When Creators go bad

#41

I saw the documentary. It convinced me pretty well Jackson was indeed a pedo.
Just look at the folks that came forward. The story and the feelings adds pretty much and as they were saying, they still feel attached to him regardless he did something very wrong.
Besides look at them. A famous dance choreographer and a movie producer? They are not nobodies so I exclude they were looking for extra fame.

3 Likes
#42

I know there are accusations, but has anyone gotten anything concrete yet? I don’t mean to defend him i’m just not very informed of the situation lol.

#43

I think there are tapes of him with underage women, but idk. He’s just so ridiculous in that interview

#45

Read up

1 Like
#46

he also married aaliyah when she was 15

(turns out that’s in the article - still a bit more than an accusation 🤷)

1 Like
#47

Dude was literally charged with child pornography and they had to drop the charges because of a technicality regarding how he was arrested (procedural violation or something).

Really dunno why anyone would say “There’s no proof” at this point.

6 Likes
#48

thank you

there’s no reason to be aggresive though, have a nice day :slight_smile:

#49

Usually I draw the line when it comes to supporting creators who are alive and participate in activities I consider immoral.

So if the person is dead and me consuming the media isn’t extra money in their pocket I don’t make it a big deal. So I would still consume Jackson’s work because yes his estate is getting paid, I am not empowering Jackson to go out and do more deviant behavior.

I am pretty strict about the art I consume- I boycott and “steal” media all the time just because it came from a specific nation or identity.

Anyway my standards for Immoral are my own, what’s okay for one person may not be okay for me. So if I find out an artist lives life in a way that is offensive to me and they are still living, I refuse to support them financially. If they dead, all is forgiven you ain’t getting my dollars so I might as well get the product.

Otherwise it feels random to pick and choose who to boycott out of convenience.

1 Like
#50

I approach all this stuff on a case-by-case basis. For one thing, art is so often a collaboration that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to get super concerned about the personalities of individual contributors. Phil Spector is a murderer. Should we stop listening to all the records he produced? Or do we pretend those aren’t “Phil Spector” records, but “Beatles” records or “Ramones” records? Hundreds of people worked on Rosemary’s Baby. Do we throw it all out because we don’t like Roman Polanski?

Generally, I don’t think there’s a problem with continuing to appreciate artistic works while being conscious of the asterisks next to them. My brain is big enough to hold the dissonant ideas that Rosemary’s Baby is one of the best horror films of all time but ALSO that its director is a rapist. I can also appreciate that Thomas Jefferson had a lot of good ideas and moved human civilization in a positive direction WHILE also acknowledging that he owned/raped slaves and probably had a lot of views that I would take issue with today. I don’t see a need to paint people as 100% good or 100% bad, and in general I don’t think it does a lot of good to reduce people to the worst things they’ve done in life. That isn’t to say they shouldn’t be punished for them, or remembered for them.

One place where the dissonance becomes too much for me is when someone’s work is too reminiscent of their foul deeds. In American Beauty, an otherwise great film, Kevin Spacey’s character spends a lot of time lusting after an underage girl, eventually seducing her on a sofa. Can I still watch that scene, or that movie, knowing that Kevin Spacey is actually that guy in real life? That’s a bit too uncomfortable for me. The same goes for people like Louis C.K. or Woody Allen or anyone whose work is inherently hard to separate from their personality.

For me, I guess it comes down to how the behavior affects my own comfort/entertainment level. I don’t think anyone benefits from me deciding, on a moral basis, to never listen to Michael Jackson again. But I also don’t think I’m ever going to be singing “Beat It” at karaoke… because it’s just not that fun anymore.

1 Like
#51

That girl was just legal, I think that was the point. He’d recognised her budding sexuality.

#52

As a fan of extreme music with a deep love for black metal, this is a constant dilemma for me. Bard Eithun was the drummer for Emperor and played drums on In the Nightside Eclipse, which was their debut album and is considered to be by many one of the most influential black metal albums of all time. He’s also a convicted murderer who stabbed a gay man to death in an unprovoked attack. Then there’s Mayhem, the band best known for burning churches and for the fact their bassist (Varg Vikernes) murdered their guitar player (Euronymous) by stabbing him over 30 times. Oh, and Varg is also a massive racist and a Neo Nazi sympathiser in addition to being a convicted murderer. But he did play bass on De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas, another game changing Black Metal album. He’s also the sole member of Burzum (Who only had one good album but still). There’s absolutely no way around this - If I want to enjoy the albums by Emperor or Mayhem that Varg/Faust played on then I have to push their evil acts out of my mind. And is it worth it when there’s a lot of other good black metal out there?

I love the music and find the subculture surrounding it to be fascinating, but there’s also an undeniable crossover point between Black Metal and Fascist politics. I truly despise fascism with every fibre of my being and honestly, I dread having to google bands i’ve enjoyed for years because more often than not they turn out to be a bunch of ethnonationalists at best or straight up Nazis at worst. Last year I read that two members of the band Marduk were on a leaked list of names of people who purchased Nazi propaganda from the “Pan Nordic Neo Nazi Movement” and i’m just like… Fuck this shit. I’m done, I can’t listen to Marduk anymore. Even if their music doesn’t reference their politics, I can’t do it. I draw the line at you being a Neo Nazi.

2 Likes
#53

Separate the art from the artist. I thought Hitler did some nice paintings, lol, but the guy’s still a cunt.

#54

I mean that’s kind of shitty to be honest. I wouldn’t hang that in my house, would you? It has no real redeeming qualities.

#55

I kinda like the building. He did some nice buildings, but the rest is kinda meh.

#56

I’m going to like your post for mentioning Michael Jackson.

#57

Just finished binge watching that surviving r Kelly show … shit was deep I feel for the families without a doubt , my biggest thing is though there is always many sides to the story. They accused Tupac back in the day, kobe bryant many more and all incredibly affluent individuals when there is something to be gained from another’s demise I always find my self incredibly skeptical of who’s right or wrong especially in Jackson’s case , used to love that dude.

#60

I think we should stick to the Creator’s content and not starting to pick content depending on someone’s private life.

You would be surprised to see how much talents are complete *ssholes in private, and vice versa.

If you start judging someone’s content depending on his personal life, then you might end watching nothing in the end since lots of people are not lke the image they display on medias.

That being said, some people did horrible things and deserve to be condemned for that.

1 Like
#61

I really wouldn’t - particularly since I’ve had a few years experience with various managers who are supposed to be “better” than their employees and prove on a daily basis they are objectively worse people than anyone who works for them.

Well it’s really a A or B thing then.

Either A you are fine with financially supporting objectively terrible people if you enjoy their content or B you think that the decisions of creators effects how you view their content.

Which was already established at the start of the conversation, so I guess perhaps you should consider the topic more carefully before commenting?

#62

Well, since you’re presenting things like that i’ll choose A then: I’ll buy their products no matter what they did.

#63

All of this reminds me of a theory art critics and people like that use in times like this. It is a tripartite model that establishes three distinct types of media consumption.

Please remember this is an interpretative theory. It is not universal with all art and artists. Also I definitely don’t support Michael Jackson’s actions.

A.) The continued consumption of a media by a notorious party and their inability to recognise that said creator has done wrong or they simply ignore any wrong doing.
B.) A person ceases consumption of the media and full disavows himself of the creator in question by recognising that the creator crossed a moral line.
C.) A person continues consumption of media by a creator and is also willing to accept that a creator has done morally objectionable things. They may resort to consuming the media in a way that doesn’t support said creator.

1 Like