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?
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.