We need to stop having that conversation because That stopped being the question!
That WAS the question in the beginning when we as a society were really trying out a new form of advocacy where millions of people could have a parasocial relationship with an author in real time and learned that their “friend” was being a jerk but that is far from the question now.
JKR used her fantastic wealth to fund the lawyers that made the landmark decision to change the legal definitions of woman and render UK Gender recognition certificates moot. This decision has legitimately caused a surge in workplaces siding with transphobic employees, attacks on trans and cis people in bath and changing rooms, disqualified trans women (a population who is known to have high rates of domestic abuse, rape and human trafficking), from shelters and medical/mental services they desperately need.
And she lit a cigar and patted herself on the back for a good use of 700,000 pounds stirling.
There are other groups and causes she funds and supports through attention capture through her activism and bank account. This isn’t separating art from artist - it is cutting off revenue streams to a hateful popular activist campaigning to make vulnerable people die because she finds them intellectually inconvenient.
The question of separation of art and artist is about if you should judge the art based on the artist. That is not required or even the criticism.
In fact, most people don’t even say that HP is bad because of jk rolling. They say, it is bad to pay for HP products because jk rolling gets money from it.
I am fairly certain that people would be fine with someone pirating HP movies and watching them. Publicly screening is a different story.
To be fair, Harry Potter is bad because its poorly written. The author is also an idiot who didn’t plan her books out and started crowd-sourcing ideas halfway through.
Yes, but you can’t separate your money you spend on their products from them. That’s why pirating is the morally correct thing to do in that situation.
The age-old question…Can you separate the art from the artist?
“Can one separate art from artist?”
We need to stop having that conversation because That stopped being the question!
That WAS the question in the beginning when we as a society were really trying out a new form of advocacy where millions of people could have a parasocial relationship with an author in real time and learned that their “friend” was being a jerk but that is far from the question now.
JKR used her fantastic wealth to fund the lawyers that made the landmark decision to change the legal definitions of woman and render UK Gender recognition certificates moot. This decision has legitimately caused a surge in workplaces siding with transphobic employees, attacks on trans and cis people in bath and changing rooms, disqualified trans women (a population who is known to have high rates of domestic abuse, rape and human trafficking), from shelters and medical/mental services they desperately need.
And she lit a cigar and patted herself on the back for a good use of 700,000 pounds stirling.
There are other groups and causes she funds and supports through attention capture through her activism and bank account. This isn’t separating art from artist - it is cutting off revenue streams to a hateful popular activist campaigning to make vulnerable people die because she finds them intellectually inconvenient.
I always get nervous when someone else tells me I am asking the wrong question. That is usually closely followed by “You don’t understand”.
In this case, the situation just changed.
Yeah but only after they’re dead when they’re not getting royalties anymore.
Or actively trying to do harm.
This is not that question though.
The question of separation of art and artist is about if you should judge the art based on the artist. That is not required or even the criticism.
In fact, most people don’t even say that HP is bad because of jk rolling. They say, it is bad to pay for HP products because jk rolling gets money from it.
I am fairly certain that people would be fine with someone pirating HP movies and watching them. Publicly screening is a different story.
https://vger.to/sopuli.xyz/comment/22643123 evidence for my claim.
To be fair, Harry Potter is bad because its poorly written. The author is also an idiot who didn’t plan her books out and started crowd-sourcing ideas halfway through.
Based and nuance-pilled
It’s Rowling, btw
I don’t respect her enough to care.
Yes, but you can’t separate your money you spend on their products from them. That’s why pirating is the morally correct thing to do in that situation.
I can, but why would I? There’s already more art than I can consume in a lifetime, made by people who weren’t evil