The importance of an author's views
 

Some people won't read books written by people who's views are not the same as theirs, even if the book has nothing to do with these issues. (The same goes for most arts) I'm not one of these people. Most of the time, I tend to learn about the art before the person, if I learn about the artist at all. But, this said, I understand how other people may not wish to support someone with different views than themselves.

So here's the question:

If you strongly disagreed with the views or actions of someone who produced an art, would you still support them?

Oh, and just to highlight this, I thought I'd post two webcomics, from Randy Milholland's ever brilliant Something Positive (Go! Read! :thumbsup: )

http://somethingpositive.net/arch/missmonas.gif

http://somethingpositive.net/arch/cardless.gif

I strongly agree with pretty much everything that Michael Moore stands for, after sitting thru one of his "documentaries" I made a choice to never ever contribute to him again. While I think it's a stretch to call MM an artist, some might call filmmaking an art, I will not support his art.

But on the otherside of the coin, I'm also not a big fan of the Hollywood types that feel the need to soapbox everything, ie Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, and Tim Robbins. While I wouldn't cross the street to see a Susan Sarandon movie because not only does she irritate me as a person, she doubly irritates me as an actor. I do like Tim Robbins and Sean Penn as actors, but they both need to sit down, shut up and just act. I will go to their movies, and appreciate their craft.

It is funny to hear you say that about actors.

I was at a meeting the other day, something about global warming etc.
Granted I didn't understand a lot of what was said.

The main jest was to use actors to help promote the cause to the younger generations.

At first I wanted to say "sit down and shut up" but now I think, they didn't start this on their own. They were probability pressured into choosing and being vocal about some stance.

Talent and ones work are separate from who they are otherwise.
Wagner wrote great music.
Joan Crawford could act.
There must be literary examples too.

Ernest Hemingway and Edgar Allen Poe - -not exactly stand up citizens but they can write.

exactly what I would have said almost word for word.

Wow, the 'something positive' comic is eerily similar to a thread about Orson Scott Card at another forum. Personally, I usually read their book before becoming interested in the author's personal views, and I usually don't care what they think. Freedom of speech and all that, right?

Um, basically i will give most authors/artists a go, regardless of politics or opinions. For me, reading/watching thier material is the only way to form an opinion. Ive enjoyed PJ O'Rourke books as much as Mike Moore.

I am one of those people however who loves to read the background information on the authors or whatever. Its just part of my nature, and probably why i like the internet so much. Say i hear a lyric in a song that intrigues me, i must search out the author and find out what he meant. This makes me an especially knowledgable pop culture geek at parties.

It is tiresome however, when say a fiction writer expresses thier views too strongly through thier work at the expense of the story, because ultimately, thats what keeps me turning the pages.

Depends, when you use your art as a method of forwarding your agenda, I will not support them.

Likewise if you use the fame your art gives you to speak on issues you are clueless on, again no support.

Beyond that it doesn't matter to me.

i think a person can easily appreciate art separate from the views of its creator. while I do my best not to support (typically financially) those who have views with which I do not agree, if I really want to experience their art I will. (of course, whether I want to experience their art depends on just how much I disagree with their views...it's all relative!)

I believe in everything that William Shatner has done politically. But have you heard him sing?

http://www.crookdimwit.com/Shatner-RocketMan.mp3

I think that the freedom to express opposing viewpoints is an important (and inalienable) right. I don't have any problem enjoying quality art from an artist who has a carefully thought out position in opposition to mine. However, I lose respect for those so-called artists that parrott popular ideas, but clearly don't understand the issue. That makes me less likely to choose to partake in their art simply because I won't experience it in the same way.

On very rare occasion I might consciously choose to avoid or boycott an artist because of their actions, not their beliefs. Jane Fonda's speaking out from an ememies anti-aircraft gun is a good example. I enjoy most of the protest art from that time, but the actions she took are not OK in my book regardless of validity of her position.

I just don't care.

The value of the work isn't dependent on my opinion of the creator. If the work is good, be it acting, writing, composing, painting...whatever, I'm going to enjoy it regardless of what I think about the author, composer, artist or actor.

If we limited ourselves to only that which we agree with completely, the world would be very, very boring.

not that song.... Lucy in the sky with diamonds....

Yeah, I said that I support everything that J. Tiberius Kirk does politically but not that awful John Lennon. I heard he's related to this guy:

http://www.manics.nl/images/prs_leninthumb.jpg

I judge a piece of work on its own merits.

I've never really been a fan of using auteur theory to find meaning in a piece.

I hardly expect to agree with any human being about every single issue, and I see no reason to give up some of my favorite authors just because I don't see eye to eye with them on everything. Orson Scott Card is a great example. He's a Mormon, and I don't agree with a lot of Mormon doctrine, and I assume I probably have some differences of opinion with him on a few social issues, but his books are hugely enjoyable and thought-provoking. Human beings are complex, and so are their thoughts and opinions. No reason to be so dichotomous about things, imho.

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/radi...,35778,00.html

I'm sure their political views make them fantastic artists.

Let's word this carefully - I do not oppose you simply because you disagree with me. I have plenty of friends who are strong conservatives, but I'm still able to go out and have a beer and watch the game with them. Opposistion of views does not bother me. Same thing goes for actors, artists, writers, etc. For example, I purchased Newt Gingrich's book Gettysburg because I thought it would be a fairly intersting read, and that it would be fun to see where he was standing.

However, on the flip side of the coin, there are the people who try to oppressively push their views on you. If your political/religious/ethical stance is in every freakin' sentence that you utter, and you can't accept anyone who thinks otherwise, then I have better things to do with my dollars than spend it on your work (needless to say, I will never, EVER, pay to see another Mel Gibson movie).

If I knew that my consumption of the work would not financially promote the artist in any way, then I might consider it. However, most likely, I would get angered and leave in the middle of it.

I find this a bit odd. Mel seems to be one of the few Hollywood types who doesn't go around providing everyone with his personal point of view.

Sure The Passion of the Christ is out there but so what? Why is it any different from say, Newt Gingrich's book? And who is to say that it can't be enjoyed on an entertainment level like anything else out of Hollywood (there is a long tradition of religious themed films - 10 Commandments, The Robe, Ben Hur, etc.).

I can understand how someone might say this of someone like Michael Moore but Mel? Come on, he made a contoversial film to be sure but so what? Are you suggesting that *everything* he is likely to make or act in from now on ie either a) going to be counter to what you believe in or b) that The Passion has so scarred you that you can't even think about him any more...

Perhaps it was in response to Lethal weapon of the christ -You know Mel Gibson movies tend to have a lot of sequels. So the sequel to Passion is probably going to involve a chase seen with donkey carts.