@Pandora This. Absolutely this.
The best answer to 'this person was a horrible bigot and what they stood for sucks' is not to erase that person's creative works from existence, it's to create new work either in response or to demonstrate the values the person in question is lacking.
Oh fucking well.
@surreality Agreed. Simply partaking of an art (film, book, whatever) doesn't mean tacit approval of the content or the author. I've read the Bible, for crying out loud.
He/Him
I double dare someone to disagree.
I disagree!!
Also, I have not read this thread. I just saw your post and here I am. You are lucky to have me around. Please praise.
<crickets>
@RightMeow You the bomb, meow. Youthebomb.
I know. It's all my modesty.
@Tinuviel I think the argument, such that it is, isn't for invalidating anyone's enjoyment in a problematic author's work, because all that's going to do is piss off people who want to enjoy what they enjoy. The point, and this is where I roll my eyes because I don't respect the idea at all, is to promote the idea that these works should be erased from the future. Not lauded, not awarded, not recommended. Thus, the future is bias-washed and only works by clean, wholesome, stamp-of-approval artists are available for sale and promotion.
They do this in the People's Republic of China; it works really well to get everyone on the same page - you know, or else.
Tinuviel about 9 hours ago
I hate you with the power of a thousand Pandoras.
@Pandora Agreed. Who would have thought "Censorship Is Bad" would be a controversial opinion to hold.
@Pandora So you're saying that to combat the horrors of bias we shouldn't be allowed to replace one bias with another bias, and that in doing so it's promoting bias (which we established needs to be combatted?)?
You radical.
Aint it weird that "FUCK CENSORSHIP" was the progressive platform of 1994 and now it's the right-wing platform, and that "CENSOR EVERYTHING" is the new progressive platform? Chuck them 26 years down the drain omgthatwasfucking26yearsago#old
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
The point, and this is where I roll my eyes because I don't respect the idea at all, is to promote the idea that these works should be erased from the future.
Wait, whose point is that? Like, what are the names of the people advocating for that?
@GreenFlashlight said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
The point, and this is where I roll my eyes because I don't respect the idea at all, is to promote the idea that these works should be erased from the future.
Wait, whose point is that? Like, what are the names of the people advocating for that?
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
I don't judge people who grew up on Lovecraft not knowing all these things about him who enjoy his works and I wouldn't dare take it away from them. I know, though, it's not a name I intend to pass on to future generations. I'd rather they read good ideas.
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.
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
The point, and this is where I roll my eyes because I don't respect the idea at all, is to promote the idea that these works should be erased from the future. Not lauded, not awarded, not recommended. Thus, the future is bias-washed and only works by clean, wholesome, stamp-of-approval artists are available for sale and promotion.
Huh?
I like consuming and recommending media that I find inspiring and uplifting, for myself and other people. Because people deserve thought-provoking works of art that might motivate them to live their best life.
I'm not going to laud or recommend any works that are racist, misogynistic, etc. Why would I? What's the value in these works? Why would I want to propagate their message further?
If I'm gonna recommend someone read American Gods, a book that honours a history of immigration, human diversity and multiculturalism, over any book that promotes phobia and segregation, because it's not in line with my values — sorry, is that bad? I really don't think it is. I'm an idealist, I'd like to see people enriched rather than building themselves cages full of ugliness.
Kestrel said, "I wouldn't dare take it away from them." Like, that's in the bit you quoted. Maybe this is one of those things where I'm being too literal, but I really don't understand how you can accuse them of erasing the future when they literally said they wouldn't try to take your space squids from you. It sounds to me like you're arguing Kestrel has some personal obligation to promote Lovecraft's work in their personal life because otherwise that's censorship, which... I really hope I'm misinterpreting you here, because that's just goofy.
@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:
breaking some sacred rule they haven't come up with yet
I don't usually agree with Pandora, but I agree with this. Despite may vocal voices to the contrary, there is not an objectively wrong belief or practice. For every argument against, there is almost always an equally valid argument for. Which makes them entirely subjective, even if we find them incredibly distasteful by current perceptions. Every culture has some kind of practice or belief that later cultures find abhorrent in some way, and try to go back and demonize them -- even though those practices were widely accepted at the time, even believed to be commanded by the gods in some cases.
In the not-too-distant future, someone is going to look back at something that we thought perfectly normal and justified and go on just as big a rant about that thing as we do today. We don't even have to look back that far. We're already throwing most of the nineties under the bus.
Pretending that we're some omniscient objective observer, and trying to retroactively apply contemporary standards to the past and force it to conform, is a ludicrous endeavor that's more damaging than helpful. You can change what happens right now. Not what happened a thousand (or thirty) years ago. Art, by definition, tends to be a distillation of a culture's symbolic beliefs, so some future generation is always going to find it problematic somehow. It's just the nature of the beast.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
@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.
Tinuviel about 9 hours ago
I hate you with the power of a thousand Pandoras.
@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.
He/Him
@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.
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:
@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.
He/Him
My guess is the read on it was 'It's not a name I intend (to see) pass(Ed) on to future generations'
Which is a misinterpretation of the statement, but a) we don't always write exactly what we mean (not purposefully; it just happens) and b) I think an understandable one considering the rest of what has been said.
@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.
Tinuviel about 9 hours ago
I hate you with the power of a thousand Pandoras.
@Pandora This. Absolutely this.
The best answer to 'this person was a horrible bigot and what they stood for sucks' is not to erase that person's creative works from existence, it's to create new work either in response or to demonstrate the values the person in question is lacking.
