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?
You’re putting enough on display for us to know.
Can I ask you 1 final question?
Go for it. There’s no guarantee I’ll answer the way you want me to though.
That’s fine, this is more out of curiosity.
You say that everything (presumably every art, every idea) we have is political because it’s about how we communicate with others.
What about the ideas we never share? What about the ideas we have but we never tell anyone else? Would you say they were political? If so, why, if those ideas are never meant to be communicated/for communication?
I’d probably classify ideas we never share as part of a personal conversation, personal revelations and introspection. I don’t think those ideas exist without the influence of politics though.
Yeah, but influence doesn’t mean the thing itself, right?
That’s why I would classify them as a part of a personal conversation, personal revelations, and introspection.
Do you routinely decide to selectively read peoples replies?
No, I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from is all. I’m just trying to be a critical thinker. I do think there are some thing which can be described as not political, but I think you’ve made some good points that I definitely think differently about, and I genuinely apologise for being unpleasant at points throughout our conversation, I do value what you’ve said.
I appreciate that and thank you for posing the question to the community. It was a good conversation starter :)