Art is relatively low stakes. We can always create more art. You should increase the stakes as a thought experiment.

The person who solved global warming/cancer/whatever turns out to be a terrible person? Should we throw away their work, and come to a different answer? Or wait a few generations so people forget and come to the same answer again but the people involved are “pure”?

The art was good. I remember Cat Stevens disappearing from the airwaves when Yusuf Islam emerged. You might feel differently about the art based on how it connects to the post-revelation artist. Michael Jackson was close to a genius. Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole.

Growing up as a devout religious kid in the 80s, it was always understood in my household that rock stars were lascivious, immoral sex crazies and that Hollywood was a den of heathen propaganda. Nevertheless, we still listened to (some) music and watched (some) movies.

I'm mostly out of that environment now, but occasionally put myself in those shoes again and think how odd it would seem to me that people look up to and expect moral righteousness from these people.

> The more interesting question is: what do we do with the art of people who were revealed to be terrible?

It's an interesting conundrum isn't it?

H.P. Lovecraft is a case in point - Lovecraftian horror is a special sort of literary genius, in my opinion, and massively influential on other writers to this day (I'm a big fan of The Laundry Files, for instance, which draw on it). But it's clear that he was massively racist, and significantly more so than just "well those were the times". Some people (some people here in this thread) say that we should "separate the art from the artist", but there's quite a bit of veiled and not-so-veiled racism in the art as well. Not to forget the misogyny.

So we decide to disavow him? No Cthulu for anyone! Well, that doesn't seem like a good option either. There's no easy, feel-good answer here other than to understand that flawed people sometimes create great art, to understand we don't have to (probably shouldn't) make idols of artists, and to be nuanced in our appreciation of their output.

In this vein I did enjoy reading "Lovecraft Country" a while ago, which both explored the horror of racism and embraced mythos-style themes.

Scott Adams gave us Dilbert. In the 90s I found it amazing. By the 00s I'd stopped paying attention, and then he started saying some somewhat less wonderful things which, if you squint, you could see foreshadowed in how uncharitable he was to people in his earlier writings. Another imperfect human, who gave us some good fun and insight, and in the end didn't live up to everyone's expectations. We shouldn't gloss over it, but perhaps we shouldn't pile those expectations on them anyway.

I had a decent lunch at Stacy's that time though...

We certainly don't hide it away from the public ever being able to (legally) see it again. That's what the Simpson's rightsholders did when they removed the episode Jackson guest starred in from streaming services.

People also like to be selective about which artists they try to memoryhole. John Lennon was a wife beater, an adulterer, and a deadbeat dad but people still love his music (though I personally think his solo career was worse than Paul's).

It's more interesting to not separate them while they are living even if you still enjoy the art. You know exactly where the money is going if you continue to pay

I don't really have an opinion on Wagner's music because he is dead. Michael Jackson similarly feels fine.

But it feels more and more terrible to stream Kanye, a contender for one of the best in producing and rapping, every time he opens his mouth because you know you're helping support his life style. But if you ripped his albums you can still enjoy the previous art.

But it's nice to know more about the riches finances and we should demand more. Papa John's fired their CEO for being racist, but he still holds significant stock, so I continue to avoid their pizza. Tesla could do the same and hopefully it still shouldn't matter without a complete sell off.

Do we know for a fact that Michael Jackson did anything wrong? On Wikipedia you can read that the original accuser suspect his son was being molested, and asked for money or he would go to the police. Doesn't this undermine the credibility of the accuser?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Michael_Jackson_sexual_...

> Chandler demanded money from Jackson, threatening to go to a criminal court, but no agreement was reached. After Jordan told a psychiatrist that Jackson had molested him, the Los Angeles Police Department began a criminal investigation. The investigation found no physical evidence against Jackson.

Update, I just read that entire page and it seems obvious the whole thing was a set up.

What do we do with the honey of the bees that sting us?

The answer is: nothing. It doesn't matter.

You seperate the work from the author.

Understand and it and celebrate the art when acknowledge the shortcomings of it creator. A lot of great creations, inventions and discoveries are made by otherwise insufferable assholes. Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR is known to be a prime one. You can’t stop using PCR in biology just because the character of the person who discovered it.

Many painters, singers, composers and CEO’s are known to be horrible people. Unless they are actively harming humanity with the power they acquired, this is nothing more than a curiosity that is only relevant for people around him.