Separating Art From Artist

[surreality]

@insomniac7809 You've also got the case of the woman in our own back yard, more or less. Kate Smith. "Nope, no more recognition for the good thing you did because damn, this other stuff nobody'd heard about in almost 100 years is gross." (And the gross stuff is gross and totally, even if it was typical of the time, when it should have also been gross and uncool but tragically wasn't.) It's a case of 'ignore the good, define by the bad by the definition of bad made decades later'.

The work that ages like milk behind a radiator -- I am so stealing that analogy, it's great -- should go the way of the dodo. I don't think anyone believes otherwise. The same can happen to something that just sucks from the jump, which is a risk all creators face and deal with every day. This part? Not an issue. Not even a little bit.

It's 'and now the rest of this person's body of work must go, too' that's happened, happens, and is of concern. It's not a concern for no reason, and it's not a small one for reasons that should be obvious.

People are entirely accustomed to specific works falling out of favor or never finding acceptance at all. There's nothing at all new or unusual about that; that's how things have always been in the arts.

[Auspice]

Joss Whedon.

I have personally met plenty of people who have decided they now hate Buffy and Firefly and Dollhouse because of what he turned out to be. Shows that had strong female characters (one of which was a p important show for many geek girls growing up to see 'omg female character who kicks ass and is independent and...'), have actors who were and continue to be great... it is not hard to find people who sneer and scowl and get angry at you for still liking them.

'But Joss Whedon...' yes, he turned out to be a piece of shit for how he treated his ex-wife. But those shows weren't a solo act. And even a broken clock is right twice a day. So he turned out to be a piece of shit. But he (along with others! that's the important part!) made some good things.

[Auspice]

Steven Moffat.

I was actually surprised to see him spoken highly of in another part of the boards because I have spent years seeing people pan him and everything he does. Comments of 'I like everything Dr. Who EXCEPT the Moffat seasons.'

He is a sexist dickwad. And while I don't personally like Dr. Who, I know many people who do, it's very popular, and you have the likes of David Tennant on seasons Moffat wrote and Tennant is a really great guy. But absolutely you can find people who think everything Moffat did should be written off (as evidenced by me being surprised at seeing people speak highly of his work!).

[surreality]

Also, this is just... all people do good and bad things. That's how the world works. You don't only deserve recognition for the good things you do if you're without flaw, and you don't deserve to be exempt from the consequences of bad things if you have good qualities as well. This just seems utterly elementary to me.

I mean, how hard is 'reward the good acts, punish the bad acts'? (Massively simplified, obviously.)

[Ghost]

@surreality said in Separating Art From Artist:

@Ghost said in Separating Art From Artist:

I will pre-pen an apology to anyone whose home is inadvertently stormed by the FBI and rounded up to be placed in people who disagreed with me jail as a result of the opinions in said paragraph. It was not my intent to drive the FBI to, without evidence, arrest people for behavior they are not partaking in based on my opinions alone.

Tell you what... when you can find where I said that's the potential problem, I'll stop believing this is the second instance of putting words in other people's mouths in this brief conversation. I will otherwise maintain my stance that doing that is Not Cool.

Mr. Ghost's legal counsel, here on their behalf.

I have advised my client as to their options in conducting this conversation, and as a result have advised them not to pore through a post to determine where said 'person' said something was a potential problem. My client has advised me that they do not wish to become 'Not Cool', and as a result has asked me to impart to you their deepest condolences for any damage done, up to and including FBI raids as a result of this line of conversation.

We ask you to respect their wishes to uphold their promise to Tinuviel to no longer post in regards to this topic.

Sincerely,
Ted "Brotosaurus" Lawyerstein

[Auspice]

@Ghost psst: I find it best to just not reply at all when I've made the decision to bow out of a convo.

Don't give bait. Don't take bait.

[Ghost]

@Auspice I will pass this along to Mr. Ghost. Thank you.

[Kestrel]

@Auspice

You know, the Joss Whedon thing annoys me because I don't think cheating on your wife makes you a misogynist. It makes you a piece of shit for sure, but a misogynist? Eh. There are women who cheat on their husbands, are they misandrists? I think they're just selfish.

I have not cancelled Joss Whedon and I will not cancel Joss Whedon. Sorry not sorry. I will, however, hold him accountable for his embarrassingly bad Wonder Woman script. I do think the quality of his work has deteriorated somewhat over time. I'm in the minority but I liked his early original work, and though I think he's a great script doctor, I'm significantly less interested in his adaptations and comic book movies. He's still one of my favourite creators of all time. Buffy was brilliant.

I wish Buffy had more people of colour and showcased some women of different shapes and sizes — he seems to only like casting one kind of woman and that's "thin enough to be anorexic". I get that it was the 90s and heroin chic was all the rage, but eh. Even back then as someone who was never thin enough to be anorexic (yet sometimes, problematically, wanted to be), it bugged me.

These criticisms, at least for me, however, don't overwhelm the good of the whole. People laugh when I tell them that Buffy was the show that turned me into a feminist, but it's completely, 100% true. I hadn't even heard of the word in any positive light until one day I watched an interview where Whedon called himself that, which I thought was weird, because why would a guy want to call himself feminine? As someone who was raised only on Disney princess prior to that, falling in love with this show and having this hero on my screen completely changed who I am as a person and who I believed I could be or look up to. Oh. And I was incredibly queerphobic at the time. It helped seeing queer romance on screen while grappling with internalised disgust long before I was ready to myself come out. There really wasn't a lot of representation at the time.

Buffy's getting a reboot now with a woman of colour at the helm and Joss Whedon's stamp of approval. I think this is a welcome change, and I wouldn't trust it unless everyone else who worked on the original was on board. It'll be nice to see the show become more intersectional for the next generation of confused teenagers grappling with their identity. There's power in that.

So, while I'm not cancelling Joss Whedon, I'm also OK with moving on from works of his that shaped me in the late-90s/early-00s, because people are supposed to grow and it'd be sort of weird to stay stagnant like that. I'm also OK with acknowledging that he's fallible, human, and his works were never perfect. Hopefully, he's also grown, but I don't know his life.

[saosmash]

I mean, I'm not canceling Joss because he cheated on his wife, but I'm pretty done with Joss because of sexist bullshit he did in the Avengers.

[Auspice]

@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:

he seems to only like casting one kind of woman and that's "thin enough to be anorexic".

but then Firefly and Morena Baccarin who is neither of those things (anorexic thin or white) and same with Gina Torres.

I think the reason people labeled him a misogynist is that in his wife's article after the infidelity, she called him a fake feminist. And #believeher sort of extended into just taking her at her word (and not considering the fact that she was very, understandably, upset, and people say unkind things when upset).

I still like Whedon. I do agree that his quality has deteriorated and I think he'd be best served to work with someone to write things (Avengers still stands as partly being so great because of scenes like everyone sitting around trying to pick up the hammer: something that gave us this insight into who the characters are vs. just CINEMATIC HEROICS).

But.
He's an example of 'cancel culture' actively hurting someone. Like I said: I've seen people be pissy about people still liking his works, refusing to reject him, etc.

But I see his works as being the sum of their parts. I didn't love Buffy or Firefly because of him. I loved them because of the stories that the actors brought to life.

Nathan Fillion, for example, is a glorious human being. I have a friend who is friends with him and he is everything you'd hope. He does shit like support really legit charities (like charity:water as opposed to some ego-charity like so many actors) and when Molly C. Quinn wanted to go to comic con (to experience it as a geek and cosplay!) while still fairly young, but also super popular because of Castle, he stepped up to accompany her to make sure she stayed safe and had a good time.

like fuck you I'm not rejecting a show Joss Whedon wrote when there's actors like that on it.

[Roz]

Everyone I can think of that I personally know who takes issue with Whedon did so before the divorce and the article by his ex-wife. That whole thing just kind of confirmed beliefs, it wasn't the root of it.

He's still got a new show coming out, though, so his career doesn't really seem to have been hurt.

[Kestrel]

@Auspice said in Separating Art From Artist:

But.
He's an example of 'cancel culture' actively hurting someone. Like I said: I've seen people be pissy about people still liking his works, refusing to reject him, etc.

Believe me or don't, but like I said to @Pandora up there, I don't practice cancel culture.

I do believe in having candid and productive conversations about it, though, and that there's value in acknowledging that pop culture is more than just face-value.

Sometimes, based on my opinions on a creator, I might not want to engage with their work anymore, which is a choice I think I'm entitled to make, just as everyone is entitled to make for themselves. I won't watch Tarantino movies anymore but I don't fault anyone else who does. They were really, really good. I just literally can't, because it gives me a visceral sense of unease which detracts from my ability to kick back and enjoy them. They're supposed to be cathartic, and at least for me, they're not anymore.

I think "cancel culture", on both sides, is much ado about nothing. (Heh for the hardcore Whedon fans out there.)

We can accept something is imperfect and criticise it without demanding the creator's head on a platter.

But also, the people actually doing that? Tiny tiny tiny minority of people on Twitter. And where anonymity is concerned, I'm not all that trusting these days of faceless mobs on the internet who could just as easily be trolls and bots.

Powerful white men aren't having their careers ended because a few woke snowflakes on Twitter feel comfortable expressing their opinions even in the most visceral ways.

Dave Chapelle's hilariously offensive show (allegedly; I haven't watched it) which brazenly stood up to PC culture? Bitch plz. There were way more articles harping on about how ballsy he was for mad owning the libs and how people are tired of being told what they can like than anyone actually complaining about it or demanding he be "cancelled".

So on both sides, maybe we should cool our jets. Nuance isn't a bad thing.

[insomniac7809]

See, with the specific examples given...

I don't know Dr. Who. Never been my thing. Moffat takes a lot of crap, I've seen that much. But a) as I've said, people are allowed to hate things for a lot of reasons. Maybe it's true that he's just not very good, or at least not appealing to very many people (like I said, I don't watch the show). Maybe it's just a bad idea to spend years saying awful things about at least half of your potential fanbase. Who knew, huh? Either way, I'm not really feeling that he's a victim here.

Whedon, meanwhile... okay, there's a fair bit to unpack here. I'm gonna start off by saying that I am, on the whole and on balance, a fan of his work.
That said, a fair bit of his success has always related to his image. Even though he's definitely one of those writers I can fairly clearly hazard guesses at his fetishes, at the time, a show with a feminist theme and a queer woman who was only moderately fetishized for the male audience was a big stride. But you can't take a boost for your persona and then complain if your career takes a hit when the image is, let us say, tarnished.
Even then, as far as his career... he hasn't had any movies come out since the revelations, but then, the last two movies he's had his name on were fair-to-bad. He's co-creator on Agents of Shield, which is wrapping up three years after the revelations came out (a post-cancellation runtime longer than Firefly or Dollhouse lasted). There's a Buffy reboot coming out with his name on it, and he's getting another show about a bunch of women given special powers (who could have guessed?) set to release in 2021? If that's what being cancelled looks like, y'know, sign me up for some of that.

Kate Smith... okay, this is a more delicate case, and if it was parodic then that kinda sucks for herself and her legacy. That said. She hasn't been scrubbed from the cultural canon. She's being re-examined in the context we find ourselves in now; that's what culture and history are, that's what they've always been. The punishment for recording some really racist stuff a while ago is that the Flyers have decided that she no longer gets to have a monument to her cast in bronze outside their stadium,

[insomniac7809]

And just in general...

@surreality said in Separating Art From Artist:

Also, this is just... all people do good and bad things. That's how the world works. You don't only deserve recognition for the good things you do if you're without flaw, and you don't deserve to be exempt from the consequences of bad things if you have good qualities as well. This just seems utterly elementary to me.

I mean, how hard is 'reward the good acts, punish the bad acts'? (Massively simplified, obviously.)

"...but you fuck one goat..."

Look, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. People do grow, change, and develop, or they should. I do, or at least I try to.

I've hurt people, people I care about, doing short-sighted or selfish or mean things. I wouldn't do these things now, or at least I hope I wouldn't. I've lost people I cared about as a part of my life because I was a shit. And that sucks.

But that's my fault. I get to live with that, and try to not do that again, and not whine that I'm owed the lost friendships because I wouldn't do that sort of thing anymore. And that's what part of improving consists of.

[Rinel]

Here's my pithy and probably overly reductive take on the matter: if "cancel culture" isn't strong enough to do anything more than make Natalie Wynn quit Twitter and devote a video to the topic, then I sort of doubt its power.

Most of the people upset about cancel culture, and who are affected by it, are unrepentant bigots who are being deplatformed. To which I say, good. I am glad people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Notch and Nina Paley and Bret Weinstein* aren't having people bend over backwards to let them spew their garbage.

*Weinstein does actually offer one of the stronger arguments against deplatforming. His actions at Evergreen were fine, IMHO, but he went full alt-right after leaving the college. Partly this is due to him being a sort of shitty person, but there's no doubt that when people get lumped in with garbage people, they tend to adopt some garbage views.

[Pandora]

@Rinel said in Separating Art From Artist:

Most of the people upset about cancel culture, and who are affected by it, are unrepentant bigots who are being deplatformed.

When the word bigot is used against people who've done something bigoted, fair play. When the word bigot is used to describe people who disagree with the louder voices, not so much. So no, I don't disagree with what you've said at all, but I am wary of falling in line with anyone's idea of what makes a bigot in these hair-trigger times.

[surreality]

@insomniac7809 No one is making or has made the case that doing something crappy shouldn't come with consequences. It's the suggestion that everything else that person does cannot have value because of those things that is an issue. These are not the same thing.

Using the example you've given, it would be like saying: "Not only did you deserve to lose those friends/etc., but you should never get to have any more again, even if you have changed or evolved in some way."

That is where and how it becomes problematic.

[Rinel]

@Pandora

I chose those people for a reason. If you're outing and misgendering trans people to crowds, you're a bigot. Sure, people get tarred with the "bigot" brush too easily these days, but my point is that the people who are actually being significantly affected by cancel culture are actually bigoted.

[Auspice]

My issue with cancel culture is what it prevents.

Yes, well-established people haven't seen themselves made destitute, cool.

What about the authors who can't find a publisher because something is considered 'risky' (we listed a few authors earlier in the thread whose work got pulled and was only later found to not be remotely what the naysayers said it was)?

The scriptwriters and directors who can't find a studio to take their project? If Taika Waititi wasn't really popular rn, JoJo would not have happened. If the same exact film had been proposed by a 'no name,' it'd have never happened. And JoJo almost didn't because even before it was out, Taika was weathering accusations of being anti-Semitic just based on the material of the film.

My worry of cancel culture isn't 'oh no someone I like might be ruined.' It's 'oh no, we're seeing fewer new artists.' Publishers and studios won't touch something that might be 'risky' (this is why it took so long for LGBT material to be more common place for YA: traditionally it got boycotted and didn't sell... THANKFULLY that has changed).

Art is about being able to present your view of the world. And yes, sometimes it is a shitty view and someone is a shitty person.

Other times it's stuff like JoJo Rabbit where difficult material is taken and shown through a different lens, but might in its elevator pitch not be seen as being as rich as it truly is.

[Ganymede]

@Ghost

Ted "Brotosaurus" Lawyerstein, Esquire
641 Castlewood Lane
Deerfield, IL 60015

Dear Mr. Lawyerstein,

We are writing to notify you that we received a letter dated January 16, 2020 from your office. I feel you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters.

Yours Truly,

Erin "Trash Panda" Hayes, Esquire
Dewey, Cheathem, Howe & Weinstein, PLL
3159 W. 11th St.
Cleveland, OH 44109