Quote Originally Posted by Sesquipedalism View Post
Okay. I'm sorry I seem to have angered you by using this example as an example.

First of all, I understand that clicks are revenue. I consider that funding.

Second of all, I certainly understand the importance of the issue in the moment and over time—that's why we're having this discussion. I understand that all of these things matter and are not inconsequential.

Third of all, the time factor is a real part of the issue of divorcing art from artist. You quoted the last sentence of the post, after a good long buildup which I had thought would make it clear that I'm asking for a broad ethical question. Would it ever be ethically okay to view these comics and, if so, when? If it's okay someday, and it's not an issue of commerce ​(direct pay, clicks), but an issue of art & artist, what makes "someday" different than "today, but no one else finds out about it"?
I appreciate how you responded to my reply. I completely appreciate your sensitivity and acknowledgment.

And my apologies: I did glaze over your full and final point:
As an advocate for women right now, I don't know how these things will play out 3-4 decades from now.

My initial thought is that, for this particular artist, I don't think this will stand up 40 years from now as fundamental art of the age. This isn't something that will be in museums as "the best memes of 2018-2019 era." For Strange Planet itself, it's easy for me to say this is a cash grab/ profession for a pro-life supporter, and this will be one and done.

There is art that is much more than a modern meme. The Wagner argument is huge in my mind. Highly difficult to separate. For me...there are better artists to embrace with no ill politics associated.
I guess in a way, it's ok to listen to artists that no longer benefit financially....but I'm always going to say, "yah but...." in my head. It sucks the enjoyment away.