I agree that we primarily engage with art emotionally. I believe our decision whether to separate or not is completely instinctual. Reason always comes after the fact. When I refuse to listen to Chris Brown, that is a purely emotional choice driven by factors that have no logical basis. How recently it happened, personal experiences with domestic abuse, and even the fact that we saw visceral images of the consequences. I can't logically defend why I feel so strongly about some artists, while I'm willing to let others fade far into the background of their work. The effect of our consumption is certainly a discussion worth having, but attempting to apply rigorous ethical standards to emotional decisions is perhaps futile.
This is an insanely well-done video essay. Thanks for putting the time into this. The thought-out perspective is much appreciated. I would argue that all artists are flawed in their own beautiful way. Everyone's individual moral compass is what decides what flaws we choose to ignore or not ignore. Then there is the aspect of the timing of the problematic behavior. It's said "time heals all wounds" so it's easy to consider that time could also heal an artist's legacy. Essentially, you nailed it from multiple directions. We choose the blinders we see things from and like art, perspective is subjective.
20:56 I'm glad Mark made the point that critics shouldn't have the last say on art, rather a second opinion. Critics are just like us and they may articulate their feelings better (lowkey jealous), they aren't immune to human psychology and how they view art. Even if I don't like AJR, like what you like. Lindsay Ellis said it best, in this "society" businesses like Chick Fil-A are accused of terrible things and it would take a huge uprising to make a change, and that my friends is a conversation we need to have.
I'm taking notes on this like it's a lecture lmao. The point at 7:40 about personal relationships to artists being akin (and sometimes deeper) than family ties is something that seems so obvious now that you've said it. Very Very good video. I appreciate the level of effort that was put into this
Just noticed that when Mark says "we live in a society", there's Joker makeup on Voltorb for a second. Edit: Also, Jon Schaffer from Iced Earth was at the Capitol riots as well.
Excellent video, really thoughtful and well articulated. It really is hard to engage in this question due to people's investment in it. And the fact that it might reveal something about us that we don't want to confront, or want to live in denial with. I think the reason that we really can't be objective relates to how it is necessary for a therapist to not be in any way shape or form friends or family with the client. It is impossible to be unbiased and the sense of powerless that it brings while thinking this is what makes people want to be on denial with
I think that last clip says it all. Sometimes people do shitty things but it doesn't take away from the amazing art that they did create. Nor does the art excuse the person being shitty. It's just not black and white.
Seeing as you had mentioned this a while back, I had been waiting with bated breath. I was so satisfied with this new (and in my humble opinion, needed) direction. I really enjoyed the cuts to others' content (well done). I just continue to struggle with this topic constantly. I cannot explain how grateful I am that others are as angry with the lack of connection on something as wonderful as art and what it could mean about themselves. It's complicated, but why can't the unknown be as valuable as what we have known for so long. Thank you Mark. And I am going to be a patron because this is what I am striving and aspiring for.
Great essay. My personal rule with art is as long as the artist has changed, been deplatformed or died I can separate them from their art. If they're still in a position to hurt people (especially if their platform gives them power to hurt people) I don't want to support that. There maybe no ethical consumption under capitalism but that's not a blank check to live without standards of some sort.
My reasons we shouldn't talk about seperating the art from the artist Is because it would start a fight. If somebody wants to seperate the art from the artist, Then just flarking do it!
Although I agree with many of your points, I am concerned with how often you use the term "bad people." With few exceptions, people aren't bad or good, they're flawed. I do think it's a good thing to ask one's self at which point they're not willing to financially, or otherwise supports an artist. I don't think that one should make these decisions with a knee jerk reaction, and I honestly don't believe that it's reasonable to expect an artist to have the same values that I hold. I think it's important to take their lives in to context and then make decisions from there.
my main issue in this topic might be the inefficiency of fighting against morally ambiguous or bad artists through their art. the margins you enable as an individual in the bigger picture by consuming the art seems so minuscule compare to the other fronts you can take towards an artist.
Interesting route you took, not specifically talking about the “separating art from the artist conversation “ but talking about why we don’t want to have that conversation instead.
Finally watched it, and ohhh yes you delivered man. Bringing up the whole institutionalized nature of the industry raises an interesting point about personal responsibility versus institutional structures playing a role in someone's actions: where do we draw the line? I reckon everyone has a different answer to that question, and it very well may depend on their own relationship with that artist and their art. I also want to focus on the point about WHEN the artist commits such act, or when it's discovered. On one hand, Morgan Wallen was canceled for his usage of the N word, but on another hand, a video of Post Malone saying the word surfaced in 2015, near the beginning of his career. given he's only gotten bigger since then, this detail was very much swept under the rug and doesn't really influence how people see him today--he very much broke out from the image he had back then. But then we look at someone like Ken Jennings or James Gunn who caught fire for offensive tweets from years prior, or Paula Deen who DID get canceled for saying the N word decades prior, and it really does beg the question of where the line is drawn. What is and isn't redeemable, and who gets to decide that? Is there any room for forgiveness, or must that artist forever be a pariah? And of course, ignorance is bliss. How many of our relationships with art could be tainted if we knew more about the artist that made it? How many iconic musicians from decades ago would've never survived finding fame in the internet age? I know no one will read this lengthy comment lol, I mostly just write it to reflect on some of the open doors left in the wake of this video and this discussion. Thanks for getting the conversation started Mark, hopefully this time we as music listeners can make ground with it
I read it. I cancel no one. I'm an artist myself. I've made mistakes. I have no responsibility to anyone in that deeper idea of Art/Artist. There is no bind. There is no aspirational morality once one has transgressed as a "cancelable" or "shunning" offense. If there is no mechanism for forgiveness? There is no reason to deal with the taboo or transgression as a serious offense. If it takes time and forgetting to escape the anger of the zeitgeist but it never embraces the end of persecution for wrong doing? Who cares? There is no Arc. There is no Story. The whole concept of "Cancel Culture" just leads to a Moral Nihilism where there is nothing to justify. You consume as you will. The world is immoral. We are evolved apes fighting for scraps. Along the way we can up with the idea of aspirational morality. Cancel Culture enforces the idea that it doesn't matter what you aspire to. Once you cross the line? Dead. If we are already dead? Then what is the struggle?
This was a great video. I'm glad you were able to release this, cause this was so informative, and from the look at the comments, you started a discussion and I'm so proud to get on board 3 years ago. Well done.
Interesting video! Thanks for posting it. I think the reason people don’t want to have this discussion is that people don’t want to have their worldview threatened. When we engage emotionally with art (specifically when we like it), we can form a conception that because it impacts us so deeply, it is a good thing. We like to associate deep emotion with meaning: if something makes us FEEL then that makes it valuable and meaningful to us, and therefore important to our lives and the world we live in. So if the artist is placed in a negative light or does something wrong, that threatens the feeling of meaning and importance. Suddenly the art is tainted and that affects not only the art itself but how that art relates to us, and if it is really something bad and the art itself was significant to us, then it can shake our worldview when it pertains specifically to that art’s value in our life. We try to avoid that because we don’t want to feel like something we value and that has meaning to us comes from a bad place. So sometimes it is easier to justify away the bad thing instead of truly figuring out how it affects our engagement with the art. Hopefully that makes sense. Anyway, in all honesty I came here only to recommend an artist for future review but your video drew me in instead! 😂 (But please do check out Taemin’s music if you can. 😂 He released an album called “Advice” just a few days ago and the title track is incredible!)
during when the 'can we separate art from the artist' debate was really popular, i didn't really engage because i felt like people were citing a theory that i understood to mean 'we should deprioritise the author's intentions when criticising texts' and were sort of using that to have a separate conversation, 'should we support an artist who does harmful things'. even though i wish more people had a better grasp of the former, works like this essay are helping me realise that these two processes are more inextricably linked than i would have liked to think. i still believe that it's more important to focus on real actions like whether you choose to publically celebrate and financially support a genuinely abusive person, as opposed to trying and likely failing to shame yourself out of listening to music you connect with on an emotional, non-rational level (AND i think a lot of people on social media shame others for consuming problematic media and then log off and consume that same shit themselves. one of the reasons this debate is so circular is cos a lot of people are straight up not honest), but also like if you want to deprioritise an artist's intentionality when criticising works you've then got to look at how the harm that person causes filters into the work they create, which a lot of people who still support eg chris brown pretty much refuse to do. and we've also got to accept that generally, people at large only really want to start speaking loudly on an artists abusive behaviour when they've already started to flop (armie hammer, woody allen), and that unless an artist was already failing, harmful behaviour does not generally impact their careers. anyway great video lol
Unrelated to my other comment here: I listen and have listened to a fair bit of music by people who have either done or seem to sincerely believe in horrible, horrible things, but I find the idea of entirely abandoning such music out of an ascetic desire to remain morally pure about as unpalatable and hypocritical as ignoring the matter entirely, as if whatever was said or, worse, done meant nothing at all, or could be explained away with apologia and denial. Art, to me, is at its best as two hearts speaking to one another, and pretending that the heart of someone who has felt or done monstrous things must be utterly unlike your own is both to deny the potential for darkness in even good people on the one hand, and the humanity of all people, even terrible people, on the other. But that does not mean that you cease to oppose the ill that they do in the world. Take what betters you and makes you feel alive and pare away what is detestable to you in it. Make the art you want to see in the world from those inspirations. Do good. That's all you can do.
This reminds me of how black metal fans still somehow listen to stuff like Burzum or Inquisition despite both of those acts being led by paedophiles and murderers. The freaking mental loopholes they go through to justify why they like the music are honestly baffling to me. And it gets even more complicated when you learn that Varg of Burzum is a racist. I swear, fans of 90s and 00's black metal are baffling to me. I just don't get it. On the other hand, I've been complicit with listening to an artist who was outed for (allegedly) doing horrible things as well: Tyler Carter, ex-frontman of the pop-metalcore band Issues. I had even met the guy in person several times at different Warped Tours. When the allegations of child grooming broke, I'll admit, I was shocked. My parasocial relationship was shattered there and then. What I thought I knew about him from meet and greets was (allegedly) only one side of the coin. Eventually, I decided I still liked the music and I continued listening to them, albeit less often. I guess I'll say this: Mark, this is a hard conversation to have. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this issue. You are right; we really DO NOT want to admit that some of our favourite songs/albums were made by despicable people. We don't want to rip that Band-Aid off because it is freaking uncomfortable and exhausting to do so.
Embrace Moral Nihilism? Then there is no Moral Discussion or issues in the consumption of Art made by Criminal Vessels. They are beings who transgressed and thus do not deserve fame/money/status/accolades by the concept of a Moral Society. But - if we are an Immoral Society, are we then not exempt from the struggle to be Moral? Also, if one has transgressed to the point of sharing an offense, then one is no longer an alien or unaligned with those whom have committed offense. If one is standing in a company of their moral peers, then the doors are open. There is nothing to deny or refuse. No?
@@NeroAngelo616 Yep. I do. If they like their music and can look past the people who created it, good for them. I just think that that over-openness has unfortunately given room for racist artists to thrive in that subgenre i.e. NSBM crap.
@@wheelsofmercury I think giving people a chance of their work is equally if not more important then learning about them equally as it resides longer then a persons criminal record say who knows how long ago. The Inqusition stuff was a personal mess that got exploited and taken advantage out of proportion. But as a result the reaction of nsbm it has created an unfortunate backlash of eliminating freedom of expression no matter how much it is disagreed. I have not much problem with the art it's when things outside can become dangerous as extreme groups can be consequential when one decides to think differently.
It's interesting how the whole "objective criticism" squad could almost make a connection between their approach and theorists like Barthes or Derrida-for instance, the emphasis on close reading, wherein one endeavours to find the true meaning within a text as if it were a historical artefact without a living author, relying on the text itself and its context to guide interpretation as a way of improving the signal-to-noise ratio of conveyed meaning versus outside interpretation-but the issue is that they're hijacking the rhetoric of poststructuralist analysis to paper over their New Criticism Lite methodology, which ultimately only affirms their aesthetic biases through how they define their terms. Because trying to strip yourself from the criticism that you write or even just be completely self-aware in trying to formulate an "unbiased" opinion is genuinely hard work, and their endgame isn't to uncover deeper truths through close reading but to entertain a likeminded audience and to reaffirm and propagandise their aesthetic viewpoint (and often a number of other personal viewpoints) under the guise of objectivity. It's the debate bro mentality of looking clever and charismatic to "own" your opponent rather than having the truth on your side, similar in substance and intellectual laziness to just ranting aimlessly at a work of art for comedy regardless of emotional truth with respect to one's own experience or factual accuracy but arguably more dishonest because at least the cheap comedian (usually) makes no pretence of deeper meaning or insight. That these dudes tend to be really aggressively socially conservative in ways they often refuse to acknowledge in addition to having only enough knowledge of art criticism to be dangerously stupid about it just makes matters worse. P.S. Coming back to this about two years later to clarify the part about close reading, as I inadvertently and misleadingly described the poststructuralist take on the practice in a manner which is a lot more accurate to the New Criticism's distinctly formalist, text-as-transcendent-object take on the subject. That said, the RU-vid "objective criticism" crowd's take on the concept is incoherent for exactly the reasons I outlined, alternately attempting to kill the author or treating the author as God depending on where it proves convenient.
As someone who still listens to R. Kelly (despite what he's done), Chris Brown (despite what he's done) & Justin Bieber (despite what he has done), and as someone who still loves wrestling stars like Steve Austin (despite that he beat up his ex-wife), Hulk Hogan (despite saying the n-word) and Chris Benoit (despite him killing his wife, his son and himself), this is a VERY interesting watch.
@@tombrophy6288 Yeah, screw them. I can enjoy music from the first two and might even be able to acknowledge the talents of Benoit while having never watched wrestling and knowing what may have caused mentally what he did, but even I’m willing to say screw them and what they did to their victims in different contexts.
I look add it this way I've listened like for instance Marilyn Manson for many many years mechanical animals is one of my favorite albums of all time so I'm not just gonna up and start stop listening to his music and just boycott him and never listen to a song like dope show again, this is a case where I separate the art from the artist but for instance, a person like Chris brown, I never listened to him before all of this bad stuff came to light and I'll never listen to him knowing that
When it comes to separating art from the artist, I take into account what Dominic Noble said in his video about J.K. Rowling. That being "Are they still alive and directly benefiting from my continued participation in their art?" If so, then that's a harsh "no" for me. A lot of bands I used to listen to, have/had a member with allegations thrown at them where they did terrible things. In this case, I try to see both sides of the story. If allegations were put out there and the artist never responds or even acknowledges them, then I'm automatically done. If they do end up responding, it will boil down to how their response is framed and whether it holds any weight. When it comes to something a bit more unexplainable, it can be difficult to decide what we should do about it. For example, when the accusations came out against Michael Jackson, some people immediately believed it to be true while others questioned why they would be brought up 10 years after his death. The way I see it, we'll never really know the truth since he isn't here to defend himself. If they were true, then to me, it's whatever because he's dead and all child abusers deserve a bullet to the skull. Fantastic video overall! Sorry for the long paragraph comment. I might've missed a few things and I'm not greatest at explaining my thoughts in a cohesive manner. Would love to see more of these video essays from you in the future! Additional praise to Lace for the fantastic editing!
Your reference to Innuendo Studios in the J. Cole review makes so much more sense now. Also the Toontown characters are such an odd but poetic choice lmao
I'm just going to say I was wondering if my playlist was on when I heard the kpop songs in the background but then realized they were part of this video intentionally. Great listen.
IDK. Refusing to acknowledge an artist's personal problems probably is dishonest, but saying "this song is really well made, but I heard its producer beat his wife so I now say it's bad" is also basically dishonest. So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
It’s even harder these days with the number of collabs. By association, many major artists are within a degree or two from Chris Brown, Dr. Luke, Kodak Black, etc. loved when Chvrches called out Marshmello for working with Chris brown but that’s almost never gonna happen
This felt empowering, not gonna lie. Makes me wanna take a crack at addressing something unpleasant. Probably gonna take a while, but hey. I'm not going to complain about that. Great video, Mark. Can't wait to see what you have coming next.
A few things. 1. Love the new editing Mark, super cool! 2. Hope to see these video essays of yours become more commonplace going forward, you seem to be really good at them. 3. As someone who's looking to go into music criticism and even music itself, and also as someone who's been at pretty much every perspective on this issue at some point, this video really helped me to think through these things a lot and I'll definitely be coming back to this when i feel like I need to. 4. Great video as always Mark, love the lighting and the outfits And 5. Screw capitalism
i feel like an important part of the discussion when it comes to art /=/ artist discussion is the importance of time and self improvement. while some people have done things that will never be forgotten or forgiven, some heinous acts don't seem to linger as long as others (akon touching a teenage fan for the latter and chris browns many acts as the former), or the weight of the things a certain figure has done or co-signed can also factor in the audiences consistency in defense (kanye saying stupid shit on twitter VS azalea banks being a bigot). great video as always tho.
When it comes to Death of the Author (in situations where someone is exposed for doing something bad), I kind of practice 2 sides. I can look back on the work and appreciate it for the craft, the way it made me feel, and maybe even take a good message away from it. But that doesn’t mean I’m ok with supporting abusers directly.
Michael Jackson may or may not have done some not-so-great things with children, but I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that he isn't my favorite artist of all time.
I can respect that. Thinking back to this essay, the conclusion I've drawn is that more of us need to be like Joe Budden. Meaning staring the imperfections of our favorite artists in the face, allowing that to affect us emotionally, and examine what that says about us. Too many will either completely disallow new information to change their reading of a work of art in order to push their personal agenda, or deny that the work ever affected them emotionally to begin with, neither of which is healthy or productive in my opinion. We can acknowledge that MJ shaped our modern musical landscape, and was probably a colossal creep at the same time. It's just a matter of having the conversation.
I’m going to make this short. The Double Agent is right, because if you take a “principled stance” you really have nothing to listen to. It also has to do with the moral barometer of the person, is cheating a dealbreaker? Is Starting fights a dealbreaker? Also is XXXtentacion off the table is so why not The Beatles? Or Michael Jackson? That is why this idea is stupid, there is no “Principled Stances” when everyone talking about it is a hypocrite.
In my opinion, the only times when you can't separate art from the artist is if the artist's actions in real life directly impact how their material is consumed. Chris Brown, despite being abusive to, not just Rihanna but other women, still continues to sing about how much of a romantic he is and how he wants you girl. YNW Melly wrote a song about murdering his friend where he appears remorseful, but spends the last verse bragging about being a thug, when it turned out he actually murdered someone. In a less extreme example, Morrissey wrote several songs criticizing Thatcherism and capitalism in general, yet came out in favor of UKIP. In those instances, the personal activities of the artists directly undercut the messages they are portraying and make the music worse. Even then, Phil Spector was one of the greatest producers while being an abusive, possessive murderer (who almost no one shed tears over when he died), yet the songs he produced are so good that it almost doesn't matter, even when he wrote love songs that are directly undercut by his abusive actions. Examples like Morgan Wallen don't matter that much as Wallen never performed any songs confronting racism or prejudice in general. J.K. Rowling being transphobic doesn't impact Harry Potter because no one from that book has hang-ups about gender or, at least, is a very masculine woman or feminine man (though she did make that one book with a cross-dressing murder, so her views definitely matter there). I'll also say that, even as an autistic, Sia's views on autism doesn't determine how I feel about her music. I agree that the artist's intent is important when analyzing art, but it can also be important to figure out if their transgressions are relevant.
@@jadedheartsz If Chris Brown's only act of douchery was beating up Rihanna, then I'd be willing to look past the incident as an angry teenager struggling to control himself. But it's not just Rihanna anymore, Chris Brown has been punching people, threatening people, getting kicked out of hotels and making awful music throughout the 2010s. So it's much bigger than Rihanna now.
@@jadedheartsz But doesn't it bother you that Chris Brown, who's been accused of abuse by Karrueche Tran, his second girlfriend in addition to the Rihanna incident is singing about how he loves the woman in the song? Doesn't that come off as really shitty knowing his past? I don't know if you understand my point. Chris Brown's love songs like "International Love" or "Go Crazy" aren't effected by, say, him punching Frank Ocean over a parking space, but when he beat Rihanna to a pulp and had another girlfriend get a restraining order against him due to abuse, they come off as being really horrible. Rappers tend to have criminal records, but they at least have a persona of being a thug and being tough, Nas doesn't write love songs and Big Pun didn't write songs about being a father, therefore it doesn't really matter because the activities aren't related to the songs.
@@jadedheartsz Don't care about the Rihanna incident anymore. Chris Brown got a 5-year restraining order from his second girlfriend due to alleged physical abuse. This is also the same man who tries to come off as a romantic. Does it not ruin the enjoyment of his love songs when a second woman accused him of violence against her?
Wow, did I need to see this. I've been struggling with the separation of art from the artist question from both a literary and music perspective for months now. Loved the new vid, can't wait to see what comes next.
A very thought provoking essay. One thing I want to add, using the example of Carach Angren. We both wholeheartedly oppose and refuse to engage with fascists who use Black Metal as their platform to spread hatred, even when the music isn't directly about that. But like everything, there are grey areas. For Carach Angren, I can't find any evidence of overtly spreading fascist views, but rather, the source you gave me was them engaging in lazy dismissal of the problem. This is still a bad thing, but I have to wonder: what's the impact of their words? We both had to actively dig to find this much information, and it was from one obscure interview far away from their major record label platform. How much sway do they have in allowing fascist black metal bands or artists into festivals, beyond the groan-worthy Freeze Peach fallacy? And, moreover, are they just telling horror stories with their music as they claim, or is there something deeper? In case it isn't obvious, I'm not here to dictate what you, or anyone, should or shouldn't think. Hell, I'm still wrestling with this concept myself. I admit my emotional bias in favour of Carach Angren, so I would say it's impossible to come up with a perfect solution, because there is none. Maybe you think I'm engaging in the same fallacy of relative privation that other more overt reactionaries do. But sometimes, as you outlined in this essay, the consequences of our support for artists may not always have the same impact as we first thought.
This honestly just feels weird to me. Why does art need to be made by good people? To me the best thing art can be is interesting, a bad person expressing themself can be very interesting. I mean sure, it's nice to know that I'm supporting a good person, but I can enjoy art I disagree with.
okay but can we talk about the song selection for this video tho👀❤🔥 i mean, i know you have great taste duh but dammmmmn!❤ Edit: oh thank God it's finally here. this was such a good video and to add to what you said about people not wanting to acknowledge how they're in a bad system that they're can't do anything about (or at least that's how it often appears) what i think a lot of people tend to forget is that while change is hard, it's not impossible and you can't get change to happen if you don't know what needs changing. even besides that, what good does simply ignoring things do? you can't really unsee what you've already seen. a lot of people around me don't seem to enjoy having these kind of conversations (can't blame them really) cause they really aren't easy ones to have but i've found the most useful realisations i've had in my life are rarely answers/solutions to things but rather just questions. sometimes the question is the answer. okay this feels a little unrelated to the video but immma just leave it here😗✌🏾 but again, great video❤ and a lot learnt here today
I'm working on a response video to this. I've debated with several people on this myself, and I really wanted to give my two-cents, as I think Mark missed the point on a few things.
There is a very long response that I am writing, but that will be for your eyes alone, once I figure out how to make it that way, I'll send it to you. In the meantime, if I wish to listen to music done by artists who do not have heinous things in their past, to what shall I listen? So far, the only artist who's music I have or had in my collection who does NOT have something ugly in their background that I know of is jazz bassoonist Michael Rabinowitz--and I gave that CD away because I found it _boring._
Good video! I know this video was structured primarily to rebut people that do not want to engage in the conversation of admitting emotional involvement and complicated feelings. I wonder what you’d think about people who when the artist fucks up have a negative reaction to the art itself. The inverse to denying that emotional response. Full disclosure - this is me. I can’t enjoy art that is made by transphobes - my emotional response is too heavily dictated by the pain that is knowing that the artist hates people like me and wants me gone. I gave up trying to be more objective - I feel wounded and in pain. There are some situations I’m more in that grey area this video explores, but with transphobes I cannot enjoy that art, and am emotionally upset.
That was damn great video, Mark, hope we'll get more video essays from you eventually. This is really interesting topic and as someone who still can't help but enjoy some of the music by artists who done some awful stuff, it's really close to my heart
I completely disagree with you on the importance of the creator to if you should enjoy their work, I'm literally the person Lindsay Ellis snarkily says to go watch Fantastic Beasts 5 or whatever because I do not think it matters whatsoever what Rowling thinks about 21st century sociopolitical issues in relation to her 90s children's books about magic wizards. Nor do I care that frankly most rockstars from the 60s-90s did stuff that would get them in hot water now. And honestly, I think the positive emotional impact, as you discuss here, that art has on the people who enjoy it outweighs the harm they did to individuals in most cases, and we don't talk about that. for example when the Jesse Lacey (or insert your emo band guy here) allegations came out, obviously a ton of people got a lot emotionally out of Brand New's music, and there was a lot of twitter scolding that you need to just drop all their music forever immediately regardless or you're a bad person who condones what he did, and I don't think people who had nothing to do with the situation other than enjoying someone's music should be expected to do that. People can contribute both good and bad to the world, but for some reason it's easier for our brains to deal in "person good" or "person bad". But I appreciate the effort it takes to make a video like this and you bring up good points on how our enjoyment of art is largely emotional which I totally agree with, so respect.
It's a pretty great video essay, can't wait to see more in the future :DDD I suppose my nitpick is the 'bisexual lighting' that pops up on some part of the video, felt that it's a bit too bright for me.
Good video. Feel like it was a fresh take on the subject. Definitely a topic with no clear answers. Though, for me personally, I have definitely had times where I've been chocked how many people keep listening to an artist that did problematic stuff. It is for sure also an industry wide issue, and they definitely don't want consumers considering this. I definitely agree that this is an issue we have to tackle both personally, but also from the perspective of giving problematic artists a platform uncritically. Shoving two fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't exists. Well, it just isn't really an option, if you're honest with yourself, I find.
As Oscar Wilde once noted, "The fact of a man being a poisoner is nothing against his prose. The domestic virtues are not the true basis of art, though they may serve as an excellent advertisement for second-rate artists." Still listened to "The Storm is Over" by R. Kelly once Biden was inaugurated though
@@jadedheartsz Proves (like MJ) that a lot of great art comes out of great pain. Still doesn't excuse what he did though (though I know you're not saying that). Just sad all around.
in actual art history you never leave out one of the two. the only decision you make is, if you deal with them as seperate things or try to make sense the one with the other. most of the time its the latter. also, there are factors that have to be considered. if it is a landscape painter of actual landscapes in the world for example, they had to be there to paint it - like, you cant leave that out lol.
There are several bands I really loved to listen to as a kid such as Marilyn Manson, lostprophets, Trapt, and System of a Down, but at some point I had to make the conscious decision to write them off completely for their awful actions or statements. Except trapt, Trapt I realized just flat sucked and their frontman was a douche
@Shane Plyler i mean Im not saying anybody is as bad as what Ian Watkins did, just saying everybody I mentioned had a serious fall from grace in one form or another
Talking about it it's hard because encountering rational and democratic opinions around it are quite hard and how the art that autor reflects the audience response it's kinda a factor i wanna see explored more at some point (ex, Fret Durst reacting to the critics and by extension, his public reacts the same way) Overall, Great essay Mark, love how you manage to challenge yourself with your own format and it's would be interesting if you go beyond the couch and Voltrob scenery. Minor nitpicking but sometimes the music hides a lot of what are you talking about. Good job!
So an interesting data point is brand new both in general and in specifics because there was credible skeezy behavior from the front man that came put in 2016 only a couple months after their long delayed final album science fiction The album was praised widely upon its release but when list season came nobody dared to put science fiction on the list of albums of the year People felt uneasy about their previous albums after this even felt wrong about listening to them or streaming them Even if some of them had different types of emotional baggage attached to those earlier albums
I do hate this topic because in some ways it is one that is so personal. Ultimately whether or not you can separate the art from the artist is your decision and me telling you whether you should or not is not a reasonable stance to take. The only thing I should try to control is what I consume and the decision of what to consume is mine alone. I will also say that there are these people who say that you either have to do it across the board for every artist or none of them and that's also silly. Maybe it's a bit hypocritical to make arbitrary decisions about who you are going to support, but that is your decision alone to make. I agree that we should be accepting of artists as being sometimes terrible people. But where that line in the sand is drawn for you cannot be up to anyone but you. And it does not need to be a hard and fast rule. Maybe some artists come with more baggage than others. Maybe some come with baggage you cannot personally let go of. Ultimately, that decision of what or who to support is yours alone. It might be an emotional one. It may not make sense to the world. None of that matters. It is your line to draw, nobody else's.
Wish I was at the premiere, the comments... But I get it. While it might be easy to continue the conversation and explain certain people celebrated in modern music that have been accused or done questionable things that in the judicial system are bad or doesn't go with our values and principles (Cardi B, Chris Brown, Michael Jackson, etc.), it is always our job to understand our emotions regardless of how we feel about certain art or artist, that context is important. Even if you don't agree with separating the art and the artist, there is always gonna be that context in that view because the artist is making that art and it's always gonna be there. You can't be selective of one person, everyone deserves the same criticism.
In fact, Joe Budden (want to watch his podcast more) probably is speaking to the average African American male that feels the way when it comes to their relationship to Chris Brown and his art that many people don't want to admit. Is it that our disappointment in the artist themselves that we want to dismiss criticism from "SJWs" because we can't believe it or to dunk on an artist Two Examples: 1. When Michael Jackson was accused of child molestation charges, even if many fans would give receipts of what would happen, Oprah would apologize and the recent charges were dropped, it cracked our relationship with Michael Jackson. So teens now feel awful they are listening to art from a predator and how parents distance themselves from an artist that probably shapes their exposure and love for pop music. 2. When I gave receipts that the Kid LAROI might be an industry plant, not to disrespect him but I was curious, of course his stans came for me, but because their connection to the artist could be shattered. I get it.
@@jadedheartsz Lots of things, although none of them advance to an actual criminal case or moved anything except her incident with two strippers, but in 2019 she admitted, in 2016, to drugging and robbing men for "studio time", then she wanted to flip the script and say that these men were "conscious and aware". Even if this didn't cancel her and how no one feels like touching this story due to complicated legal reasons, it did put a damper on her public image, least for me and was the nail in the coffin for a lot of her haters.
@@jadedheartsz Maybe, but huge scandals like this can put a damper on someone's image. Don't feel like sharing you everything, think you have google for that.
@@jadedheartsz Interesting. From the post I saw (rewatching now), it probably was hard to understand her, but she did say she got this from her with her own money, assuming Love and Hip-Hop but also it can mean that her net-worth could be associated with robbing people. Now no one is denying about Cardi's past life in poverty, hell Get Up 10 is still one of her best songs, however, the fact she didn't take accountability in a foot in the mouth apology coupled with her raging on social media, let's say she could of alientated her fan base. This is one of those cases, she could of apologize and kept it moving.
@@jadedheartsz That doesn't really excuse. For example, if someone does something I don't like, would I risk jail time as well by getting back at them? Besides there is no report those people deserve it, the story is incomplete to begin with, but Cardi's refusal the entire story doesn't look for her then and now.
