[ SECRET POST #2520 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2520 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 039 secrets from Secret Submission Post #360.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

09. http://i.imgur.com/ooGpZku.png

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's mostly people who believe everyone is either Good or Bad who tend to feel that way about entertainers and whether you're Allowed to like their stuff.

[galerian-ash.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean. It's like the obligatory backlash that people who read Ayn Rand or Orson Scott Card get, because some people don't realize that books should be read for their own value -- not the ideology of the author.

[(Anonymous)]

If books should be read for their own value, that still rules out Rand.

[sarillia]

I don't think there's any should about it. People can approach books any way they want to. And of course you're free to disapprove.

[(Anonymous)]

It's fine if people choose to read books by either of those people. By Ender's Game still sucks. Some of Ayn Rand's books are entertaining at least. Not that endless speech in Atlas shrugged though.

[(Anonymous)]

NOTHING the op said in their secret said that. They specifically said you can like their work but the not the artist. Don't know why you are being so aggressive.

[kaijinscendre]

Because many people on the internet only have two categories for everything. Ultimate Good and Ultimate Evil. There is no in between, there are no shades of grey (except for the BDSM kind), and there is no compromise.

[(Anonymous)]

There's no shades of gray for shades of gray either because if you liked shades of gray for any reason then you're also a Horrible Person because it is also Ultimate Evil or Suckitude or whatever.

[rivia]

i agree, and i admit i've fallen into that "they said one really gross thing they're a terrible person who should be shot!!!" mentality a bit. though from what i've seen, i think that some of that comes from how people tend to gloss over or completely overlook someone's (celebrities, etc) faults or fuck-ups to the degree that other people feel the need to overcompensate and make huge deals out of every little thing?

i hope that makes sense with my lack of coffee today, heh.

[(Anonymous)]

If someone decided to boycott all music made by jerks they'd have to boycott like 80% of music that exists.

So I agree with this secret.

[(Anonymous)]

Some of us think they're overrated hacks, and the douchebaggery is just delicious icing on the cake of resentment.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[lex_antonia]

I never thought I'd see Mick Jagger on f!s. I love him in all his douchebaggy glory.

[mekkio]

I think it's because since they are the sole creators of their works, rather than say an actor who is performing somebody's script, their music is more personal reflection of the singer. So, if you like their songs, you are somewhat condoning the artist. Like the lyrics are straight from the artist's head. They are their personal views. If you like the song, you condoning those views. You are essentially saying I think the things that come out of this artist's mouth are right. But that's my guess.

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree. Unless the song is racist/sexist/homophobic, then there's no reasons to dislike it on those grounds. I love the Stones musically and several of their songs are fine. However, I acknowledge that some are horribly racist and sexist, and that Jagger is kind of horrible. I don't condone those attitudes and I don't respect Jagger as a human being, but I admire their artistry and criticize the elements that need criticizing.

And I actually find actors who are in obviously -ist movies or shows to be almost more problematic, because they are choosing to perpetuate somebody else's terrible shit for a paycheck and/or fame. To say nothing of people who think someone like Roman Polanski should still be allowed to work, let alone those who jump at the chance to work with and defend him.

[nightscale]

A lot of the time with music I don't know anything about what the singer/band is like, I just listen to the songs if I like them.

[elaminator]

Yea, when I was younger I paid more attention to the bands I liked and their personal lives, now I usually don't bother.

[(Anonymous)]

I totally agree. Who cares about the artist, I want the art.

Signed, someone who adores quite a few Amanda Palmer songs and is sick of hearing about how she's the worst person ever and therefore so am I.

(Seriously, dudes, listen to the Bed Song before hating)

[(Anonymous)]

I tend to avoid knowing too much about a musician or artist to be able to enjoy something without judging. I just can't enjoy something if someone does something I strongly disagree with. For example Miley Cirus. Someone told me today her music was actually pretty good, and it might be, but I honestly am incapable of even listening to it knowing what she's like.

Also John Lennon. Ugh. No, someone who wrote about how people should be kind to each other but did what he did on real life sounds like a big hypocrite to me. It doesn't help that the first person I met as a child who loved his music were a giant douchebag himself who made my life miserable, so...

[(Anonymous)]

I can separate the artist from the art unless it somehow personally applies to me. I have a couple of band tattoos that I would not have gotten if I knew the artists to be asshats.

Death of the Artist

[(Anonymous)]

This is an excellent example of why I believe in the "Death of the Author" idea - that is, once an author / artist puts out their work for consumption, it becomes, in part, the audience's because the audience gets to interpret it for themselves. Back when I used to come here regularly, I used to see secrets by people whining that they'd "lost respect" for this or that actor/director/musician/whatever and could no longer enjoy their work after finding out "they're a Mormon!" or "they're a Scientologist!" or "they have a drug problem!" or whatever. This happens around the Internet, too, and it always leaves me scratching my head because, more often than not, said creator's work had nothing to do with their personal life, particularly with actors who would play people who were the total opposites of themselves. If someone's creations don't have much to do with their "off-stage" persona, then, why not continue to enjoy the work that they do?

Perhaps this attitude was born of my own struggles. I'm socially awkward, was a butt-monkey throughout my school years and just not liked - yet the people who bullied me would say "I like the way you draw." I learned that the world really wants what you can do for it rather than you, anyway. Angry and a-hole celebrities probably have felt the same way on a grander scale. "Screw trying to be good enough! Just keep making what people like enough to give me a living for!"

[hiyami]

Hey, it's not like we always have a choice. From the moment I know stuff about people that make me dislike them as people, it colors my views of their art, whether I want it or not.

Which is one reason why I stopped looking at artists interviews / personal life, since sometimes I do like their art. But it's become increasingly difficult to ignore it, because publicity keeps becoming more and more about wanks and scandals and personal (made-up) details than about music or acting.
There are people that I only know from medias before I even hear their music. (case in point : Miley Cyrus).

It's a bit easier with novels, but with Orson Scott Card for example, I found his early works fascinating when I read them, 20 or 25 years ago. Ender's Game is the only short story I xeroxed from the library because I thought it was so original and brilliant and creepy.
But in novels, I started noticing creepy vibes that bothered me. It's only much later when I got online and read wank in fandomlands that I realized the creepy vibes were how his religion and personal views colored his novels.
It makes for original point of views, but at the same time, it turned me off from his stories *before* I knew where it was coming from.

You can't always separate both. Art is usually fed from personal experience and personal opinions.

[(Anonymous)]

I totally agree OP. In fact it really annoys me when I say I like someone and the person replies with a comment about them in real life, as if that's a comment on their work. Also it can often shut down any further discussion about the film or music or whatever, which is really a shame when there might be someone else in the group who is interested.

It annoys me even more when people justify the behaviour of a bad person because they like their work, I've found it a lot with Michael Jackson fans.