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?
Here is my personal comment on it. Do you think I would pull a definition of politics that I don’t agree with to bolster my point of view here?
Ok, fine.
So would you argue that every single piece of art seeks to find ‘the common good’ in people with no polarisation? Are you really telling me that by your agreed definition, all art is created with this purpose?
You’re expanding on the original definition that you pulled to make it seem like Aristotle would agree with you here.
All art is political. That doesn’t mean it is created with the purpose of being political.
Hang on, you’re saying ‘common good’ isn’t aiming for all people to be united? What’s your definition then? Some but not all?
You’re putting words in my mouth like you did to Aristotle.
So explain it then. Explain to me what he meant by ‘common good’?
Why would I continue to waste time engaging in a respectful and interesting conversation with you when you’re insistent on redefining my own comments and others’ definitions solely so it fits within your own defined idea of politics? You’re not engaging in good faith.
I’m asking you a simple question. If you can’t explain it, fine, but don’t pretend you know what you’re talking about.
That’s bullshit. Not all art was made for the purpose you define as political, and not all art achieves that aim either
The existence of art is political. The ability to create art is political. The freedom to create art and have a voice is political.
I already said that not all art is created with the purpose of being political. That doesn’t mean it’s existence isn’t political.