Feb 13, 2018, 2:20 AM

In some cases the actions of an individual has poisoned my interest in their work but I do not seek out reasons to not enjoy a work that I had otherwise been enjoying as I don't want to lose out for their failings. In this case the statements of the Director certainly haven't made me more inclined to rewatch the show which was mediocre.

I think there is a distinction between (a) taking part in an organised and targeted boycott with a clearly articulated and achievable rationale of bringing about a positive change of policy or behaviour, (b) withholding financial support to a company or individual who poses an exceptional threat to society or the environment, (c) avoiding an artistic work because one of the individuals involved is somehow reprehensible, and (d) avoiding a work because an element of the work or some other factor has soured or is expected to sour your enjoyment of it.

I find it easier to advocate for (a) and (b) but see (c) as more of grey area, especially when the reprehensible person is only one of many who worked on a given project. For any big budget artist work I expect that if I dug deep enough I could find at least one person involved in the endeavour who had said or done something a bit iffy at some point in their life. As has been said, privately not buying a work does not always send a clear enough signal to investors and decision-makers as to why you are not buying it. That said, in terms of (d), if I knew the artist force behind a project held some sickening or especially misguided views then I would consider avoiding their work simply because it would distract me from my enjoyment of the work and because if their thinking was clouded by prejudice then that could be expected to diminish their ability to create a good product.

On the topic of whether publicly saying misguided things can be harmful then I think it can be. How best to react to prejudice and denialism and so forth is a valid topic of discussion.