Deep Thoughts.

[cyrano]

So, recently after purchasing tickets for the DropKick Murphys show next month, I heard second hand anecdotal evidence that the boys in the band are unpleasant racists. Which... I confess, did not entirely surprise me, but it did disappoint me greatly.

And it got me to thinking. How much does the artist affect/taint the art? Where does my support need to be cut off? Do I pay money for a print of a painting made by somebody who believes in the power of the unfettered free market? Do I go buy a CD from somebody who won't associate with black people? Do I see a movie starring somebody with Zionist or anti-Zionist professions? Or directed by somebody who has sex with underage partners?

All this assumes that those professed beliefs are not visible in the art itself. If some Oi band is writing songs about all the god damned Jews, then that's a much easier choice to make.

I strongly encourage, even politely request, that you share your thoughts on the matter.

Comments

[kirbyk.livejournal.com]

This is a tough one. There's a _lot_ of talented people I dislike, and I find I have a varied response.

I don't buy books from vocal anti-gay advocate Orson Scott Card anymore, despite liking some of his work.

I will see movies with Tom Cruise or John Travolta or other scientologists, despite finding their believes ethically repulsive. Their presence is a negative, and certainly pushes a borderline movie into the no, but I still want to see the new Hairspray on DVD, for instance, and I really liked Minority Report.

I'm a little more anti-Mel Gibson, since he's a lot more personified in his film works, and I don't plan on seeing Passion or Apocalypto. But these aren't movies that I would probably like anyway.

I wouldn't stop watching reruns of Seinfeld because of Michael Richards, if I liked the show. I still like UHF.

I'm frequently annoyed when watching the Bionic Woman that anti-gay schmuck Isaiah Washington has a major role, but I'm still watching and modestly enjoying the show.

I guess, if I really want to consume a work of art, I'll hold my nose and do it anyway, but if it's borderline, these are reasons that cause me to choose something else out of my incredibly vast set of entertainment options.

On the other hand, if a conservative refused to see Lord of the Rings because Sir Ian was gay, I'd find that tremendously silly. I suppose if it was that, and he didn't like Fantasy much, and would rather get his yearly fill with Harry Potter, though, I couldn't fault him. Well, except for any criteria that eliminates the best living actor is probably just self-punishment.

I don't know if there's a coherent message, but there's thoughts for you!

It probably means more with small artists. Ian McKellan doesn't truly care if I go see X-Men 3. I have no idea if the Dropkick Murphys are large or small, truly, but if they're large, eh, it doesn't matter to anyone but you.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

and would rather get his yearly fill with Harry Potter
Except now Dumbledore has the gay. They'll have to watch the Narnia movies instead.