Separation of the Art from the Artist

See, the thing about Cosby that bothered me, and you have to realize his show went off the air when I was three years old, so my lack of a personal connection to his work is something of a luxury, but Cosby kind of annoyed me before I knew anything about the charges because he was already pretentious and annoying— see his proclamation that black comedians must not dress in drag. Its that kind of self-appointed moral authority that makes revelations of sexual misconduct kinda par for the course. He just isn't a Republican politician.

Although I think Dilbert was probably good in/good for the nineties, Scott Adams is much, much funnier than Dilbert ever was.

In a way I can't: Take Richard Wagner. Yes, Wagner was an anti-Semite, and that was tied up with his German nationalism, and his operas, many of which I love, are expressions of that nationalism (if absent any textual Jewish characters, although a credible case can be made for, say, the Nibelungs being subtextually Jewish.)

That is, the artist, including whatever has made them an issue, is present in their art. And yet I can still love it even as I acknowledge that.

Of course, Wagner is also dead - no purchases of his work will ever benefit him, personally, which is where he differs a trice from living infamous figures. Earthworm Jim was a huge touchstone for me as a child - the cartoon even more than the videogame - but I can't bring myself to consider picking up the old games on gog.com, even at a steeply discounted price, because of the politics of Earthworm Jim's creator - and I've had a similar ambivalence about the games produced by Stardock Entertainment - a company which caters to my PC-gamer strategy-gamer nerdery, but whose CEO is fairly notorious online. I haven't brought myself to buy any new games from the company, but it hasn't stopped me playing the ones I already own - I recently got a new mod for Sins of a Solar Empire, in fact.
I can't say I read more than one or two Dilberts, but MRA Dilbert, which repurposes Scott Adams' actual quotes and gives them to his cartoons, I can't get enough of.

This is why I can't listen to Swans anymore. Haven't even heard the new one. It just squicks me out.

There is another aspect which seems worthy of mention here, which is that of forgiveness. Lennon has been named checked once or twice in this thread (and often comes up in these kind of discussions on TOC), and he seems like an obvious go-to for this. Was he an abusive asshole when he was younger? Yes, there seems little doubt about that. But on the other hand, he expressed genuine grief over his actions, apologized profusely for it in later life, and indeed Cynthia accepted his apology. Should he forever be castigated for something he admitted was wrong and accepted his culpability in what he did? His abuse obviously isn't on the sheer scale of Cosby, or the horrific nature of Polanski, but still - I think it's reasonable to say that his work can be consumed without guilt because he actually did something to acknowledge what he did wrong.

Well, except Happy Christmas (War Is Over). That's a terrible song, and you should feel guilty for liking it.

*shrugs* I'm comfortable with my domestic abuser = bad rule which is also besides the point. Not watching the Cosby Show because Bill Cosby is horrifying and evil but listening to the Beatles because John Lennon totally apologised isn't separating, it's judging what you're willing to accept in your media. Which is not to say watching any media is right or wrong; consuming media is a personal thing that everyone approaches differently.

(I do strongly disagree with people who use their fandom of an artist as a defence against the artist's moral failings. But hey, if you feel the same about non-artist domestic abusers who totally apologise as you do about John Lennon then whatever.)

oppy all along - I mean, that's fine if that's how you feel, and it's not up for anyone to tell you how or whether you should or shouldn't enjoy your art, but for me I'm uncomfortable with any system which doesn't allow for the possibility of redemption or forgiveness. It doesn't necessarily reduce the unpleasantness of what someone did - like Lennon hitting a woman - but for me your argument is too close to "well a leopard never changes it spots", and that's just not something I fundamentally agree with. People can be forgiven, and people can change, and I sincerely believe Lennon was someone who saw the wrong of what he did, addressed it, and became a better person as a result.

"I do strongly disagree with people who use their fandom of an artist as a defence against the artist's moral failings."  This I entirely agree with.

What happened?

I've read a lot of Beatle books and it seems like instances of hitting women were somewhat minor and were pretty much over by the time the Beatles hit big. I don't know. Growing up as a life-long Beatles fan who likes all four members, Lennon was always highly regarded in music discussions (even in the early days at the TOC) so it's a little off-putting to me that nowadays he is always singled-out in these circumstances.

I'd say it's for the victim(s) to forgive, not random people who like the art a person makes. 

If the victim(s) want to. As a survivor of awful stuff myself, I'll never ever forgive the person who did it to me no matter what he does or says, and I'd not want anything to do with anyone who wanted to listen to his music or consume art he made or whatever no matter how much they like it.

Which is not to say I think people shouldn't enjoy what they like and decide for themselves what art they're okay with supporting. I just don't see the forgiveness argument as useful because none of us are the ones who have any right to grant it. 

Like many people in this thread, I voted for 'case by case basis.' I enjoy some of Polanski's films (mostly Chinatown and everything before, with a couple of exceptions from the 21st century), but in light of his conviction, something like Repulsion does take on a queasier dimension. 

There are two factors I like to consider when I find out that the artist whose work I love is also an awful person. One is when and where they were born. Not saying that culture and history prejudice and cruelty, but it offer a fuller portrait of why they may have held those beliefs or committed such acts. Case in point: Charles Dickens. He certainly wasn't friendly toward Jewish people (or several others who were close to him), but given it was the 19th century, a lot of those actions were far more permissible then than they are today. 

Another factor is where the artist in question is still profiting of their work. I would feel far more uncomfortable buying a book by H.P. Lovecraft (an absolutely horrible racist) if he were still alive and profiting off of it than if he was dead and the money wasn't directly contributing to his livelihood. 

But, it's an all around thorny thread and it's stimulating to see so many thoughtful, interesting perspectives on this question. It's something I've been thinking about quite a bit recently. I just started flipping through a biography of Patricia Highsmith (whom many of you probably know is my favorite author at the moment) and she was an anti-Semite who uttered some perfectly awful prejudices about Jews and black people, but then would go and contradict them whenever she pleased. The fact she could be so progressive and so bigoted oddly explains quite a bit about her own work. 

Anyway, thanks PatBat for this thread! 

Depends on what they did and if they are dead.

How about the inverse? I'm reminded of the people who certainly seemed to be considering Kesha's music somewhat more leniently after the whole horrifying series of stories there.