With the rise of cancel culture, it’s something that’s got me curious, why are so many works (music, literature, tv shows, etc.) no longer separated from their controversial makers? Is it purely to do with money (e.g. not wanting to give money to people you don’t agree with?) and what about controversial people who are dead? They don’t gain anything, so why isn’t the art separated from the artist? What’s your opinion on this topic?
For me the art pays the artist. So i enjoy my right to exercise my small but still there economic power. The artist also use their image to heavily market the art so for me they are intertwined. It did get ok for a while for actors, we understand they play a role, however if the make decisions that entangle themself in unacceptable behavior then bad luck. You don’t get to only play and profit from the hero whilst acting like a arsehole.
Ok, but what about dead actors/artists? If they get ‘cancelled’ after death, why then do we cancel their art also despite that they don’t get paid and the art has nothing to do with whatever controversy they suffered, what’s the deal with that?
Just because they are dead, doesn’t mean someone isn’t profiting off it. Anything popular within the past 100 years has some sort of estate or corporation associated with it that will gladly profit off of someone else’s legacy, no matter how deplorable they may be.
Once things enter the public domain, it’s easier to make that seperation but art often reflects the opinions, thoughts and feeling of the creator so even in death it can be difficult to separate fully.
You’re painting with mighty broad strokes. Bob Ross is unquestionably a good person, but his estate is owned by people who lied to him and stole it from him; you shouldn’t buy anything with his name on it. Conversely, everyone loves Disney stuff but he was an anti-semite and arguably a nazi sympathizer.
If the art itself isn’t bad and the bad person that profited off of it is dead, why does it matter if someone else (presumably not bad) would profit off of it?
I don’t think that’s a fair assumption. The people with the kind of money able to buy the rights to art tend to be the rich.
And you don’t get rich by being good.
But that applies to dead artist that have been good people as well.
I think that’s slightly different, as artists that were good people typically means there message is good.
Esentially:
The bad/evil artists are clearly going to be the worst of these options. There messaging will typically match (ex: Ed Sheeran’s neutrality on genocide).
But for artists who are good people we should generally expect the opposite. The ownership may be in the hands of bad people because they’re dead, but the message will likely be better than the alternative, which is a point of distinction.
Also I think it’s worth noting that artists that are good people would be more likely to have their estate go to a good cause.
May I ask why you think it’s bad to own art with a good message from a good artist, who is dead?
I don’t think it’s inherently bad, just that it has a tendency to be owned by the rich, who are inherently bad.
Well if the evil is part of the art itself, then there is no need to separate the art from the artists in the first place, so I’d drop the entire “message” column. The question really only makes sense when they are unrelated.
But alright, you only support artists you like while they are alive. That’s fair enough.
Whilst it logically shouldn’t i still associate. I think of it because art is based on emotion. the artists sell the product to me on my emotion, on my moods, on my ideology. They are a brand and they market to me. So when it gets tough on their side i cant just disassociate and say oh yeh the show or the song is just their job because they sold at to me at a personal and emotive level. So i respond back as such.
Interesting. Thanks for your perspective. I presume you are an artist of sorts?
I will also add that i think we as a community have been conditioned in recent years to easily forgive or not speak up when bad behavior occurs. We are made to feel like we should be extra tolerant, and overly pacifist. I believe that respect and love is the way forward…but not at the expense of accepting greedy and horrible within our communities. Shame has a place in society and we should be allowed to call for it.
No.
And I don’t mean this in a rude way but you ask a lot of divisive questions. When its a new users I always feel like this is a training, fishing or farming exercise, however I understand wanting to be critical in your thinking.
I wouldn’t say I ask divisive questions, though I do think I post too often. I shall have to scale back
No, keep posting, its more me questioning if you are some kinda bot really. We need posters and we need critical thinkers.
Nope, not a bot. Definitely not a bot (do you get a lot of bots here or something?)
We get a lot of provocateurs…I am no saint on that matter either, so i will be quiet now.