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?

  • velma@sh.itjust.works
    8·
    4 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
      13·
      4 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
            4·
            4 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
                4·
                4 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
                  1·
                  4 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