Written by corrupt on 13.04.2025 at 10:38

I guess I'm more in the "even small changes should be celebrated" camp than the "if there's no perfect life, what's the point in even trying" one. Every small step you make is a good one. And nobody applying arbitrary standards to you gets a say in that.

Does any of that make sense?

that makes perfect sense, I personally just have my focus of attention on other matters. I fail in many aspects, because nowadays it is really difficult to find a product that does not have some kind of issues that go along with it, but I do try to do my best in making this place a better world as in using the car as minimally as I can, buying locally or reducing my meat consumption (alas another aspect of where I fail to fully take responsibility for my actions, because otherwise I would be a vegetarian). And I deem these actions more consequential than refusing to buy a Burzum album. I personally can live with the fact that he is an asshole. I would totally be ok with concert venues refusing to let people play if there is a serious issue with their behavior, but I doubt that me playing Burzum in the quiet of my home is worse than supporting companies like the above mentioned ..also Varg does not get any platform by me doing it at home

Written by nikarg on 13.04.2025 at 11:51

our friendship and mutual respect goes beyond Metal Storm, and not seeing eye to eye on something cannot and will not change that.

that's a hugely important aspect .. that people can disagree with eachother and still respect each other .. unfortunately, that is often not the case as many people vilainize those who have a different opinion

Written by Karlabos on 13.04.2025 at 02:48

Well, I don't think any piece of art should ever be "banned" in any form, so separating the author and the art is a no brainer for me.

I just find it kinda amusing the thought of metalheads discussing banning music for whatever reason. After all, metal was always exactly about being able to do art concerning topics that were considered too heavy by the status quo. Ever since the beginning.

While I agree that art should not be destroyed, there's a lot of propaganda, hate speech, and incitement to violence that tries to disguise itself as art, and all three of these things are damaging to the exchange of ideas and open dialogue that we are all working to support. And all three of these things have a shortcut to people's beliefs and values.

We are living through the consequences of this right now, especially with the environment.

And all the stress caused by our worsening living conditions just tip the conversations further toward the propaganda side. Our brains do not deal rationally with threat.

It's a harmful feedback loop.

Written by Tuonelan on 14.04.2025 at 00:07

Written by Karlabos on 13.04.2025 at 02:48

Well, I don't think any piece of art should ever be "banned" in any form, so separating the author and the art is a no brainer for me.

I just find it kinda amusing the thought of metalheads discussing banning music for whatever reason. After all, metal was always exactly about being able to do art concerning topics that were considered too heavy by the status quo. Ever since the beginning.

While I agree that art should not be destroyed, there's a lot of propaganda, hate speech, and incitement to violence that tries to disguise itself as art, and all three of these things are damaging to the exchange of ideas and open dialogue that we are all working to support. And all three of these things have a shortcut to people's beliefs and values.

Adding to this comment. Try telling that about Nazi or Communist artists where art is entirely in service of the state agenda. The first thing authoritarian regimes subjugate is not the free speech even but art and artists. Art is often referred to as the litmus test of the society and you can maintain the illusion of freedom and freedom of speech far longer if you can maintain the pretense that artists are free in their expression. In the hands of the state art is a powerful tool. Any artwork serves an agenda, the big question is whose agenda is it and what the audience are being told and why.

I.

Written by corrupt on 12.04.2025 at 18:29

Why are so many people more willing to condemn Schaffer and Lambesis than Lindemann or Manson? Why do we keep coming back to "but he was never convicted" in alleged cases of sexual abuse, even in the face of overwhelming accusations?

I would love to write a much longer post here, but due to lack of time I'll broach just one aspect of what you said. Disclaimer: Please do not construe anything that I'm about to say as taking sides, because I do not take sides.

In my opinion people are willing to condemn Schaffer and Lambesis, because these guys were tried and convicted for the things they
had done. Both convictions were without a shadow of doubt, because the EVIDENCE was overwhelming.

Some people are not willing to condemn Lindemann or Manson, because these guys were not convicted. No amount of overwhelming ACCUSATIONS was enough to persuade the juries/judges/prosecutors that these guys were guilty. There was not enough evidence.

I do realize that it is next to impossible to prove sexual harrassment. I also do realize that it is perfectly possible that the women accusing Manson/Lindemann were telling the truth. But it was their word against the defendant's. Again, not enough for a conviction. No matter how imperfect our legal systems are, we should never rush to convict anyone based on someone else's words alone.

There is an excellent book by Lawrence Wright, "Remembering Satan: A Tragic Case of Recovered Memory". The events depicted in this book alone should be enough to convince you that no matter how many people say something is true, their words should not be taken at face value.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29538.Remembering_Satan

Fans have to justify themselves for being fans of "controversial" artists now? So... before I am allowed to like somebody's art, I first have to look up EVERYTHING that person ever said and did and make sure their statements and actions align with the "norm", or else I should never ever enjoy the art for what it is? Sounds like work... and I don't want to do work when I just want to read a book, watch a movie or listen to music after a long, annoying day at the office. Maybe I missed something, but I thought the Gestapo was no more and we are now allowed to enjoy anything that hasn't been officially banned by the countries we live in?

Anyway, hi! Having just seen this topic and realizing that I still have my OG avatar and quote, I feel obligated to chime in.

I haven’t read every single paragraph in this thread beforehand, but I glossed over it quickly. Sorry, but I don’t always have the time to properly read every single post (just like I don’t have time to look up every single musician, writer, filmmaker, whatever, before allowing myself to just enjoy the art unrestrained from the artist’s baggage).

First of all, YOU don’t know every single last thing about every single last person you admire, nor do you have to. You, as a fan, don’t have to justify shit. If a report came out tomorrow, proving that Mr. Rogers enjoyed eating live kittens, you’d be shocked of course (I hope). Let’s say that was indeed the case, except that report is never made public. So you would never know and spend the rest of your life thinking Mr. Rogers was the most wholesome person to ever live on this godforsaken planet, oblivious to his hunger for felines. No matter who you admire, those people are humans, with various opinions, various secrets and various flaws. You’ll never know every single last bad thing that every single artist ever did.

Second of all: People change and opinions change. It would be extremely narrow-minded of me to dismiss an artist over an opinion (an actual crime would be a different story, but right now I’m talking about opinions, because I believe in freedom of speech). And maybe it’s just me being a softie and not metal enough, but I think redemption is a beautiful thing. If someone feels bad over something they did in the past and want to make amends, let them! Or maybe they don’t, but they just change their opinions on a particular matter without screaming it out into the world.

Here I’d like to talk about Lovecraft if I may (I’ll just do it anyway). If you read all his (solo) work in chronological order, you will notice how little by little the bigotry disappears (for the most part) from his writings (collaborationss notwithstanding). As some of you may or may not know, he did indeed speak favorably of Hitler PRE-war, but immediately changed his opinion when he learned of the actual treatment of jews in Nazi Germany from a neighbor who fled to the US. Yes, opinions can change as quickly as that. Lovecraft’s reclusive upbringing sure didn’t help, but like I said, the bigotry became less and less. Unfortunately he died at 47; given a few more years, who knows, he may have gone on a big redemption arc.

Most of you probably didn’t know that about Lovecraft, right? Everybody knows that he wrote "On the Creation of [n-words]“ back in his 20s (IIRC) and that will forever be the number one thing to besmirch him, no matter if he matured/evolved (because you might not mature and therefore will never ever change your opinion of him, making you an inferior, more narrow-minded person than him). So if one artist does one single controversial thing in their life, they are shunned forever, no matter how much effort they put into their redemption?

As for Varg Vikernes, I sure don’t like him as a person and I completely understand why somebody would hate the guy for the CRIMES he committed. However I just cannot help but roll my eyes at people that think his OPINIONS are the worst things about him. Get your priorities straight FFS!!! He stabbed somebody 23 times over an argument, set a couple historical buildings on fire and was planning to blow up the King Olaf Cathedral (or whatever it’s called), but that’s only secondary to his shitty opinions???

Third of all: Why do fans have to justify themselves for being fans? A LOT of people were influenced by Lovecraft, from writers to directors to musicians. Are you gonna dismiss all of these people now? Stephen King is a very liberal person who took inspiration from Lovecraft; does that make him a bigot by association? And of course there are artists whose works may not even be in the horror or metal genre and who may never talk about Lovecraft, but are still fans of him… see "first of all“ above – same thing applies here. Where does this witch hunt end? Should we just nuke the whole planet to rid ourselves from opinions we don’t agree with?

You also need to consider people making their living off of other people’s art or inventions. Lovecraft is dead now, but there are dedicated Lovecraft stores, with honest working people behind them. So if you were to cancel all things Lovecraft, you’d be taking some people’s incomes away. People who may not even like him as a person at all, but are really just into his lore. Are you really okay with that?

Fourth of all: A lot of artists are… weird people. No shit, huh? John W. Campbell was (in)famously a contrarian, often picking the other side of an argument even if he personally didn’t believe in it. Well shit, now we’re at an impasse! Which opinion is the one carved in stone that made him so controversial to begin with? Don’t fucking care. If he wants to debate and cover all sides of an argument, let him! In fact, one should always consider all sides and options in a debate in order to come up with valid pros and cons.

So no, I don’t feel like I need to justify shit. I like what I like. If you want to be the Gestapo and tell other people what they can and cannot enjoy, then YOU are the problem. YOU are the one with the narrow mind. YOU are the one who needs to change and be more receptive to other people’s opinions. They are just words and you can disagree and bring up your own arguments. Maybe one of you will out-argue the other eventually. Or maybe the discussion doesn’t have a right or wrong answer (like with liberal vs. conservative politics).

Tl;dr: Don’t respond to narrow-mindedness with some narrow-mindedness of your own. That would make you the other side oft he same coin. One of you needs to be the bigger person and accept that the other person is flawed. Don’t be a hypocrite; respond with arguments, not with self-righteous arrogance.

There. Sorry if I missed some points here and there, but I wasn't replying to anybody in particular. The last couple of years have been very, VERY divisive in regards to politics in art (even though the two should be separated) and I'm just tired of this crap.

When I learn after discovering a work that its artist did or said this or that, that he is an asshole, etc... I have the impression that it brings a different depth to a work.

Knowing in what mentality an artist built his work is important, it adds context, whether he is a saint or a man of the worst kind.

For me it is clear that we must NOT separate the artist from his work, we understand the work more by knowing the life or the mentality (or even both) that an artist had, no matter who he was or what he did.

I guess I should take my own advice (or rather John W. Campbell's) and bring up an opposing point to my own arguments: the Marquis de Sade. Now that is one case I can think of where one should NOT separate the art from the artist and neither should one even attempt to enjoy his writings (with the exception of "Crimes of Love" perhaps, IIRC the only work of his that actually manages to give the impression that he was opposed to all the perversions he loved to indulge in so much). Seriously, if this shit gives you a boner, you do deserve a... Blunt Force Castration.

Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade spent most of his life behind bars (both in prisons and mental institutions), where he put his thoughts to paper. Not sure if it was considered therapy back then, but it probably would be a good practice in modern psychology, since it provides the doctor with a window into the patient's mind. Though AFAIK he wrote "The 120 Days of Sodom" in the Bastille in secret, on a roll of paper that he had to hide up his own ass. Eventually he started running out of space, so he had to abbreviate the last 90 days into a rough treatment, lacking all prose. And boy, those last few chapters were easily the most horrifying literature I've ever read in my whole life. So much so that I would love to use a time machine for an opportunity to ram my angry fists up his pompous ass (then again, he might have enjoyed that, lol).

Now the big question is: Are his books actually art or are they manifestos? I'm not sure if he even intended some of his books to be published in the first place (probably so), but they were published regardless. And like it or not, but they ARE considered world literature (as is "Mein Kampf", come to think of it). They also paved the way for Kraft-Ebbing's "Psychopathia Sexualis" which coined the terms "sadism" and "masochism" (named after Leopold Ritter von Sacher-Masoch for his novel "Venus in Furs").

Should you read the Marquis de Sade's books? Well, if you're gonna study psychology, then yes, definitely.

Should you enjoy his books? Please don't. If you do, I sure hope there is no other living creature nearby, be it human or animal, regardless of gender and age.

Should you have to justify yourself for reading his books? No, not really. As I've said, they ARE world literature. They ARE important to modern psychology and criminal forensic sciences. Maybe you're into true crime documentaries and want to satisfy your morbid curiosity. Maybe you're just a massive fan of the movie "Fahrenheit 451" (the original) and want to read every book showcased throughout the movie. Maybe you're a little bit kinky yourself and need confirmation that you are NOT the worst human being who ever lived after you've made your wife vomit through her nostrils because you shoved your cock too far down her throat and the spider-gag was just too tight to let any liquid push past your shaft. (No, I never did that to my wife and I never intend to. The stench of vomit is a turn-off for me, as is the taste of blood.)

---
Oh btw, Hitler was an artist previous to his career as a cunt. If you've ever seen his paintings, would you have guessed the artist behind them? Probably not. Unlike de Sade's books, I don't see any harm in appreciating Hitler's paintings. (Wow, I cannot believe it has come to this: I'm actually defending motherfucking Hitler of all people!) There is nothing in them that could possibly darken your spirit in a "the abyss gazes back" kind of way, unlike "The 120 Days of Sodom". From what I've seen, they were not too shabby. If only the Academy of Applied Arts had appreciated his paintings more and accepted him in, he probably wouldn't have gotten into politics and the world would never have known about the evil mind that created these artworks. (Though the Holocaust would have happened regardless, because the whole thing wasn't even his idea.)

Written by Brutal Water on 16.04.2025 at 18:28
(...)
I haven’t read every single paragraph in this thread beforehand, but I glossed over it quickly. Sorry, but I don’t always have the time to properly read every single post (just like I don’t have time to look up every single musician, writer, filmmaker, whatever, before allowing myself to just enjoy the art unrestrained from the artist’s baggage).
(...)

So let me get this straight: you don't have time to read a thread you want to participate in fully, but you do have time to author a whole essay of your own in response to points you supposedly haven't read? You don't wish to be bothered with researching an artist's background, unless it is an artist you like, in which case you will defend them with background knowledge of their live against points that weren't even made? How do you expect people to respond to your points when you start by telling everybody you don't care about theirs?

Of course I'm messing with you a little here, but I did have a little chuckle after reading your intro. "I don't have time for your opinions, but here are mine".

It also being unclear who you address when you write "you" in all caps, I'll just go through a few points that struck me as weird in your post. Maybe I can clarify some of my own, but I get the impression you responded to things you read between the lines, or extruded from things you read, instead of what's actually here.

Nobody says you have to research every artist you come across. This thread is about ethical fandom and/or ways to put distance between an artist, their work, and your own enjoyment of either. I made that point a little clumsily, but Ivor clarified it. My own criticism is that people, as far as I observe it, often are more concerned with distancing themselves from artists, or specific aspects (of whole bodies) of their work, instead of addressing the morals of their own role in its proliferation. Blowing this up to a point of using the word "gestapo" is not only silly, it feeds into exactly what I was criticizing. You're trying to turn an exchange about individual ethics into accusations, so you can avoid dealing with the topic and turn people against people instead. It's another facet of the same kind of avoidance mechanism we have been discussing. Calling people's personal ethics "politics" is doing the exact same. You reduce a whole complex issue and discussion to one word, so you can conveniently put a pin in, and avoid dealing with it.

This is also not about the "redemption" of H.P. Lovecraft. It's about whether or not it is possible to separate art from artist, and I brought him up as one of several examples of art that is so heavily influenced by it's author that said author's views (in this case, morbid xenophobia) is deeply coded into most of their stories. The fact that he may or may not have changed his views towards his later life doesn't change that, neither does the fact that he has, indeed, written stories that show very little to none of these views (or do it so subtly, I'm not able to decode them). It's not about H.P. Lovecraft or J.K. Rowling, it's about how to be a fan of of the work of terrible people and what consequences that may have for you, your surroundings, and the world at large.

Another thing that struck me as weird is that on the one hand you complain about people (in your opinion) not condemning Varg (enough?) for his "actual" crimes but more for his views, while in the same post saying you believe in second chances and redemption. Varg committed terrible crimes and I have yet to meet a person who wouldn't condemn those. But he also paid his dues to society according to the legal and social contracts we use to organize it. He went to jail, did his time, and - in the face of society - is now considered redeemed from them. That doesn't make him any less of a murderer, but it's one thing that distinguishes him from other artists named in this thread, who weren't even ready to face their accusers in court but instead chose to weasel themselves out of said accusations by bullying and abusing their power to make their accusers' lives hell instead of helping to protect them. That power abuse is a good example of toxic fandom and part of what I, specifically, criticized. It's an aspect of being a fan of a terrible person, and you don't have to look far in this very forum to see people more than willing to take a bullet for their favorite arists in the face of accusations.

Varg's views, on the other hand, are coming from a hateful ideology that is already responsible for killing millions of people world-wide. I honestly don't understand how you are willing to condemn one but not the other. But I also may have misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

The last, and possibly most important, point is: nobody asked you to justify anything. Obviously some people will judge you if you think your personal privilege in live entitles you to distance yourself from the racism, xenophobia, trans-hate, sexual abuse, or other terrible things your favorite artists do or support. That's part of "free speech", too. But you're not on trial here. You weren't even required to post in this thread.

Fair enough, I do hereby apologize for not being clear on a couple of things:

When I said I haven't read every paragraph, I should have stated that I read like... I don't know, I'm bad at estimating, let's say 70 to 80%. Some people mentioned some artists I have never heard of, so I skimmed over those. I wouldn't have anything to add to that.

-) The reason why I "researched" some artists over others is simply popularity. Everybody has heard of Lovecraft and he is famous enough to maybe even pop up in a question in Trivial Pursuit or Who Wants to be a Millionaire. A lot of people have been talking about his racism, condemning him or defending him, so eventually I figured I'd just read up about him to form my own opinion (plus, like I said, he is famous enough that a lot of people even outside the horror genre are talking about him). It's just the more popular an artist is, the more people you get talking about them and, unfortunately, that often also comes with a lot of misinformation. The same applies to Polanski and Varg Vikernes (who may never be mentioned in Trivial Pursuit or WWtbaM, but every BM fan knows who he is).

However, if I just discover some unknown band that I know nothing of, the only thing I'm curious about is whether or not they're NSBM. I don't want to be headbanging to a song about how awesome the artists find the holocaust. If the band isn't NSBM and little to nothing is known about them, I don't feel the need to investigate further. Hell, I've been a fan of The Great Old Ones (the band, duh) for years, but had no idea what the members even looked like until I saw them live last week. I've also been a fan of Paysage d'Hiver and Darkspace for years before realizing the same dude is working on both projects.

-) When I said "YOU" in all caps I was talking to anybody who was bothering to read this. Anybody who is wondering whether they count as a "bad person" for liking this or that.

-) I'm not quite sure if you want me to clarify my stance on Lovecraft's works and me being a fan, but the way I personally deal with the racism in his work is by simply reminding myself that it's just somebody else's opinion and I don't have to agree with it. I'm not boycotting Lovecraft since he's already dead and will therefore never see a single cent of my money. When I recommend his work to people, I always warn them about the rather shocking amount of racism in some of them (if they're not aware already), and I'd never recommend him to racist people to begin with.

-) I still stand by what I said about redemption, but maybe I should have clarified that this only works for shitty opinions and maybe some "minor" crimes. I don't think Hitler could have ever redeemed himself. Varg can only redeem himself for the bigotry he has been spouting and yes, I know that in the face of the Norwegian court system he has paid his dues, but the murder victim was a public figure, the driving force behind 2nd wave BM, and he took that from all of us, not just Norway. The churches he destroyed belonged to Norway on paper, but in reality those buildings were several hundred years old and could be considered a part of cultural heritage. I mean, the Hagia Sophia was a church, a mosque and a museum at some points in history. Currently it is a mosque. Let's say you're Varg and you could blow it up; would you blow it up only when it's a church or a mosque? Or would you also blow it up as a museum? Those flammable churches he destroyed may have always been churches exclusively (AFAIK, but maybe I'm wrong), but that doesn't mean they couldn't have become museums at some point.

Recently there have been a lot of protesters destroying historical paintings, because apparently that's gonna help climate change. This is a crime I consider irredeemable. These paintings belonged to the whole world, not just the museums they were hanging in. No matter what you do for the rest of your life, you can never give us this piece of artwork back. Same appliies to Varg's churches.

Polanski on the other hand could still redeem himself (though that won't happen since he's in his 90s) by turning himself in and paying whatever compensations his victims are asking for. I just wish I could have been a judge and ruled that he'd stay in prison and only gets to leave whenever he has a new movie to direct, before putting him back in his cell until he has done all his time. And no, I don't consider his crimes "minor" as mentioned above. Still within the limits of redemption, but pushing it.

But for the record: I love Burzum and I still listen to it. I just don't like Varg and I don't want to give him any money. He's one of those artists that I only recommend to certain people and I'd be warning them, just like I do with Lovecraft.

There, I hope that clears a few things up a bit. Sorry if I went a bit off-topic or misunderstood some points you (or anybody else for that matter) was trying to make. I admit that I have projected a bit too much in this topic; the last 10 years or so have been taxing for me as a fan of various IPs and my patience isn't that long-lasting anymore as it used to be. I'm happy to see that everybody here is at least level-headed enough to differentiate the truly "problematic" artists from the "harmless" ones. Just... nobody say anything bad about J.R.R. Tolkien, because I might snap, lol.

Once again, I apologize for my badly phrased points. If there is anything else you want me to address, let me know.