• Ginny [they/she]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Reminder: “separating the art from the artist” is an approach to engaging with an artwork, and is a separate question from whether or not you should engage with an artwork when doing so has real life consequences.

    Whether or not you should consume HP Lovecraft media despite the fact he was a racist is entirely up to you because he is long dead. He doesn’t make any money. He isn’t even racist any more. Because he’s dead.

    When you consider whether or not you consume Harry Potter media, you must consider that JK Rowling will make money and will donate that money to anti-trans groups. If you still go on to buy licensed merch, or pay a streaming service to watch it, you will literally be helping to propogate transphobia. Continue to enjoy anything you currently own if you want. That is where separating the art from the artist comes into it. But if you still actively promote the material online and thereby increase the demand for it; again, transphobia, arguably.

    • But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s up to society if we should separate a work from its artist. We’ve collectively agreed that this work shouldn’t survive the century. Not only that, you can’t separate an artist from their work when they’re literally tangled in it and controlling it

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      JK Rowling is rich enough to fund anti trans groups for decades without any input from us. Boycotting HP has no effect on trans rights.