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?
Not always, not necessarily
There is also lots of popcorn stuff where a problematic artist may work on. Take movies, I hate tom cruise the person, but I love his movies. I’m not spending money on his movies, arr, I wouldn’t, but the movies are a good watch
I’ve always hated that argument that “all art is political, because the existence of the art, the freedom to create it, the ability to share it, etc is all political”, because it fails to acknowledge anything specific about the artwork in question being political. By the same logic literally anything existing is political because its ability to exist, or to be destroyed is political. But some random rock 78 miles off the shores of California in the Pacific isn’t going to be meaningfully political in any way that matters to almost anyone ever. Therefore I think it’s fine to consider some things (such as some works of art) not meaningfully political, also often just called “not political”.
I think some silly pieces of art can be reasonably interpreted as political in some regards (drawing dicks around potholes), but sometimes it’s just there because someone thought it would be funny/look nice/was a mistake.
Art is interpretive. Therefore it can be interpreted as political.
Spoken like someone whose freedom of expression and creativity has never been criminalized.