Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Has an "artists" political views ever caused you to boycott them?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
73 replies to this topic

#46 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 10:09 AM

stalker

#47 zebrainz

zebrainz

    Puddytats

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 403 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 10:10 AM

Delhommey touched on this a couple of pages ago when he said as an artist becomes more vocal in their political views, the quality of their work decreases. That's the part I care about. The quality of the work. The ones that truly bug me are the ones that allow their political views and their personal moral code creep into their work. Stephen King is a good example for me. As he got older, more political and more religious (and more publicly expresive of same), the quality of his work suffered. The man is a great teller of horrific tales, but when he allowed (in his case he had to develop them first) his views to seep into his writing, the quality went down the toilet IMO. In the case of a writer it's next to impossible to separate the two worlds (write about what you know), and I don't begrudge him growing into a better human being. I don't buy any of his new stuff though. It's a shadow of what it was.

Another example. I'm pro gun. James Garner isn't. James Garner starred in a bunch of films waving a gun around, etc etc. His anti-gun political views never crept into his work as an actor. That I respect, even if I hold a different opinion than him on the issue.

#48 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 10:14 AM

[quote name='bryonez']Delhommey touched on this a couple of pages ago when he said as an artist becomes more vocal in their political views, the quality of their work decreases. That's the part I care about. The quality of the work. The ones that truly bug me are the ones that allow their political views and their personal moral code creep into their work. Stephen King is a good example for me. As he got older, more political and more religious (and more publicly expresive of same), the quality of his work suffered. The man is a great teller of horrific tales, but when he allowed (in his case he had to develop them first) his views to seep into his writing, the quality went down the toilet IMO. In the case of a writer it's next to impossible to separate the two worlds (write about what you know), and I don't begrudge him growing into a better human being. I don't buy any of his new stuff though. It's a shadow of what it was.

Another example. I'm pro gun. James Garner isn't. James Garner starred in a bunch of films waving a gun around, etc etc. His anti-gun political views never crept into his work as an actor. That I respect, even if I hold a different opinion than him on the issue.[/QUO

Good example...That's kinda my take on it, too...I really don't care what they believe as long as it doesn't become a major talking point for them in everything they do.

#49 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • ALL-PRO
  • 42,217 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 10:46 AM

It is a good point that quality of work often goes down as they become politicized.

Also true that people, even those who agree with them, often get turned off.

There's a fairly large population to the "just shut up and sing/dance/act/whatever" crowd.

#50 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,259 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 10:49 AM

This gets to the root of the problem in this thread. Reggie White is an athlete. They asked him to speak in front of a crowd of people. Why?


no they didn't 'ask' him to. he did on his own accord. he put out ads, gave interviews, started a whole campaign to spread lies and fear of gay people. it's not just a matter of someone asking him a question and him giving an un-pc answer. he made it a mission in his life to attack gay people.

the best part is that he claimed gays don't live as long (false, life expectancy is equal) and now he rots in his grave at 43. that is delicious.

#51 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 10:51 AM

It is a good point that quality of work often goes down as they become politicized.

please provide examples of artists whom have seen a decline in the quality of their work as they became politicized.

#52 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 11:04 AM

Alec Baldwin
Dixie Chicks
Streisand
Dave Matthews Band


IMHO

#53 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 11:09 AM

no they didn't 'ask' him to. he did on his own accord. he put out ads, gave interviews, started a whole campaign to spread lies and fear of gay people. it's not just a matter of someone asking him a question and him giving an un-pc answer. he made it a mission in his life to attack gay people.

the best part is that he claimed gays don't live as long (false, life expectancy is equal) and now he rots in his grave at 43. that is delicious.


Christians believe homosexuality is a sin...Right along with adultery, fornication, greed, sloth, murder, etc. Why do homosexuals get so bent out of shape when Christians point this out, among the other sins they rail against? It gets pretty hot sitting in the congregation when they are picking on your particular vice, too...I suspect it get's hot because deep down inside, you know they're right, and nothing positive comes from the lifestyle/behavior.

And I also read something a few years ago about life expectancy for gay men being lower...had all kinds of historical medical data backing the claim. I don't really know one way or the other. I've got an uncle that's pushing 60 and is quite healthy.

#54 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 11:14 AM

i think what mr. scot is trying to say is that in regards to performers that most would consider fluff, like alec baldwin or the dixie chicks, they're not expected to talk, nor or they wanted to. the "art" they do is very easily disposed of and not memorable (baldwin's portfolio isn't going to stand the test of time, for example) and people don't want to listen to what they think because quite often they don't have the expertise to offer informed opinions.

however, i'm sure mr scot would never say that picasso's work struggled when he painted guernica, or that ibsen's writing style fell off when he penned A Doll's House, or that matt stone and trey parker's wit was dulled when the created team america, or that steven spielberg's eye for film was diminished when he did schindler's list, etc etc

fact of the matter, historically the most lasting works of art and artists that we study have been incredibly politically motivated. Furthermore, entire artistic movements we wouldn't be able to live without today either accompanied or spurred MAJOR political upheavals.

whenever i hear people say artists shouldn't get political, it usually means they're referring only to actors or they don't grasp the full significance of what that would mean.

#55 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,259 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 11:16 AM

consider it a sin all you want, i don't particularly give a poo what your backwards brain thinks. everyone has the right to be a bigot. but when you make a national campaign to try to get the actual decent people to twist their brain like yours, then it is too far. live your own life, judge not lest ye be judged, and stfu.

the gay life expectancy was shorter in the 80s. now aids is balanced by the fact that gay people average 70% more money and live healthier, happier lives.

#56 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,585 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 11:20 AM

They all tend to Fiz, and it has zero to do with what their political view is and everything to do with the stage of their career they're in.

Bono feels the need to hang out at G8 summits is greater than the need to get in a studio and U2 is crap now. Ted Nuget hasn't come out with a new song in years, but he can quote bumper stickers with the best of them. As Charlton Heston got deeper and deeper with the NRA, he became more and more a parody of himself.

There are several reasons artist lose their edge as they get older and more comfortable. I don't think expressing political views is something that causes it as something that develops along side it. I'm also not saying any public political stance is the kiss of death either. Bono was certainly somewhat political before U2 went downhill (Atchung Baby was the beginning of the end) and certain artists greatest works could be considered highly political (Guernica). Still it is a noticible trend.

#57 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 11:34 AM

oh i agree delhommey. people tend to get more political as they age, and people tend to lose their skills at the same time. but i think a lot of people in here are guilty of a correlation/causation fallacy.

barbara streisand didn't lose the ability to sing because she because vocally political. she lost the ability to sing because she was shooting straight jack since she was fifteen.

#58 2jakefansinva

2jakefansinva

    Coach Jack Bolton

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,810 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 11:37 AM

Yeah, I get that. But it just seems absurd to me. I mean Sean Penn may be a douchebag...and for the record I think he is...but I'm not going to stop watching his movies because of that. I think he's a fantastic actor. So what if he's a nutcase?


To each his own. I for one don't help finance people or companies that I feel do things I disagree with. Be it for any reason, not just political. Here's an example...back in the 90's Levi Strauss stopped donating money to the Boy Scouts (gay troop leader banishment) and I thought it was bad form to make a public announcement about it. They stuck their nose into something they shouldn't have based on their HQ's location (SF). I agreed with the boy scouts on this issue and decided I didn't need Levi Strauss products anymore. To this day I have not bought or worn any LS products. If I find out things about companies or individuals that I disagree with I avoid supporting them. Just the way I roll.

#59 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,585 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 11:41 AM

Better to not go digging around or you'll soon have to sew your own clothes.

#60 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 11:43 AM

To each his own. I for one don't help finance people or companies that I feel do things I disagree with. Be it for any reason, not just political. Here's an example...back in the 90's Levi Strauss stopped donating money to the Boy Scouts (gay troop leader banishment) and I thought it was bad form to make a public announcement about it. They stuck their nose into something they shouldn't have based on their HQ's location (SF). I agreed with the boy scouts on this issue and decided I didn't need Levi Strauss products anymore. To this day I have not bought or worn any LS products. If I find out things about companies or individuals that I disagree with I avoid supporting them. Just the way I roll.

there's coltan in your computer turn it off


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com