.
Like it's not even about "can" though, it's also about "would", because that's 100% not what I said.
Concerning Lovecraft, I also said this:
@Kestrel said in Well, this sums up why I RP:
I know sweet, kind, intensely good, non-racist people who enjoy his works. I do not judge them for being able to find their own interpretations and charitable meanings in his work. I understand that many of the themes of alienation and nihilism resonate with people, and think that everyone is entitled to, even owed, the right to find art that resonates with them on some level and brings them comfort. I'm not interested in robbing people of the connection they feel with these works. Art, music and beauty are the most human things we have. It's tangible empathy.
I just don't personally connect with these particular works. It's not for me. I'm not his target audience, I'm the horror that kept him up at night while he was writing them. As long as you don't view me that way, we're kosher. I'm OK with you finding your own interpretation in his works, not that you should need my permission to like the things you like.
EDIT: lmao did I just get twitter-cancelled on my own thread
-
@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
ETA: Like, I added that preface to the sentence because I thought to myself, "Self, someone is going to make the nonsensical accusation that I am saying OP can single-handedly rain down book-burnings and op-ed bannings, better make sure to close up that loophole." I am a failure.
No, we're not saying that. Stop groping that straw man.
You're the one equating personal views with advocacy for censorship.
No, Pandora added that ETA because they thought someone was gonna think they were saying that.
Delete the Hog Pit. It'll be fun.
I really don't understand He-Man -
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
@GreenFlashlight said in Separating Art From Artist:
I really hope I'm misinterpreting you here
You are, and that's okay. People who understand the words I typed get it.
Oh, no, in that example you're just being stupid. I agree with the general idea that people shouldn't seek to ban or otherwise prohibit works, but the quote you offered doesn't attempt to do that.
Your opinion is noted.
There's a difference between "It's not a name I intend to pass on to future generations" and "Nobody should ever at all ever mention this person again ever." The former is fine, if stupid. The latter is bad.
Censorship begins with someone's personal views on a work or body of works. Like I said though, your opinion is noted. We're not in the Hog Pit, I'm not going to derail the conversation getting into why arguing with someone calling everyone's opinions stupid is not a great use of my time.
I happen to think Margaret Atwood is an overrated writer, and I like the show adaptation better than the literary original version of the Handmaid's Tale. I share her political views, I just find her prose and plot unengaging.
Do you think this personal opinion is cause for concern that I might want to censor her?
I also think Twilight and EL James are overrated writers, for entirely different reasons. I think their works are misogynistic.
I didn't like the new Ghostbusters, not because it was feminist, but because it was a bad film.
I'm not trying to censor any of these things. I don't enjoy them, each for entirely different reasons. Some out of disgust, some out of boredom, some because I have a different sense of humour.
Sounds to me like the one trying to censor people is you. No one's allowed to have opinions if those opinions are political?
OK, Boomer.
I'm not going to divorce your empathy-seeking sentiments here from the fact that you practice Cancel Culture and would happily see authors that you politically disagree with censored if anyone could get away with it. You're either being facetious, disingenuous, or dishonest here, and I'm not for it. Unlike @Tinuviel, I don't find your opinions stupid, I find them disagreeable and yet alarmingly popular.
-
@Ghost said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
ETA: Like, I added that preface to the sentence because I thought to myself, "Self, someone is going to make the nonsensical accusation that I am saying OP can single-handedly rain down book-burnings and op-ed bannings, better make sure to close up that loophole." I am a failure.
No, we're not saying that. Stop groping that straw man.
You're the one equating personal views with advocacy for censorship.
No, Pandora added that ETA because they thought someone was gonna think they were saying that.
And then they go and say it.
He/Him
-
@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Ghost said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
ETA: Like, I added that preface to the sentence because I thought to myself, "Self, someone is going to make the nonsensical accusation that I am saying OP can single-handedly rain down book-burnings and op-ed bannings, better make sure to close up that loophole." I am a failure.
No, we're not saying that. Stop groping that straw man.
You're the one equating personal views with advocacy for censorship.
No, Pandora added that ETA because they thought someone was gonna think they were saying that.
And then they go and say it.
At no point have I said 'omg, @Kestrel is going to get books banned'. Try harder.
Tinuviel about 9 hours ago
I hate you with the power of a thousand Pandoras. -
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Ghost said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
ETA: Like, I added that preface to the sentence because I thought to myself, "Self, someone is going to make the nonsensical accusation that I am saying OP can single-handedly rain down book-burnings and op-ed bannings, better make sure to close up that loophole." I am a failure.
No, we're not saying that. Stop groping that straw man.
You're the one equating personal views with advocacy for censorship.
No, Pandora added that ETA because they thought someone was gonna think they were saying that.
And then they go and say it.
At no point have I said 'omg, @Kestrel is going to get books banned'. Try harder.
And nobody is saying that's what you're saying.
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
you practice Cancel Culture and would happily see authors that you politically disagree with censored if anyone could get away with it
That pretty damn clearly falls under 'advocacy for censorship.'
He/Him
-
Oh, and as a random aside because I only just figured out why this has been bothering me: you ever notice how "Oh, he's just a product of his time, you can't blame him for his beliefs" only ever applies to white people? Black people in the 1930s were not confused about whether they were subhuman, nor were Jewish people. It's not the time an artist is a product of; it's a culture, and the culture is not a monolith.
I wonder if that's why people say "a product of his time." It feels like a deliberate attempt to uphold the power structures that existed and still exist.
-
@GreenFlashlight said in Separating Art From Artist:
I wonder if that's why people say "a product of his time." It feels like a deliberate attempt to uphold the power structures that existed and still exist.
In actual academic circles, the serious ones, no. It's an explanation, rather than an excuse.
If one is creating an artistic work that is meant to be sold, it needs to be popular. Therefore it is more likely to reflect the views of the time, no matter how bigoted or aberrant. It's important, too, in determining whether something is being particularly targeted at attacking a demographic, or "simply" displaying life as it was.ETA: The phrase has its academic uses, but I honestly don't know what it means in general parlance. I only ever see it being used as an excuse, but I don't know that it's the totality of its usage.
-
@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:
Censorship also takes power and enforcement.
Why are you bringing up what it would take to enforce censorship if you're not claiming that I stated/implied that @Kestrel can cause it?
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
you practice Cancel Culture and would happily see authors that you politically disagree with censored if anyone could get away with it
That pretty damn clearly falls under 'advocacy for censorship.'
Yes, Cancel Culture advocates for social censorship and the wholemeal cancelation of an individual. Accusing someone of advocacy for censorship is a far cry from saying they can enact or enforce it.
This is such a sad derail, and so typical of a conversation on MSB, where instead of debating the issue at hand, it's devolved yet again into a semantics quibbling match about an alternative reading of what someone wrote. If I'm saying 'THIS IS WHAT I SAID AND HOW I MEANT IT' why can't you take that at face value?
Tinuviel about 9 hours ago
I hate you with the power of a thousand Pandoras. -
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
This is such a sad derail, and so typical of a conversation on MSB, where instead of debating the issue at hand, it's devolved yet again into a semantics quibbling match about an alternative reading of what someone wrote.
It's so weird how that happens whenever you enter the fray...
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
Accusing someone of advocacy for censorship is a far cry from saying they can enact or enforce it.
And nobody has actually claimed that's what you said. Get that through your skull. Having an opinion on something, and thus not recommending that thing to your friends, is not the same as advocating for censorship of that thing.
Believe me, I know censorship.
He/Him
