Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 6352852" data-attributes="member: 13107">Well, aren't there really no rules for this?  As a question of whether a particular person can or should modify their view to a work or their behavior with respect to a particular artist and their works, isn't that an individual question?  One is free to make what adjustments one see's fit, with the constraints that particular adjustments may be easier or harder to make.There is a different matter, of how well an individual's views convey to ones peers, or to society (either in the small or the large), but that is a different matter.As an extreme example: One might be put off by airport searches, and find them to be an governmental overreach.  Then, one can choose not to fly.  Well within ones prerogative, but with clear consequences.  A person can choose to not patronize Orson Scott Card, Woody Allen, or Roman Polasky, based on their actions, with smaller but still real costs (say, alienation of some folks who make different choices).One can study the technical artistry of a work while accepting the flaws (perhaps the very great moral failings) of the artist.  Indeed, the juxtaposition of great artistry and great flaws, and the study thereof, can provide a lot of deep insights into people and generally how our minds work.  But, that study doesn't need to imply any approval or any deep patronage.Certainly, one is expected to weigh the meaning of an artist's work in the context of the artist's life experience?  Why should the meaning of a work be impacted only in changing our understanding of the work, and not change our behavior towards the artist and the work as well?Actions have consequences.  As well: no information is truly independent of any other information; there is only a separation in degree.Thx!TomB</blockquote>

Verification