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?

  • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    All art is political. That doesn’t mean it is created with the purpose of being political

    That’s bullshit. Not all art was made for the purpose you define as political, and not all art achieves that aim either

    • velma@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Ok, but to be called ‘political’ do you agree that art must either have been created political, or serve a political purpose?

            • velma@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              The existence of art is political. The ability to create art is political. The freedom to create art and have a voice is political.

                • velma@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Art is one way we relate to or communicate with each other. It is inherently political.

                  Hannah Arendt, in her work The Human Condition, redefines politics as the space of appearance where individuals, through action and speech, reveal their identity and participate in the construction of the common world. For Arendt, politics is not merely an institutional activity but the manifestation of human plurality and the capacity to initiate something new.​

                  • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    I disagree, but I’m not going to be hostile about it, you have your view, I have mine. We’re not going to convince each other to change