acori

I liked it here.

There was a lot I never got to explore here. It was cool watching everyone else though. Maybe someday I'll open up like that too.


website (RSS and cohost shrine will be added after read-only)
acorisage.neocities.org/

mogwai-poet
@mogwai-poet

It's human to want to simplify a complicated situation. It's human to want to believe that people who are more ethical, or more attractive, must be more talented. From where I'm sitting, these are completely disconnected variables. (If there are studies correlating them, I'm unaware of them.) But when an artist people like turns out to be a bad person, it seems like it's easier to decide their art was bad all along than to accept the broader idea that terrible people can make excellent art.

Conflating everything about a person into a single "I like them" or "I don't like them" variable makes it harder to accept that a talented, attractive person who knows all the right gender words, can still be a bad person. It makes you more likely to, if someone made art you dislike, to look for reasons to believe that they're a bad person too. It makes it difficult to accept that a bad person can still do good things, or that a broadly good person (like you, perhaps) can do bad things.

It is crucial to recognize your own capacity to do evil, or you'll never recognize when you do it and never learn to do better.

For the record, though, I never cared for Harry Potter. Just, speaking personally, y'know, never really liked it. Just sayin'.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @mogwai-poet's post:

I believe there is such a thing as art that is bad in ways that harm the world - eg it expresses hate for a category of vulnerable person, it helps people believe things that harm the world, it contradicts truth in an important enough matter that it harms real people, etc. IMO, this is a tiny minority of bad art. Most bad art is just stuff I / others don't care for, and I'll always defend peoples' right to enjoy it or hate on it.

I think this is a useful distinction to make because it helps you realize both just how much really is down to taste, and that art is important enough to affect the world around it, without needing to be the Most Important Thing Ever (which fans of things can definitely spiral into).

Taking Harry Potter as an example, I think there is a bit of pretty rotten ideology in there, but the harm its author is doing the world is almost entirely in how she uses the megaphone and vast fortune she got from writing and selling those books. If she'd made some different creative decisions writing them that made them more ideologically palatable and better works creatively, it wouldn't have changed what she ended up doing as a rich celebrity (unless her reasons for making those creative changes stemmed from her having different principles as a human, but that's too far into hypothetical territory).

It is crucial to recognize your own capacity to do evil, or you'll never recognize when you do it and never learn to do better.

A relevant corollary is that, with a probably vanishingly small number of exceptions, what art you like and don't like, on its own, doesn't make you a good or bad person. You can't watch/read/play/etc your way to being good. Consumption != morality and anyone saying so wants you to consume more. (Also, "good" isn't a thing you are, it's a thing you do.) (Also also, is "like"/"enjoy" the operative verb with "the act of appreciating art"? It's a bit like "fun", ie it covers a lot of the spectra but definitely not everything, eg works that are deliberately very unenjoyable, harrowing, hard to watch, etc etc.)

Pinned Tags