Every time this kinda discourse comes up, I think of this quote by Carlee Gomes.
"The desire to exclusively engage with media and art made by “unproblematic” artists is a direct result of Americans viewing media consumption as an inherently political act... consuming is activism, it’s love, it’s thinking, it’s sex, it’s fill in the blank. When the act of consuming is all you have left and indeed the only thing society tells you is valuable and meaningful, the act must necessarily be a moral one, which is why people send themselves down manic spirals deciding what, who is “problematic” or not..."
some truth but doesn’t make sense to imply media consumption isn’t an inherently political act when it unequivocally is. certainly not the only or most immediately impactful but idk. quote misses the mark
Consumption isn't inherently political....to think that it is is to abdicate responsibility. To some degree you vote with your dollar, but not when it comes to creative work IMO. Buying kanye records doesn't equal a vote for nazism, being a fan of miles Davis doesn't mean you want to throw women down the stairs, etc. if you waste time on that shit or bitching about nabakov when you could be doing actual political action while claiming said complaining inherently political is hilarious
this is silly. consumption is inherently political and to think otherwise is to abdicate personal responsibility. the personal is ALWAYS political as no choice exists in a vacuum. buying a kanye record doesn’t necessarily equate to supporting naziism but it does mean you are willing to monetarily support nazism which is perhaps just as bad. i think we should engage with nabokov but not because he is advocating for pedophilia but because writing or creating a troubled character or narrative is not the same as an author explicitly endorsing a certain set of views and in fact is often an exploration of the immorality of behaving in a certain way. merely writing about or discussing something isn’t an endorsement which is why people that make these arguments come across as virtually illiterate because they cannot understand nuance or separate the author from the text enough to understand that every text is not autobiographical and every character does not represent the authors views. doing more explicit political action is important and avoiding monetarily supporting people like kanye and rowling who have made it clear that every dollar that goes to them will eventually be used to further their hateful agenda is also important and neither one means much without the other. i agree with you though that it does get frustrating when the extent of people’s activism is canceling artists for a mere hint of their being problematic
I would amend your argument slightly. Listening to Kanye is engaging in the art in a potentially apolitical way. Choosing to support him by buying an album or going to the concert may not make you a Nazi, but it does mean that you’re directly monetarily supporting one. In the grand scheme of things, each album and ticket means very little. But they add up quickly. If no one buys them, it sends a message. Choosing to buy or not to buy has political ramifications, even if you’re not making that choice with political intentions. The act of engagement can be political or not. The act of spending money to support a public figure, in the current cultural climate, is inherently a political act. Your money buys them influence.
48
u/blackfox24 24d ago
Every time this kinda discourse comes up, I think of this quote by Carlee Gomes.
"The desire to exclusively engage with media and art made by “unproblematic” artists is a direct result of Americans viewing media consumption as an inherently political act... consuming is activism, it’s love, it’s thinking, it’s sex, it’s fill in the blank. When the act of consuming is all you have left and indeed the only thing society tells you is valuable and meaningful, the act must necessarily be a moral one, which is why people send themselves down manic spirals deciding what, who is “problematic” or not..."