How do you feel about supporting artists whose work sometimes really bothers you?

Why not just enjoy him on the web?
Why buy his stuff if you feel you have to bowdlerize it to own it?

I don’t support those artists.
Some people take artistic license as permission to make really, really bad stuff.

A lot of it is recognizing the problematic parts, and then talking about them, often in public forums where the creator(s) can see, or even directly writing them. Sometimes, it’s finding a big blogger who says it all, and then sharing their piece (eg reblogging on Tumblr, sharing on Facebook, sharing on Twitter), so that it becomes big enough that the creator(s) really have to acknowledge in some manner that they screwed up on that one. Maybe they don’t actually change, but if they come out and give a public statement on the thing, then at least they’ve probably discussed for at least 5 minutes if they actually screwed up and what to do about it. It really depends on how bad it is – sometimes, it’s really bad, and I don’t ever want to give them money again, so I don’t, and I try to make sure they know why.

Also, you might be interested in this short piece on How to Be a Fan of Problematic Things.

Poetic license doesn’t always equal good taste license. I don’t buy fruit and vegetables I dislike, why support anything we dislike?

The purpose of art is to disturb at times but that doesn’t mean you have to buy it.

I would not.

Well, I think in a society where even the rich have a paranoid terror of becoming financially unable to pay for their needs, that until that system changes, the arts need and deserve support. However, especially in the case of your own support of specific artists, you may as well choose to support the ones you like best, possibly to the exclusion of others.

Isn’t that one of the outcomes of good art? To make you think, to draw you out of whatever rut you’re in and show you an alternative?

@janbb I disagree; art ought to be enjoyable. People who make disturbing art strike me as indulging in a sort of schadenfreude.

@Zaku Rich people tend to worry more about their money anyway. It would seem that having wealth and the wrong attitude makes a body spend more time being paranoid about losing it.

@Nullo Saying that the purpose of art is to be enjoyable is very limiting. Would you say that the purpose of writing is always to please? The purpose of art is to share something that the creator wants to share; sometimes this is pleasant, sometimes it is disturbing. You may not like looking at art that is disturbing; that is your choice as a viewer, but that doesn’t mean it should not be made.

@janbb Not its purpose, but one of its characteristics. (The purpose of a car is to take you places, but you ought to pick a nice car over a crummy one, right?) I see no reason why art ever needs to be horrid except that it comes from the minds of horrid people.

I appreciate everyone’s responses, especially that great blog post from Aethelflaed! The thread got a little off-track over time—I wouldn’t call any of his subject matter “disturbing” (and I totally support disturbing subject matter for art in any case). I meant I’m really offended—personally disturbed—by maybe 2% of the jokes he makes which are typical asshole sexist/homophobic comments. Actually in the time since I posted this, he said something bad enough that it did finally make me go, “Okay: better things to do with my money” and stop paying for any of his products.