You know you should blog something when you get to your third paragraph commenting in someone’s blog.
Andrea brings up some thoughts on the whole boycott of creative types who spout off something offensive to you.
I remain ditheringly mixed on this. How much is the creator mixed in with the creation (today’s twist on McLuhan’s observation)? Assuming it’s not done within a performance (as in Andrea’s cook metaphor), how much baggage from Real Life does an actor, singer, writer, producer, or even cook bring in with them when they clock in.
If the Dixie Chicks had made their statement on Dubya during an interview, rather than during a concert, would it have made any difference?
How does this relate to the whole private life/public life thing debated during Clinton’s presidency? How does it — or should it — relate to scandels in public figures’ lives (think Pee-Wee Herman, or Michael Jackson, or Hugh Grant, or Charlie Sheen)?
How does this relate to the question of how what one does outside the office (for us sorry grunts who don’t sign multi-million-dollar singing deals) impacts what one does inside the office. Or, heck, how what one might say during a business meeting may come back to haunt you in your career if you offended someone?
At what point does what someone did while not on stage (whatever that stage is) become inextricably part of their performance? And when is it “right” for audiences to remember that? And does that “right”ness make any difference, or is it just what it is?
We accept that actors can get stereotyped by what they do in previous roles. We may consider it regretable (or we may have fun with it — “Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Baggins …”), but it’s real. Those stereotypes are difficult for actors to break out of, but we usually don’t consider it a moral or ethical responsibility of the audience to make it happen.
I dunno. I listened to one of my “Dixie Chicks” albums the other day, and didn’t feel particular dirty or disloyal or insulted. On the other hand, when it comes time for me to engage in a business relationship with them (buying one of their future CDs), my perception of them might color my willingness to do so, regardless of its relevance to the product being produced.
In the biz world, we’d call that a matter of soft skills. It’s accepted, even expected, that business gets done based not just on dollars and cents and meeting particular contractual agreements, but on relationships.
I’m not sure what the difference is — or should be — when it comes to music.
I can’t tell you about musicians, because, well, I don’t pay that much attention. I can tell you that, on a more “down-to-earth” (less celebrity) level I have been pondering this very question in re: a fairly popular blogger (at least in my blogging circles) and my refusal to connect to his more reasonable memes and the like because of his dispicable opinions on a subject about which I think he’s ignorant. It’s just one subject – everything else is fairly well-thought-out, and he’s entertaining enough that I still read him, but I am performing my own linking/meme-following boycott because he took the time to spout off ludicrously on this subject multiple times. I suppose I do think about the fact that some stars are Scientologists/Vegetarians and avoid their movies on principle… so maybe I am pro-boycott. Hmm. Now I have to examine this thought.
It’s tough. I mean, Hitler liked dogs and children, so would it be okay to invite him to your house as long as the subjects of politics and religion didn’t come up?
On the other hand:
Everyone is more or less mad on one point.
— Joseph Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936), “On the Strength of a Likeness”
And yet, on the other hand, I’ve found myself driven away from some blogs that I, in general, enjoy very much, simply because of one or another particular take on a particular subject that keeps coming up. At some point, even if it’s just a pin-prick, enough of them become enough to make you shy away.
As I said, I dunno.
I don’t agree with Dave an all things, but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying his musings. I almost never agree with Michele, Sekimori, Blinne, or Andrea at all. But that doesn’t stop me from reading their ravings. I just like to see what people are saying, what things of interest they have going on, and what their views of the world are.
As I have said before…I find the Boycott thing silly. I can’t see how you can be so angry at the artist that you can’t enjoy the art.
There are several Bloggers that I’ll agree with most everything that they say…with the exception of one of two things. So I know that if this subject comes up not to read that post. Kind of like dealing with friends in RL. Some subject are just not worth bringing up due to the anger/grief everybody will go through when they are brought up.
Heh — I was going to comment but the comment grew huge and rather than fill up your server space with it I put it here.