If the artist is alive, absolutely not. And if they are dead, it really depends on context and how awful they were. An artist's beliefs leave their fingerprints all over their art. Also, if they are, say, a TERF, purchasing their art funds their bad behavior, making the consumer complicit in enabling them.

It depends. I think in this world it's impossible to purchase something without most of your money going into the bank account of a terrible human being. Buying a chocolate bar perpetuates child slavery. One could argue buying meat perpetuates climate change. I think it's a great example of cognitive dissonance if someone refuses to buy Harry Potter merchandise because JK Rowling is a terrible person, but then continues to buy Nestle products.

For me, I do my best to not buy anything at all. I live a minimalist lifestyle. If all of my purchases are going to cause some harm, I will purchase the minimum amount of items necessary.

Usually not.
Do I cherry pick? Depends on the severity.

If supporting the art, supports the artist, who actively supports a bad cause, I do not. JKR and anything that furthers the anti-trans movement can go screw. If someone co-opts something, then it's trickier, but I expect the original artist to help when they can and support them directly, like Marvel's Punisher.

The personal is political.

I have some fingerpaints on display that objectively aren't very good art. If they were yours, they'd already be composted, but I like the little girl who made them.

But also I often enjoy and recommend books and music by people I probably wouldn't get along well with if we met. In some cases I might prefer not to support their cause financially, but usually I don't even know much about the artists or their views. Sometimes they'll keep their private lives private, or I just never bothered to look them up, or they've been dead for many years.

I am strict about it. Entertainment is a luxury that I can choose to avoid for any reason. I love HP, but i have chosen to black list it. Just as i have Kanye West. I do not separate art from the artist. This notion doesn't even make sense to me. The art comes from the life and experience from the artist no matter how talented. It's not an on/off switch where the artist switches themselves off when creating their art.

I'm a graphic designer myself and I can tell you that when I create designs, my personality, my uniqueness, my influence, my outlook, me, myself, and I all go into that design, even if they are subconsciously. Therefore, that design is not a separate entity, it is me in a sense.

My phone is made possible because children lose limbs mining the cobalt, just because I outsource the misery I cause doesn't mean I'm a good person.

That being said, I'm less likely to buy their merch or go to their shows. But damn, if you told me Michael Jackson was alive, in his prime and doing a show, I'd be there so goddamned fast.

Yep, was scolded on reddit for "making a post about an antisemite" when I mentioned Mel Gibson in a list of some 10 odd other actors I liked (I even mentioned in the post that I was only refering to his acting, not his personal character). Guess by the internets rules, Mad Max is no longer a good movie?

I don't separate them. To still partake in the art helps boost their popularity and their message.

I also can't claim to support a group while boosting their biggest antagonist. I also see this spreading into the AI area.

If I see authors using AI cover art, I blacklist them. AI voices for characters in games? I'll swerve. I can't claim to support a community of artists and then shoot them in the foot at first opportunity.

Depends on the crime. If it's bad enough their music is just ruined for me. Listened to a couple artist before only to find out the groomed or touched kids, just can't listen anymore without thinking about that.

If they're dead and didn't kill people I think I'm fine separating art fron artist when needed

More specifically, if they were a not great person, nobody directly associated should be making money from the art I consume

I'll still listen to the song or whatever media but won't promote them.

I can appreciate art from any artist, but I will not patronize an artist that is trash.

I usually don't care. Any political views, racism, sexism and whatnot opinions like JK Rowling on trans I couldn't care less. But...

1. Gender based violence I'll will need to be really good for me to like.
2. Child molesters will give me an uncanny feeling.

Murder somehow ok though. I'll listen to Snoop Dogg and enjoy it to the fullest.

If someone has been shitty in the past and has changed their ways, I’ll support. If someone has made wonderful art and has done a heel-turn, using their fame and fortune to platform some regressive, shitty ideas, I’ll pass.

Depends on the quality of music, the crimes, and the credibility of everyone involved. I love Michael Jackson, but I don't really listen to him much anymore because a) heard it all to death, and b) he's definitely a creep. Hard pass on all R Kelly music of course. Pass on Motley Crue. Kind of bored of Red Hot Chili Peppers. Kind of bored with Aerosmith. Kind of bored with Iggy Pop. Kind of bored with Led Zeppelin.

Damn. Seems like everyone was banging underage kids in the 60s-90s.

If some person or company turns out to do shitty things or hold shitty values, I will stop giving them money wherever possible (easy for artists, less so if a shitty company is the only option for something). I won't generally throw away things I've already paid for or stop listening to a band or something, but they won't get future money from me.

Almost always. But I cannot with Michael Jackson and the singer from Lost Profits. They are just horrible imo.