Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoeDaDude | Hacker News Reader

The "human connection to the artist" is believed to be important by some, but I disagree. People tend to create an image of a musician and are too often disappointed because, for example, they disapprove of the musician's lifestyle (the expression sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll exists for a reason), or because of disagreement with the social or political causes the musicians support. Occasionally, fans follow an artist for their commitment to their art later to discover they sell out, like their style changes to pursue mass appeal, or they sell their work to become a jingle for sugar pops or similar.

I think it is best to appreciate an artist's creation and leave it at that. To quote a film, I think it is best to "separate the art from the artist".

View on HN

I don't, especially when the artist flows into the art.

Take H.P. Lovecraft. Very big name in supernatural horror, created Great Cthulu and various other tropes that survive and are influential to today. Famously misogynistic and racist. Particularly on the racism side it's not really even fair to say he was 'of his time', it seems to go beyond that.

And it's all there in the fiction. Fear of the other, racist tropes about clothing and appearance and mistrust of women. The works are pretty amazing, he spins an atmosphere so well. His ideas of horrors beyond time and space are well realised (with a lot of emphasis on what is not seen) and his dreamy fantasy sequences really work and draw me into a dreamlike state. But they're all run through with racist stereotypes about people (or demons) with darker skin or racialised features.

Does this mean no Cthulu for anyone? I don't believe that's a good answer either, but I also don't believe one should consume the art in ignorance.

(And I very much enjoyed reading Lovecraft Country a few years back)

Some authors are indeed very hard to separate from their work, and Lovecraft is one of them.

I still enjoy reading him, but I always struggle reading his passages about mongrels, halfbreeds or dark skinned people being evil or deceitful, because that's what he truly believed. So yes, it flowed into what he wrote.

A much less odious -- and better! -- writer who I also had trouble with was Jack London, who also wrote some racist descriptions of blacks and Native Americans, doubly troubling because he was a socialist.

I drink it all in. It enhances the art for me while making sure I sharpen my own ethics (“don’t ever wanna believe the B.S. this person did.”)

I couldn't really stand Lovecraft's style, but I'm with you. I'd read it like I read an ironic racist comment on 4chan and chuckle to myself.

I get what you're saying. The problem is that I cannot stand ironic (or otherwise) racists comments on 4chan, so reading it like that wouldn't be a saving grace for Lovecraft. I actually find 4chan more grating.

I appreciate Lovecraft, especially for the influence it had on other writers, on comics, tabletop and video games; and some of this stories are pretty good (e.g. The Color Out of Space, The Outsider). But it's really hard to swallow his racism and xenophobia, especially since as mentioned by others, it cannot simply be excused by saying he was "a man of his time". He was xenophobic even for his time.

I guess you have to have the right outlook for it. An ironic comment is (supposed to be) funny because it makes you think "haha, what if someone actually said that?" In Lovecraft's case there's no irony to it, so I think it helps to try to empathize with him. Why is he like this? He's not just some monster that hates/fears people for no reason. There must be a reason, and it's probably either his upbringing or his lifestyle. At that point, at least for me, it can no longer evoke disgust, and it just causes either pity or laughter, like listening to a flat-earther.

The problem with "ironic" racism in places like 4chan is that it gives cover to, and breeds, very real open racism.

"What if someone actually said that?" very quickly turns into people actually saying that. Arguably they already did.

If someone is racist, would you rather they harbor those opinions in secret, or for them to voice them proudly? Consider for your answer that in either case those opinions will affect their decision-making.

In general I'd rather they fester away in secret, with the knowledge that if they were to air their views publicly they would be considered shameful. In places like 4chan they are given cover by "ironic" racists, who I don't honestly believe are in any way ironic anyway. It's just a cover, and a poor one.

I once saw a couple of guys looking at jeans, one of them picked up a pair of acid pink jeans, saying to his friend "Hey, do you think I could wear these ironically?"

It doesn't matter - If you like them then buy them, wear them. Wear them ironically, wear them seriously. At the end of the day you're still going to be a guy wearing pink jeans. Own that or don't.

>I'd rather they fester away in secret

Pretty short-sighted.

You gunna elaborate on that?

Because if not, I submit this comprehensive retort - “no yuo!”

Nah, I'm good.

The interesting thing about Lovecraft is that, despite all those racist tropes you mentioned, he actually tried to make horror that wasn't about fear of falling down the evolutionary ladder. This idea was absolutely everywhere for at least 100 years, and Lovecraft definitely perpetuated it sometimes. But he did actually try to find horror in completely different ideas.

So, despite his own extreme personal racism, he probably managed to shift the culture away from at least one very racially-loaded trope.

Indeed, unless the artist is some kind of moralist, where i may be concerned about hypocrisy, I believe their public appearance to be part of the act, what they are like at home is none of my business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com