[aristus]

You can like the work but hate the jerk. The real question comes when you decide whether to financially support a jerk's work.

[ensignavenger]

So once a jerk artist is dead and can no longer benefit from their work, it becomes easier to consume their art without moral concern?

[cybrexalpha]

Yes.

H. P. Lovecraft is a good example from literature. He was profoundly racist, even beyond the cultural norms of his time. However, as he has long since passed away buying and amplifying his works do not further his views and causes.

A modern counterexample would be J. K. Rowling. Where supporting her works and properties does directly contribute to furthering her prejudices in a very real way.

[psychoslave]

First thing is to differentiate with how long the person is dead.

For example, when I accompanied my daughter class to a museum last year, there was a sewed reproduction of the Minotaur by Picasso (the artist exposed was a woman and this was just a collaboration she made with him). To say the least, the history behind the work is not the most glamorous. Would you explain the context to a 7 years class? But Picasso is so close in time, that his direct descendent have financial interest in exploiting the artistic legacy.

Now if you consider some artist like those who made graphic arts in Lasceau cave, of even someone as close and individually nameable as Katsushika Hokusai that died before the world wide madness of "intellectual property", that's a very different matter.

[RobotToaster]

I guess that would depend on if their kids are jerks?

[jraph]

There can still be a moral concern if the artist is seen as a (role) model / genius and consuming / promoting their art causes the artist to be seen as a model for longer, potentially making it look like what they did is okay or forgiven given the art. We totally need a strong signal that doing good art doesn't forgive or allow being a jerk so jerks are not encouraged to take this path.

Another thing to have in mind: beside moral concerns, often, you can't separate the artist form the art because the art reflects the artist; you'd miss out on the interpretation of the art.

(I have Picasso in mind)

[Kye]

Sometimes the artist put too much of themselves in the work. For example: I tried reading Orson Scott Card's Iron Man comics and there was just too much homophobic nonsense throughout.

[aristus]

Yes, literally. Same argument applies to limited copyright terms. Though I'd say it would be with less concern, not completely without it.

[RockRobotRock]

I think so, yeah.

[jccalhoun]

I agree. We all make our own decisions. I won't say someone is wrong for making a different decision. For me, there are people who's product I won't use because they are a jerk and I don't want to contribute to their financial success. But if that same jerk was one of the creators of a commonly used language that is ubiquitous I won't avoid it because that person doesn't financially benefit from it.

[baggy_trough]

A jerk is one thing; a murderer is something else.

[kikokikokiko]

If a murderer creates a file system/energy source/mouse trap that is effectively better than all of the alternatives, and generates value to the world, what he did in his personal life is effectively moot. There is no ethics problem involved in choosing the best solution to a problem, when that solution exists.

[01HNNWZ0MV43FF]

There is also such a thing as lobbying for laws that make a lot of people's lives difficult, destroy QALYs, and possibly cause stochastic death.

It's only called "murder" when it's trivial to measure it, see.

[marcodiego]

Bill Gates multi decade marriage came to an end after his closeness with Epstein became public. I don't think anyone stopped buying ms software because of it.

Ok, he no longer works there, but I'm sure he still benefits from it.

[paulryanrogers]

If a video were released of Bill with a minor then I'd expect Microsoft to take a huge hit. Though it'd have to be irrefutable video. Because we've seen other Epstein accomplices thrive despite circumstancal evidence, like a certain real estate mogul.