Generally speaking whether I like a character or not has very little to do with whether I think they’re moral. One of my favorite characters in any book is a horrendously evil man - like approaching Hitler levels, though on a smaller scale - but goddamn is he a fascinating character to read (Vorbis from Small Gods - which if you haven’t read it is a masterpiece)
One of the characteristics of good art, to me, is how strongly it makes somebody feel. Any feeling. If a work of art annoys you, that too should be appreciated. In the same way that an actor who plays a character that makes you HATE them should be admired. That is not only a difficult thing to accomplish but also the least appreciated. If all characters satisfy your personal hangups and pet peeves, then every character is the same person.
Rejoice that you are annoyed by something. That says something about you as much as the work of art
I’m always annoyed by vandalistic names carved into trees and rocks and monuments wherever I visit. I don’t think that’s admirable or should be appreciated.
You may be going too broad
That’s why I started my opinion with “one of the things” that makes good art. Another set you clearly pointed out is time and place. The fact is that people do not value negative outcomes or feelings. I think being aware of it, and why you’re annoyed or feel hate, is very important. The thing that annoys you about tree carvings tells me what you care about. Defacement of nature and public monuments is also a statement and also art whether you enjoy it or not. There is always something to glean from the negative.
Bad take
People like Reagan irl
