Do you believe that a creator's personal attitudes and affiliations should be ignored for the purposes of judging their work? In other words, if what they create is admirable/enjoyable on its own, does the fact that the artist/author is a terrible person matter?
If no, then how is it possible to enjoy what's probably the majority of everything, considering that large productions have so many creators involved, and anything made more than a certain amount of time ago was subject to the attitudes and agendas of their time? Do you actively boycott the work of artists who's attitudes you personally find contemptible?
If yes, then why does /co/ complain about creators being shit people so much?
>>78511585
>I love this creator because he's a faggot like me
>>78511585
Whoops, flipped the "yes" and "no" around by accident.
There goes this thread, then.
I don't really care. If a creator is shit then sometimes I will mention their assholery as one of the many reasons I hate them but really it's just because they're shit.
Every time someone says something like ‘we need to separate the artist from the art’, they mean one thing: they don’t give a damn about anything beyond their own entertainment.
I’ve seen it in the comics and videogaming fandoms, everyone has seen it in the form of football players getting away with rape and their victims being treated as worse than vermin. It’s abhorrent, especially in the context of a fandom that likes to carry the conceit that it’s ‘progressive’ and ‘inclusive’, despite a virulence toward non-white, non-male fans and authors that erupts with disheartening frequency.
I think what saddens me the most is that I caught myself trying to do the same thing. It’s a lot easier to suggest to oneself that an accuser might just have an opportunity and an axe to grind, than it is to consider just how much effort it takes for a victim to work past their emotional scars and tell someone about what was done to them.
The United States are plagued by a protestant mentality that doesn't believe in the redemption of people, that is to say man is NOT a neutral creature that makes decisions based on his surroundings, but rather GOOD or BAD from the start.
If you are revealed to be BAD everything you do is BAD and DOOMED forever, and every positive aspect you have once you have revealed yourself as BAD is merely an accident that happens despite you, not thanks to you.
If Phil Phish or any hated person tomorrow wrote an absolute masterpiece, nobody would ever change their mind towards him.
This mentality is present everywhere of course, but it is particularly strong in the American public, I found.
>>78511585
>>78511650
>>78511669
Ok OP, you already posted your copypastas. Now go do something useful with your life.
>>78511683
>Why doesn't this thread have bait or memes? I don't understand any of this!
Away you go.
>>78511735
But it has bait. Read the OP.
>>78511585
>>78511611
Knowing who the creator is can explain some things. People tend to overdo it with the whole "death of the author" thing, to the point where some act as if the author might as well not even exist after the work is done - but that sort of info does help.
I'd say that a creator's attitudes matter in the long term, like most things that have to do with intent. They're not an immediate concern, but when you look at the big picture, they'll usually bubble to the top and color the creator's whole body of work, whether you knew it beforehand or not.
And obviously, if said creator soapboxes about themselves, then their personality becomes an immediate concern. There's a little room to wiggle around when it comes to soapboxing, but when someone specifically puts themselves or their voice in their work and tries to shame the audience by saying how easy it is for them to do the right thing (with stuff like "come on, it's [current year]", or "what kind of horrible person would/wouldn't do [x]"), then obviously it matters if that person never does the right thing.
Fiction is the author telling what he doesn't dare say in non-fiction.
>>78511585
>why does /co/ complain about creators being shit people so much?
Because it's easy and it's fun to knock people who are both more successful and more talented than you are.
>>78511683
These posts aren't even from popular blogs, wtf? They're comment copypastas. Who reposts comment copypasta?
You're too late to stop me. I already love Cerebus the Aardvark without loving Dave Sim, and YOU CAN'T STOP ME.
>>78511800
OP, obviously.
>>78511811
Better than loving women, huh?
>>78511585
>, if what they create is admirable/enjoyable on its own, does the fact that the artist/author is a terrible person matter?
No, why should it? Lots of artists in history might have been terrible people and we will never know because information of their life is scant.
However knowing about them can certainly help understand a work. Just take a look at Fletcher Hanks, where even a small biography can help you understand just why his works are so fucked up.
>anything made more than a certain amount of time ago was subject to the attitudes and agendas of their time
Kinda related. I don't watch Hollywood movies or basically any form of live action because of that. Watching a current movie/series is like having your brain gangfucked by smelly little SJW dicks. They ejaculate their filthy seed in every form of modern entertainment, spreading the liberal disease like an intellectual version of AIDS. Also there's browns everywhere. Why would I want to expose myself to any of that?
>>78511585
George Orwell said something to the effect that we can enjoy a work of art whose message we disagree with, as long as it's a message that is true *some* of the time or isn't completely insane.
>In so far as a writer is a propagandist, the most one can ask of him is that he shall genuinely believe in what he is saying, and that it shall not be something blazingly silly. To-day, for example, one can imagine a good book being written by a Catholic, a Communist, a Fascist, pacifist, an anarchist, perhaps by an old-style Liberal or an ordinary Conservative: one cannot imagine a good book being written by a spiritualist, a Buchmanite or a member of the Ku-Klux-KIan.
The fact that a writer is a racist or a Communist or whatever doesn't necessarily mean they have nothing to tell us. A good book is almost always more complicated than pure propaganda so we could learn something from it even if we don't agree with it.
The problem is that we have the idea that if someone is wrong about X he's wrong about everything in the entire world. If a book is any good it's probably more complicated than just propaganda.
