/media/ - Media

what do you mean
>In light of everything that's going down in Hollywood right now
?
like that R Kelly shit?
or money shit?

>>4527
Everything from the #MeToo situation, Weinstein, R Kelly, things like that.

I do it far less than most, disconnect the two, I mean.

t. former Crystal Castles fan

>>4524
The artist reflects themselves within their art. This is impossible to deny. Also by purchasing art you are effectively supporting an artist, no matter how much you may condemn their actions in other ways.
HOWEVER, cancel culture is stupid. There are so many people involved in any one piece of media that one of those fuckers in something you like is bound to be problematic. A boycott is an understandable and valid response to an artist you don't like, but "cancelling" a person who supports someone who worked with the actual bad person before the scandal even happened or some obscure shit like that is actually dumb.

I had this conversation just the other day, so I'll rant a little.

In my opinion, the artist is in an elevated position due to their art, so they can afford to do things others wouldn't get away with. This counts especially for men, all the method actors, directors, producers etc who are just written off as eccentric geniuses while women would be labeled difficult and psycho if they pulled half as much bullshit.

Examples:

>Lars von Trier

>Björk made a public statement regarding Von Trier's sexual harassment during the production of Dancer in the Dark,[85] in which Von Trier remains unnamed, though the Los Angeles Times has found corroboration identifying him.[86] In the Facebook posting, Björk describes the difficulties in facing his retribution: "It was extremely clear to me when I walked into the actresses profession that my humiliation and role as a lesser sexually harassed being was the norm and set in stone with the director and a staff of dozens who enabled it and encouraged it. I became aware of that it is a universal thing that a director can touch and harass his actresses at will and the institution of film allows it. When I turned the director down repeatedly he sulked and punished me and created for his team an impressive net of illusion where I was framed as the difficult one." She also stated, "And in my opinion he had a more fair and meaningful relationship with his actresses after my confrontation so there is hope. Let's hope this statement supports the actresses and actors all over. Let's stop this. There is a wave of change in the world".[85][87] Von Trier has denied the accusations made against him,[86] and Björk responded by detailing the sexual assault episodes.[88]

>He and Björk famously fell out during the shooting of Dancer in the Dark, to the point where Björk would abscond from filming for days at a time.[citation needed] She stated about Trier, who among other things shattered a monitor while it was next to her, "…you can take quite sexist film directors like Woody Allen or Stanley Kubrick and still they are the one that provide the soul to their movies. In Lars von Trier’s case it is not so and he knows it. He needs a female to provide his work soul. And he envies them and hates them for it. So he has to destroy them during the filming. And hide the evidence."
>Nicole Kidman, who starred in von Trier's Dogville, said in an interview with ABC Radio National: "I think I tried to quit the film three times because he said, 'I want to tie you up and whip you, and that's not to be kind.' I was, like, what do you mean? I've come all this way to rehearse with you, to work with you, and now you're telling me you want to tie me up and whip me? But that's Lars, and Lars takes his clothes off and stands there naked and you're like, 'Oh, put your clothes back on, Lars, please, let's just shoot the film.' But he's very, very raw and he's almost like a child in that he'll say and do anything. And we would have to eat dinner every night and most of the time that would end with me in tears because Lars would sit next to me and drink peach schnapps and get drunk and get abusive and I'd leave and…anyway, then we'd go to work the next morning."[84]


If you have to be an abusive asshole towards your crew to get a good performance out of them, then you shouldn't be lauded and your behavior shouldn't be written off as a quirk.

Stanley Kubrick famously bullied Shelley Duvall on the set of Shining so much she started to lose her hair and was in a constant state of despair. And still she's made fun of for not being a good enough actress, even though her terror was real.

Then you got people like Marilyn Manson, who outright stated that he cut himself to punish his girlfriend and called her 158 times in one day and spoke about how much he fantasized about beating her to death, but he's just an edgy dude making music, it's alright. He's just weird!

>“The song ‘I Want to Kill You Like They Do in The Movies’ is about my fantasies,” Marilyn Manson told a Spin reporter in 2009. Responding to a question about his relationship with ex, Evan Rachel Wood, Manson continued, “I have fantasies every day about smashing her skull in with a sledgehammer.”
>Speculations aside, Manson explicitly confessed to having violent fantasies toward Wood. He even describes a gruesome pattern of emotional abuse, pointing to Christmas Day in 2008, which he describes as a low point of their relationship: “Every time I called her that day—I called 158 times—I took a razor blade and I cut myself on my face or on my hands.” He continued, “I wanted to show her the pain she put me through. It was like, ‘I want you to physically see what you’ve done.’”

>But back in 2009 nobody even batted an eyelash at these overt admissions of violence. People brushed it off as a part of Manson’s murderous image, with some outlets claiming Wood was “smart to break up” with Manson, designating him a “damaged dude,” rather than calling him exactly what he was admitting to being: an abuser. Other media outlets made blithe jokes like, “Anyone got a spare straight jacket?” There were no protections for Wood, little sympathy, and a shocking lack of actual concern for her safety.

>[…] according to Wood’s testimony, the abusive experiences she described happened “a decade ago” and seem parallel to Manson’s admissions. She recounted “sick rituals” of “binding me up by my hands and feet to be mentally and physically tortured until my abuser felt I had proven my love for them.” The actress added, “In this moment, while I was tied up and being beaten and told unspeakable things, I truly felt like I could die.
>Not just because my abuser said to me, ‘I could kill you right now,’ but because in that moment I felt like I left my body and I was too afraid to run. He would find me.”

Then, look at MJ >>>/x/1191 , at this point it's safe to say he really was a pedo, but he paid off his most outspoken victim with 15 million and still people will say he was just childlike and a victim himself, so none of the boys he abused will ever get justice, because he's such a legend.


So with people like this, part of their power over their victims comes from the immense social and economical standing they achieved through their work, so by contributing to that fame and wealth, we enable them.

I dno; People still idolize the beatles and they were pieces of shit.

>>4534
How were they?

Absolutely. I get how some people can but I just can’t, especially with artists who either have sexually assaulted people, are pedos, or tell rape jokes. I’m a CSA victim and like, I just can’t support that, yknow? I end up getting really upset when people support them but I’m trying to let myself ignore it more… it sucks tho. there’s so many celebrities like that and just seeing them can be triggering

>>4524
Your mistake is to call Hollywood movies "art". Hollywood is an industry, a machine, you dumbass. It produces, it doesnt create. It is bound to the vices of its public, it can only spew the garbage masses devour, because thats the only thing that pays.

The answer is yes. Art surpasses the artist.

>>4533
I will say this here because we're in an anonymous board: they loved what they were being done. They were thrilled. They'd secretely give anything to live it again.
Wood, Bjork, Duvale, they were all as free as I am right now to walk off the damn set or the damn relationship or whatever. Especially Wood: what do you have to lose? Oh, he's a big meanster who cut you off your fam & friends and plays with your self esteem, but if you didnt love it, you'd cut him off right off the bat, in the first day. Any time some manipulator tries shit with me I knock them down without making an effort because I dont play fucking victim. Just: walk away. There is no chain tying you. Ah, but you'll lose your credit? Your reputation? Well if you think your pride is worth less than your "carreer", go ahead and stay. But don't play god damn victim, you're making a _transaction_. You're paying for your progress with your tears.

Let me tell you a little secret about us humans. There is no greater pleasure than abandoning yourself to the will of another, and letting them bind your soul. That's how twisted we are.

But yes, I do support boycotting the fuck out of Hollywood. Fuck the actress, fuck the director, fuck them all.

>>4549
>based philosopher indie movie fan who probably only masturbates to French arthouse films
Truly an aesthetic but unfortunately I'm normie trash when it comes to my taste in /media/

>>4549
>Let me tell you a little secret about us humans. There is no greater pleasure than abandoning yourself to the will of another, and letting them bind your soul. That's how twisted we are.

If you have nothing to contribute, then why even post? This thread wasn't for you to wax pretentious about whether or not the abuse is happening, but about whether or not it should be separated from the work put out by the abuser.

>>4535
it's mainly to do with Lennon's abusiveness

>>4552
>>4553
>>4554
Well, the dudette actually contributed.

>>4556
The question was "Should someone's actions be excused if they make stuff that's popular" and the anon's response was "Anyone who likes their stuff is stupid anyway / anyone who lets themselves be mistreated is stupid anyway". It's not really a contribution because it doesn't pertain to the actual question asked.

>>4557
How are these not on topic though?
>The answer is yes. Art surpasses the artist.
>But yes, I do support boycotting the fuck out of Hollywood. Fuck the actress, fuck the director, fuck them all.

It's an edgy post but it has clearly stated opinions directly related to the topic the OP gave (also the OP's topic is slightly different than yours, it's "do you think the artist can ever be separated from the art?")

What about MJ?
>>>/x/1191

Anyone gonna watch the new doc?

Art is an expression of the artist and can encompass any number of that artist's traits. Had that artist lacked some of those traits, even the negative ones, his or her work might have been completely different.
For instance, Lovecraft's fear of the unknown is what lead him to write his iconic mythos, but it also made him uncomfortable with sex, minorities, and mathematics.

So, if you find something you really like that was made by a not-so-good, or downright sick and evil, person, treat it as a learning experience. The line between good and evil does not run between people. It runs down the middle of every man and woman's heart.

With that said, little of what Hollywood produces is actually worth this sort of consideration. It's garbage made by garbage people to reaffirm terrible attitudes in society. Don't consume it.

>>4632
That is a good way of looking at it, made me reconsider what I am consuming.

I also do think that there is a type of fan who would in the rise of the #metoo movement exposing artists for their terrible behaviour, deny at all costa that their fave is not a rapist, abuser & etc. I tend to see this attude if denial perfectly in xxxtentacion stans.
>x's gf comes out during a short spit with pictures of her battered face surfacing on the internet caused by x
>x would be found guilty in court of abuse and would serve his time
>x's fans called her fake and made rumors that she admitted it was fake
>she would on and off have a relationship with x after he got released from prison ( thinking that she might have been emotionally reliant on him despite abuse ) fans again call her fake
>x dies from shooting and his ex tries to attend a memorial
>gets harassed from fans to leave, may have been attacked and has a breakdown online
>some random cultish stans who dont know shit called her fake again and pretended to know x didn't abuse her
>months later, audio from x in prison, he verbally admit to physically abusing his ex multiple times
>nobody seemed to care or react

Sadly the extreme fans would go to convince themselves that their idol is not disgusting.

Its kind of hard though cause some the art I used to define my early to late teen years has been tainted with knowing that it was made from rapists and abusers. When I rarely would listen I try to get into what made me like about their art, my mind can't be at ease. I dont think I can seperate art anymore
I.e crystal castles, hot sugar, pity party(girls club)