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?
So explain it then. Explain to me what he meant by ‘common good’?
I mean even defining what is the “common good” is political and that is the point of the exercise. If art exists that is deemed bad for society then we tend to ban it. For example, there are people who define CSAM as art, but the cost to society is so great we don’t allow even the possession of such material.
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.
Ok, but to be called ‘political’ do you agree that art must either have been created political, or serve a political purpose?
No.
Explain how it can be political without either being created political or serving a political purpose?
Explain how