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 it depends on the consequences of consuming the art today.
PDF Michael Jackson made incredible and catchy music, but listening to his music (streaming service) puts money into the hands of people who were in close association with him. Those likely knew about his pedophilic nature, and still didn’t intervene.
Having a painting of hitler would be ok, a bit questionable, but ok, because nobody profits off that anymore. (This is lemmy so I will add more context: the aspect that if hitler would have been accepted in the art school he could have gone through a different career, away from politics is kind of interesting.)