I have found that a lot of my favourite actors and musicians from the past have become extremely woke and annoying liberals in recent years. DeNiro has turned from a Raging Bull to a raging goof with his TDS, but that doesn't negate the great roles he had in the past. Neil Young is also annoyingly woke, but that doesn't change the fact that he wrote and performed some of the greatest songs of the 60's and 70's.
Honestly, if we had to choose our favourite art based on the political views of artists it would be slim pickings. I have always been of the mind that you separate the art from the artist. Unless of course, their political viewpoint is the central theme of their art, that is a bit different - if they're always hitting you over the head with their political agenda, it is no longer art, it is propaganda and that falls into an entirely different category.
"If they're always hitting you over the head with their political agenda, it is no longer art, it is propaganda"
I think that's the perfect distinction. We went to a Roger Waters concert a couple years ago that was unenjoyable due to his politics. This is what I had in mind when I alluded to the fact that it sometimes matters, and you articulated the difference perfectly.
Beautifully said!! Sadly, we've lost so many musicians to woke-ness. It's been hard to lose respect for so many artists, but for me it doesn't detract from their art. For example, I always still listen to U2 even though Bono more like Bozo now. ;) hahaha!
You absolutely have to separate the artist from their work or you will constantly be forced to evaluate whether or not you should continue supporting them if they have views different than yours. I am a huge Stephen King fan, his early work is extraordinary as he knows how to build characters/scenes, but truly detest his political views. If I don't separate his books from him than I would not be able to read them as it would just make me angry. Other reason to separate the 2 is that the Woke brigade loves to cancel people for views they don't like so if you want to be better than those assclowns you must allow yourself to be open to enjoying an author/artist/musician's work without the stain of their political views influencing you.
Yes, a lot of people stick to the 'orthodoxy' because it's easier, so I take a lot of these opinions with a grain of salt. People like Stephen King who choose to be extremely vocal about it do get annoying, although I rarely keep my opinions to myself, and it's not really fair to fault someone for a difference of opinion.
Overall, I think you hit the nail on the head. If we didn't do this to some extent, there would be hardly anyone left.
Exactly, I don't read an author because of their political views, unless it's a political book, but because I like their writing. The world has become so binary that it forces people into making choices on what information they ingest based on someone's race/sexual identity/political tribe and that type of choice is not for me, refuse to play that game as it is beyond childish.
I think it's done by design to force people into comfortable ideological boxes where they can interact with people who believe the exact same set of predetermined ideas.
Feeding someone the idea that they have to completely cut off all information from people who believe differently from them is an incredibly effective manipulation tactic, now that I think about it.
It’s what some, including myself, would call an abusive relationship. Cut off all contact with everyone and I will be your sole arbiter of truth sounds very much like a cult which is exactly what identity politics is at it’s heart.
Why pamper life’s complexities when the leather runs smooth on the passenger seat? So there was a band in the late 80’s & early 90’s whose music and art really did have a tremendous effect on my life. As fate would prescribe, after moving clear across the US and landing in the city of angels, I took to the house music scene and started throwing parties with some friends at a club just steps from the Venice beach boardwalk. Wasn’t long before the front person of this band became a regular at the club and for a bit in my life.
Making a long story short, rather than claiming that I used to party with rockstars, I’ll instead lament that rockstars partied with me.
I’ll say over and over again: NEVER meet your heroes.
Why not?
Artists are not their art, and if you haven’t made that distinction, you’ll be disappointed to learn this fact of life- perhaps to the detriment of the pedestal upon which you place their work and the personal meaning you’ve attached to it.
This individual is a wonderful cat and an impactful creator who knows how to throw an incredible party to this day, but the life changing impact of his art diminished as I got to know him and experience him as a human rather than an icon.
That said, the Smiths haven’t left rotation on my playlist
Wow, my first instinct was to say that this must have been a great experience (even though you have certainly alluded to the fact that it was not as glamorous as it sounds).
I guess 'never meet your heroes' is a good rule of thumb. We build people up in our heads, but they're just people—no one will ever live up to an idealized version of themselves imagined by someone else.
Ohhh, that was fun, and I was laughing harder than I should at the vegan jokes, bless their hearts. Funny, I just included a recipe for smoke salmon pasta in my recent chapter of my art memoir, smoke salmon isn't like killing Bambi. About the artist thoughts, I found that I also like the thoughts of my most favorite artists, like Van Gogh, Leontyne Price, Picasso... I do try to shy away from outright political comments unless it has an aesthetic angle, like the CIA's incursion into the arts. That said, I broke the rule today engaging C. Cook in how anarchists solve justice problems ... life lesson, I should delete those comments.
I’m glad some of them landed! (and I think I’ll have to check out your smoked salmon pasta recipe—funny, I was actually very close to making that for the first time a few days ago).
It seems like the consensus is that as long as the political comments don’t make their way into the art they are ‘fair game,’ so your conversation with Chris Cook is probably safe.
That said, I see where you’re coming from—if your work isn’t political, why even put your thoughts out there and give people a reason to disagree with you?
Some topics are important, though (like the CIA one). I guess we all need to pick our battles.
I loved TOM PETTY since the first time Here Comes My Girl came on the radio. I was only 16 so politics, religion any kind of debate was far from my perceptions and had no bearing on my choices. I just Loved the music, and of course more then than now I was KARAFREE... LOL carefree and loving life. Tom Petty was always pretty private, I don't recall him ever speaking out about any big topics... I guess that set the stage for me, I didn't focus on the issues, I just enjoyed the music. Some artist are called to send out a message through their work. But in the end we all perceive it from our own view point. I loved the messages Tom Petty sang about, the basic things about human life... But I am certainly Learning to Fly, and I wont back down, while I am rebel without a cause and I feel like I belong among the wild flowers!!
"Some artists are called to send out a message through their work."
I think you're right to point this out. If an artist's driving force is their tackling of political topics, then why shouldn't they? (I'm thinking of Bob Dylan, who's pretty uncontroversial even though he often got 'political').
That said, I think the basic things about human life is more the point of music. Most of it is 'felt' rather than communicated in words—it's universal. You've also inspired me to give Tom Petty a listen.
WHAT??? you don't know TOM PETTY... LOL I can't believe it!!!
Yes, for me, even some songs with messages I did not agree with, sometimes it was just the music that drew me in, I "felt" the rhythm, the harmony. Or even just the energy, the agitation, for instance some people like certain songs to get them motivated before they play a sport, I like specific music when I am in the studio painting. Sometimes music makes me cry, without any words, I don't know if it has something to do with the frequency that it is tuned to. They say that music tuned to 432hz is more calming than the standard 440hz
Haha, I know OF Tom Petty (and would probably recognize a few songs), but I've never actively put on any of his music, you know?
You might be onto something with frequencies—I've even heard some people go so far as to say that the standard 440 hz was chosen intentionally to throw us off.
I went and found the video I watched.. I was wrong he does tell you which is which, and it was actually Ode to Joy,,,, and WOW I just listened to it again, and when he started on the 432 I got goose bumps.
I've heard that too. Watched a video of a guy playing "Joy of Man's desiring" music I love, with examples in both frequencies.. the 440 made me cry, while the other gave me a feeling of serenity. There is definitely something about the frequencies, and it wouldn't surprise me if was deliberately implemented to keep us in more depressed states of mind.
he played one version and then the other, it was not till after that he explained which was which, so we were not influenced by the knowledge beforehand.
There are great many disgusting people among artists – pedophiles, animal torturers, genocidal racists, people who believe in the labor theory of value... – and there are good reasons to believe we only get to know the tip of the iceberg. Hence, before dismissing e.g. art created by known pedophiles I'd consider the probability that a great lot of the rest was created by people not widely known to be pedophiles.
Perceive them as clowns. You wouldn't take a clown as a moral authority, would you?
Wonderfully said! Love the comparison to clowns (now, if only the clowns would stop touting their moral virtues, haha). Also, you bring up a good point—why would you condemn some when it's possible that so many more are horrific people who just haven't been found out yet?
Jane Fonda is one of the few people whose past actions have made me not want to watch anything she’s been in. Though On Golden Pond was good. So was Nine To Five. For some reason, I don’t care for Warren Beatty or Donald Sutherland anymore. Margaux Hemingway turned me off a long time ago, her support for the PLO, even though I still like Taxi Driver in spite of Robert De Niro.
I have mixed feelings about this topic. While I listen to bands whose members pontificate about subjects I don’t necessarily agree with, there are some I just can’t tolerate. Hanging a Hitler landscape above my fireplace, or a Hunter Biden is a road too far.
For me, it boils down to excellence and the egregious; if excellence outweighs obnoxious, I will appreciate the art. If the obnoxious becomes egregious then all bets are off.
Love this response! You have a great, nuanced take on the subject. Everyone except for people who live in ideological echo chambers need to accept disagreement of some kind, otherwise there would be hardly anything left to enjoy. However, most people would probably refuse to hang one of Hitler's paintings, even if they do claim that they do not care about an artist's politics or moral character.
I like to think most mature, rational people are able to overlook an artist's views that contradict their own. If I refused to watch product put out by artists who ideologically annoy the hell out of me, I would be reduced to watching the creative corollary of bread and pasta: Youtube videos about personal finance or DIY cabinet finishing.
All bets are off when it comes to anti-Trumpers. They will tar and feather anyone who so much has anything favorable to say about bad orange man.
Long live Meryl Streep! Love her movies but dude, shut up.
That was fun, Melissa. Thank you. My favorite poet, since I discovered him is Ezra Pound. Noted Mussolini fan and prisoner in Pisa concentration/prison camp by USA Army for treason for broadcasting his thoughts on Italian radio during WWII.
My personal politics are far from pro-fascism. In fact, I was called “a Marxist simp” today by an Edgar Rice Burroughs character. I think he should have spelled that symp(athizer.)
Pound wrote beautiful poetry. His politics were not. I love the man and his work. So it goes.
I remember when I was first exposed to The Smiths - it was through the aforementioned, 'Meat is Murder' so I just assumed. Was never all that big of a fan anyhow, though I kind of dug some of Morrisey's solo work; weird, I know 🤷🏻
As for artists and their politics? That's a whole other discussion, one difficult to articulate on my phone keypad 😂 May revisit this later... 🙂
I used to love Morrissey and The Smiths when I was in my late teens. I was a vegetarian then too! So - it fit. I believe I even had a 'Meat is Murder' t-shirt ha ha. Now, I'm such a carnivore (though I only eat well-raised animals). I don't think I like him as much as I used to. He's just not my vibe anymore.
Absolutely. Art should always be kept separate from the artist. Of course it's personal choice if someone wants to not buy into the artist's product on the basis of what they have said or done, just don't expect everyone else to follow suit. To me it is nonsense.
Caravaggio was a sublime artist and a murderer - are we to stop appreciating what he produced? If you read Sexual Personae by Camille Paglia (a tour de force of the history of art and culture) you will soon see how futile it is to suppose we can surgically remove historic contributions from some fairly odious people. There are a lot of double standards on who or what gets cancelled, generally it's never anything that is going to cause us too much personal inconvenience.
The most powerful art is political and I find it bizarre to suggest otherwise. It would be a bit like asking why most Christmas carols are all about some kid's birthday. When Salvador Dali and Pablo Picasso were painting on the Spanish Civil did it stop being art? What about Picasso's anti war painting Guernica? What about Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago where he made his powerful case against Soviet Russia? There is no end of this.
Back to the example you give Melissa. I love the music of the Smiths and Morrissey and have seen the latter live. It's not important to me that people don't like him but I do object to the fact that he was ostracised by the music industry. He refused to tailor his views to suit them - or the audience. Capitol would not release his January 2021 album, Miley Cyrus asked to have her backing vocals removed from one track and last I heard he was trying to get control of the recordings. That is the sort of politicisation I object to. It is difficult to know what happened except to note that if you wanted to sign an artist in order to stop them making music, this is how you might go about it. I know which side of that argument I am on.
People sometimes go out of their way to make the point that they don't care what people think about them but they are usually the most sensitive to criticism. I find it frustrating when some artists are too quick to apologise for things that need no apology. What brought us to this point is by thinking it's acceptable to police art. Many people talk tough and say they DGAF but Morrissey is rare because he is incapable of caring.
When Bob Dylan sang 'The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll' he was not worried about causing distress to her murderer or the rich tobacco family he came from. Similarly, when Roger Walters offends people in the audience who disagree with him, it's not accidental - they are the target. You can't have a protest song that offends nobody.
Artists should not be governed by consensus because it is often their role to say what nobody else will. The logical outcome of not recognising this are book burnings. Naturally no one should be forced to consume art that offends them, but if we demand some form of ideological neutrality, where does that get us apart from extreme banality (a bit like US cuisine). ;)
I have found that a lot of my favourite actors and musicians from the past have become extremely woke and annoying liberals in recent years. DeNiro has turned from a Raging Bull to a raging goof with his TDS, but that doesn't negate the great roles he had in the past. Neil Young is also annoyingly woke, but that doesn't change the fact that he wrote and performed some of the greatest songs of the 60's and 70's.
Honestly, if we had to choose our favourite art based on the political views of artists it would be slim pickings. I have always been of the mind that you separate the art from the artist. Unless of course, their political viewpoint is the central theme of their art, that is a bit different - if they're always hitting you over the head with their political agenda, it is no longer art, it is propaganda and that falls into an entirely different category.
"If they're always hitting you over the head with their political agenda, it is no longer art, it is propaganda"
I think that's the perfect distinction. We went to a Roger Waters concert a couple years ago that was unenjoyable due to his politics. This is what I had in mind when I alluded to the fact that it sometimes matters, and you articulated the difference perfectly.
Beautifully said!! Sadly, we've lost so many musicians to woke-ness. It's been hard to lose respect for so many artists, but for me it doesn't detract from their art. For example, I always still listen to U2 even though Bono more like Bozo now. ;) hahaha!
Haha! Agree 100% (and I want Bono/Bozo on a t-shirt)!
Bono with Bozo's hair would do nicely
ha!! hilarious!!
Most definitely YES, I shout before reading the essay.
I'll see of my considered opinion changes after the read. ;-)
this addendum de dum dum dum added after reading: Still yes, if the art's art I don't care about the artist's private views.
Unless he's VEGAN, you gotta draw the line somewhere..
Haha! I agree completely (although, as you point out, some things are unforgivable!)
If you met a Vegan, a Texan and a PhD were in a bar, how would you know which was which?
They each told you.
Haha! Love it!
You absolutely have to separate the artist from their work or you will constantly be forced to evaluate whether or not you should continue supporting them if they have views different than yours. I am a huge Stephen King fan, his early work is extraordinary as he knows how to build characters/scenes, but truly detest his political views. If I don't separate his books from him than I would not be able to read them as it would just make me angry. Other reason to separate the 2 is that the Woke brigade loves to cancel people for views they don't like so if you want to be better than those assclowns you must allow yourself to be open to enjoying an author/artist/musician's work without the stain of their political views influencing you.
Yes, a lot of people stick to the 'orthodoxy' because it's easier, so I take a lot of these opinions with a grain of salt. People like Stephen King who choose to be extremely vocal about it do get annoying, although I rarely keep my opinions to myself, and it's not really fair to fault someone for a difference of opinion.
Overall, I think you hit the nail on the head. If we didn't do this to some extent, there would be hardly anyone left.
Exactly, I don't read an author because of their political views, unless it's a political book, but because I like their writing. The world has become so binary that it forces people into making choices on what information they ingest based on someone's race/sexual identity/political tribe and that type of choice is not for me, refuse to play that game as it is beyond childish.
I think it's done by design to force people into comfortable ideological boxes where they can interact with people who believe the exact same set of predetermined ideas.
Feeding someone the idea that they have to completely cut off all information from people who believe differently from them is an incredibly effective manipulation tactic, now that I think about it.
It’s what some, including myself, would call an abusive relationship. Cut off all contact with everyone and I will be your sole arbiter of truth sounds very much like a cult which is exactly what identity politics is at it’s heart.
I like the comparison to an abusive relationship. Spot-on!
Why pamper life’s complexities when the leather runs smooth on the passenger seat? So there was a band in the late 80’s & early 90’s whose music and art really did have a tremendous effect on my life. As fate would prescribe, after moving clear across the US and landing in the city of angels, I took to the house music scene and started throwing parties with some friends at a club just steps from the Venice beach boardwalk. Wasn’t long before the front person of this band became a regular at the club and for a bit in my life.
Making a long story short, rather than claiming that I used to party with rockstars, I’ll instead lament that rockstars partied with me.
I’ll say over and over again: NEVER meet your heroes.
Why not?
Artists are not their art, and if you haven’t made that distinction, you’ll be disappointed to learn this fact of life- perhaps to the detriment of the pedestal upon which you place their work and the personal meaning you’ve attached to it.
This individual is a wonderful cat and an impactful creator who knows how to throw an incredible party to this day, but the life changing impact of his art diminished as I got to know him and experience him as a human rather than an icon.
That said, the Smiths haven’t left rotation on my playlist
Wow, my first instinct was to say that this must have been a great experience (even though you have certainly alluded to the fact that it was not as glamorous as it sounds).
I guess 'never meet your heroes' is a good rule of thumb. We build people up in our heads, but they're just people—no one will ever live up to an idealized version of themselves imagined by someone else.
… in 35 years now. I sure hope I never met Morrisey.
Ohhh, that was fun, and I was laughing harder than I should at the vegan jokes, bless their hearts. Funny, I just included a recipe for smoke salmon pasta in my recent chapter of my art memoir, smoke salmon isn't like killing Bambi. About the artist thoughts, I found that I also like the thoughts of my most favorite artists, like Van Gogh, Leontyne Price, Picasso... I do try to shy away from outright political comments unless it has an aesthetic angle, like the CIA's incursion into the arts. That said, I broke the rule today engaging C. Cook in how anarchists solve justice problems ... life lesson, I should delete those comments.
I’m glad some of them landed! (and I think I’ll have to check out your smoked salmon pasta recipe—funny, I was actually very close to making that for the first time a few days ago).
It seems like the consensus is that as long as the political comments don’t make their way into the art they are ‘fair game,’ so your conversation with Chris Cook is probably safe.
That said, I see where you’re coming from—if your work isn’t political, why even put your thoughts out there and give people a reason to disagree with you?
Some topics are important, though (like the CIA one). I guess we all need to pick our battles.
I loved TOM PETTY since the first time Here Comes My Girl came on the radio. I was only 16 so politics, religion any kind of debate was far from my perceptions and had no bearing on my choices. I just Loved the music, and of course more then than now I was KARAFREE... LOL carefree and loving life. Tom Petty was always pretty private, I don't recall him ever speaking out about any big topics... I guess that set the stage for me, I didn't focus on the issues, I just enjoyed the music. Some artist are called to send out a message through their work. But in the end we all perceive it from our own view point. I loved the messages Tom Petty sang about, the basic things about human life... But I am certainly Learning to Fly, and I wont back down, while I am rebel without a cause and I feel like I belong among the wild flowers!!
"Some artists are called to send out a message through their work."
I think you're right to point this out. If an artist's driving force is their tackling of political topics, then why shouldn't they? (I'm thinking of Bob Dylan, who's pretty uncontroversial even though he often got 'political').
That said, I think the basic things about human life is more the point of music. Most of it is 'felt' rather than communicated in words—it's universal. You've also inspired me to give Tom Petty a listen.
Stay karafree, haha!
WHAT??? you don't know TOM PETTY... LOL I can't believe it!!!
Yes, for me, even some songs with messages I did not agree with, sometimes it was just the music that drew me in, I "felt" the rhythm, the harmony. Or even just the energy, the agitation, for instance some people like certain songs to get them motivated before they play a sport, I like specific music when I am in the studio painting. Sometimes music makes me cry, without any words, I don't know if it has something to do with the frequency that it is tuned to. They say that music tuned to 432hz is more calming than the standard 440hz
Haha, I know OF Tom Petty (and would probably recognize a few songs), but I've never actively put on any of his music, you know?
You might be onto something with frequencies—I've even heard some people go so far as to say that the standard 440 hz was chosen intentionally to throw us off.
I went and found the video I watched.. I was wrong he does tell you which is which, and it was actually Ode to Joy,,,, and WOW I just listened to it again, and when he started on the 432 I got goose bumps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt3EAPDn-Ug
This is so interesting! Thanks so much for sharing this video; I really enjoyed it, and also found another one which offers a blind comparison:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ze44-Ppj-c
I'm not sure what to think, because in this video's blind test, I preferred the 440 and SWORE it was going to be the 432.
However, in the one you shared, I thought the 432 sounded much softer and that the 440 had more of an 'edge' to it.
I'm gonna sit the fence on it and say that I think there's something to the idea, but that I don't have a good enough musical ear to know for sure.
I'm fascinated, though, and will probably be watching about 40 more of these videos tonight, haha.
where ever your re sEARch leads you, I'd be interested to hEAR!!!! haha.
I've heard that too. Watched a video of a guy playing "Joy of Man's desiring" music I love, with examples in both frequencies.. the 440 made me cry, while the other gave me a feeling of serenity. There is definitely something about the frequencies, and it wouldn't surprise me if was deliberately implemented to keep us in more depressed states of mind.
he played one version and then the other, it was not till after that he explained which was which, so we were not influenced by the knowledge beforehand.
I prefer caution.
There are great many disgusting people among artists – pedophiles, animal torturers, genocidal racists, people who believe in the labor theory of value... – and there are good reasons to believe we only get to know the tip of the iceberg. Hence, before dismissing e.g. art created by known pedophiles I'd consider the probability that a great lot of the rest was created by people not widely known to be pedophiles.
Perceive them as clowns. You wouldn't take a clown as a moral authority, would you?
Wonderfully said! Love the comparison to clowns (now, if only the clowns would stop touting their moral virtues, haha). Also, you bring up a good point—why would you condemn some when it's possible that so many more are horrific people who just haven't been found out yet?
Jane Fonda is one of the few people whose past actions have made me not want to watch anything she’s been in. Though On Golden Pond was good. So was Nine To Five. For some reason, I don’t care for Warren Beatty or Donald Sutherland anymore. Margaux Hemingway turned me off a long time ago, her support for the PLO, even though I still like Taxi Driver in spite of Robert De Niro.
I have mixed feelings about this topic. While I listen to bands whose members pontificate about subjects I don’t necessarily agree with, there are some I just can’t tolerate. Hanging a Hitler landscape above my fireplace, or a Hunter Biden is a road too far.
For me, it boils down to excellence and the egregious; if excellence outweighs obnoxious, I will appreciate the art. If the obnoxious becomes egregious then all bets are off.
Love this response! You have a great, nuanced take on the subject. Everyone except for people who live in ideological echo chambers need to accept disagreement of some kind, otherwise there would be hardly anything left to enjoy. However, most people would probably refuse to hang one of Hitler's paintings, even if they do claim that they do not care about an artist's politics or moral character.
I like to think most mature, rational people are able to overlook an artist's views that contradict their own. If I refused to watch product put out by artists who ideologically annoy the hell out of me, I would be reduced to watching the creative corollary of bread and pasta: Youtube videos about personal finance or DIY cabinet finishing.
All bets are off when it comes to anti-Trumpers. They will tar and feather anyone who so much has anything favorable to say about bad orange man.
Long live Meryl Streep! Love her movies but dude, shut up.
Aa far as I am concerned Morrissey and John Lydon are both folk heroes while most musicians are pathetic wastes of space.
That was fun, Melissa. Thank you. My favorite poet, since I discovered him is Ezra Pound. Noted Mussolini fan and prisoner in Pisa concentration/prison camp by USA Army for treason for broadcasting his thoughts on Italian radio during WWII.
My personal politics are far from pro-fascism. In fact, I was called “a Marxist simp” today by an Edgar Rice Burroughs character. I think he should have spelled that symp(athizer.)
Pound wrote beautiful poetry. His politics were not. I love the man and his work. So it goes.
Great example! A lot of people are a product of their time, and often, it doesn't really matter.
I remember when I was first exposed to The Smiths - it was through the aforementioned, 'Meat is Murder' so I just assumed. Was never all that big of a fan anyhow, though I kind of dug some of Morrisey's solo work; weird, I know 🤷🏻
As for artists and their politics? That's a whole other discussion, one difficult to articulate on my phone keypad 😂 May revisit this later... 🙂
Haha, I think that the first time I stumbled upon that album I assumed it was sarcastic? Never gave the matter much thought until today.
& that is weird—you don't hear that one too often, but I think some of his solo stuff's pretty good, too.
Hope you revisit at some point! It is definitely a can of worms.
I used to love Morrissey and The Smiths when I was in my late teens. I was a vegetarian then too! So - it fit. I believe I even had a 'Meat is Murder' t-shirt ha ha. Now, I'm such a carnivore (though I only eat well-raised animals). I don't think I like him as much as I used to. He's just not my vibe anymore.
Haha, I wonder if it's correlated!
Absolutely. Art should always be kept separate from the artist. Of course it's personal choice if someone wants to not buy into the artist's product on the basis of what they have said or done, just don't expect everyone else to follow suit. To me it is nonsense.
Caravaggio was a sublime artist and a murderer - are we to stop appreciating what he produced? If you read Sexual Personae by Camille Paglia (a tour de force of the history of art and culture) you will soon see how futile it is to suppose we can surgically remove historic contributions from some fairly odious people. There are a lot of double standards on who or what gets cancelled, generally it's never anything that is going to cause us too much personal inconvenience.
The most powerful art is political and I find it bizarre to suggest otherwise. It would be a bit like asking why most Christmas carols are all about some kid's birthday. When Salvador Dali and Pablo Picasso were painting on the Spanish Civil did it stop being art? What about Picasso's anti war painting Guernica? What about Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago where he made his powerful case against Soviet Russia? There is no end of this.
Back to the example you give Melissa. I love the music of the Smiths and Morrissey and have seen the latter live. It's not important to me that people don't like him but I do object to the fact that he was ostracised by the music industry. He refused to tailor his views to suit them - or the audience. Capitol would not release his January 2021 album, Miley Cyrus asked to have her backing vocals removed from one track and last I heard he was trying to get control of the recordings. That is the sort of politicisation I object to. It is difficult to know what happened except to note that if you wanted to sign an artist in order to stop them making music, this is how you might go about it. I know which side of that argument I am on.
People sometimes go out of their way to make the point that they don't care what people think about them but they are usually the most sensitive to criticism. I find it frustrating when some artists are too quick to apologise for things that need no apology. What brought us to this point is by thinking it's acceptable to police art. Many people talk tough and say they DGAF but Morrissey is rare because he is incapable of caring.
When Bob Dylan sang 'The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll' he was not worried about causing distress to her murderer or the rich tobacco family he came from. Similarly, when Roger Walters offends people in the audience who disagree with him, it's not accidental - they are the target. You can't have a protest song that offends nobody.
Artists should not be governed by consensus because it is often their role to say what nobody else will. The logical outcome of not recognising this are book burnings. Naturally no one should be forced to consume art that offends them, but if we demand some form of ideological neutrality, where does that get us apart from extreme banality (a bit like US cuisine). ;)