----------------------------------------
       On the separation of artists from their art
       February 18th, 2019
       ----------------------------------------
       
       A stray boost on Mastodon got me thinking about the value of works
       by horrible people. Do we damn the works, the art, the music, the
       films once we discover something damning about the creator which?
       Do you separate the art from the artist and think of each as
       distinct?
       
       I generally try for separation and I'll explain why. For me it
       comes down to four things:
       
        - Ownership of ideas
        - Compassion
        - Outrage
        - Pragmatism
       
       The most complex idea floating around in my head has to do with
       the idea of ownership of artistic works. Does an artist own their
       creation? While one might quickly argue in the affirmative, that
       is owing to a legal point of view. Ownership has a cognitive
       influence on our relationship to ideas which goes beyond the
       courts and governments and fits more squarely into cultural mores
       and moral frameworks. How you react to someone else's pen might
       vary wildly depending on your cultural upbringing, for instance.
       Where are lines drawn? How firm are they? Is there a gray area?
       
       Lets take a specific example of a disgraced artist and his body of
       work: Bill Cosby and the Cosby Show. Given the vague nature of
       ownership, it's easy to attribute something of that sort here.
       Bill Cosby was the star of the Cosby Show, certainly, and while he
       might now own the rights to it, he was fundamental in its
       creation. Great!
       
       But there's more to it. Hundreds and thousands of other people
       contributed to the show as well. Just considering actors alone,
       can we really dismiss the contributions of the other co-stars?
       Some of the children literally spent their own childhoods
       dedicated to that art. They have equal legal ownership of the
       product, and clearly as much personal investment upon creation.
       
       There's also the ancient idea that art is created for the people.
       Even our copyright law and patent protections in the US are
       designed to recoup the losses of research and development of the
       idea, not to form some perpetual ownership of intellectual
       property. That would be ridiculous! Ideas belong to the people!
       
       So where is the line here? Is it gray? Do we grant the ultimate
       position to Cosby because his name is on it? Certainly, if we
       can't attribute it to him then we can't in good conscience dismiss
       the art with the artist. If it's not his, then he has no impact on
       it. If we find out that Bill Cosby went to a certain high school,
       should we shun it? Should we shut it down? It's irrelevant, right?
       
       It would also be a disservice to those others who were involved.
       Do we punish them? It was their art as well.
       
       But now we're approaching my second point: compassion. Let's
       assume compassion for possible other artists (who may have
       suffered from the disgraced artist!) is a given. Besides that
       point is the subject of the artist. This part may not be popular
       with everyone, but I think it's important to keep out hope for the
       forgiveness of the asshole. This is a Christian ideal and one
       I can't always live up to, but I think it's important to aim for.
       If an artist is disgraced along with all their works then the
       message to them and to everyone is that a horrible thing can
       completely define you. Any other good you might have done is wiped
       away as a result. What hope is there for redemption in that? What
       lesson to bother trying? I try to have compassion for the artist
       here by not throwing out their good works with the bad. Let their
       reputation be damned. Let them suffer prison time if appropriate,
       but don't throw away the good with the bad!
       
       And that brings me to my third idea: outrage! Why the actual fuck
       would I give up something I enjoy because the creator was a dick?
       Why am I punishing myself for something that asshat did? Fuck
       that! The Cosby Show is fucking brilliant and funny as hell. It's
       still relevant and touching and a genuine joy. That selfish fucker
       can go fuck-off to prison now and suffer for what he did, but he's
       not taking Rudy from me.
       
       Oh, and then there's pragmatism. I've been talking about the Cosby
       Show up until now, but how about the douche-nozzle that invented
       the transistor? Don't know about his brand of awful? [0] I'm not
       about to give up using electronics because of some guy whose name
       I don't really care to know. His ideas belong to the people. I'm
       going to use stuff, watch stuff, listen to stuff, and while I may
       on occasion also throw up a finger toward the heavens while doing
       so, IMMA be me.
       
 (TXT) [0] William Shockley