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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 month ago (16 children)

My point is: not all art is political.

Everything is political. You have just lived such a privileged life that you haven't been required to see why.

You have "just gotten" things throughout your life that others have had to fight for. And you now take it for granted that everyone has your same experience. Not everyone is so privileged because the people who operate the systems that benefit you, are taking far too much from others in order for you to have those privileges.

As soon as you start seeing the things that others are forced to do that you've never had to confront, then you will understand why everything is political. Then you will understand what a disservice you're doing to your fellow man by not doing your part to ensure everyone else gets the privileges you already take for granted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    You don’t know my life, my hardships etc. don’t pretend you do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    You don’t know my life, my hardships etc. don’t pretend you do.

    You thinking that's what I'm doing is why I'm saying what I'm saying.

    You haven't yet matured to the point where you understand not everything everyone else says and does is about you. Other people live rich, detailed lives that are completely unlike your own and you will never understand the huge varieties of ways the world works until you get outside your own tiny, self-centered universe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    You're putting enough on display for us to know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (10 children)

    Can I ask you 1 final question?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    Go for it. There's no guarantee I'll answer the way you want me to though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Yeah, but influence doesn’t mean the thing itself, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    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 :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    One final question (and I promise I’m not starting anything, I’m just curious) what do you think of people who purposely make the meaning of their ‘art’ ambiguous so that the idea can’t be communicated (classic example: ‘I am the walrus by the Beatles)? Does that still fit the definition of political in terms of sharing ideas (or communication, or whatever it was)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    I think it's still political, affording the luxury of being silly is not necessarily common. I have to admit that I'm not a fan of the Beatles and maybe I'm not picking up on the exact reason you're using "I am the walrus" in this example.

    Being able to exist independent of political oversight is political. Being able to be the master of what you create is political in that sense.

  • source
  • parent