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?

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 41 points 1 month ago (18 children)

For me the art pays the artist. So i enjoy my right to exercise my small but still there economic power. The artist also use their image to heavily market the art so for me they are intertwined. It did get ok for a while for actors, we understand they play a role, however if the make decisions that entangle themself in unacceptable behavior then bad luck. You don't get to only play and profit from the hero whilst acting like a arsehole.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    Ok, but what about dead actors/artists? If they get ‘cancelled’ after death, why then do we cancel their art also despite that they don’t get paid and the art has nothing to do with whatever controversy they suffered, what’s the deal with that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

    Just because they are dead, doesn’t mean someone isn’t profiting off it. Anything popular within the past 100 years has some sort of estate or corporation associated with it that will gladly profit off of someone else’s legacy, no matter how deplorable they may be.

    Once things enter the public domain, it’s easier to make that seperation but art often reflects the opinions, thoughts and feeling of the creator so even in death it can be difficult to separate fully.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    You're painting with mighty broad strokes. Bob Ross is unquestionably a good person, but his estate is owned by people who lied to him and stole it from him; you shouldn't buy anything with his name on it. Conversely, everyone loves Disney stuff but he was an anti-semite and arguably a nazi sympathizer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    Just because they are dead, doesn’t mean someone isn’t profiting off it.

    If the art itself isn't bad and the bad person that profited off of it is dead, why does it matter if someone else (presumably not bad) would profit off of it?

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

    why does it matter if someone else (presumably not bad) would profit off of it?

    I don't think that's a fair assumption. The people with the kind of money able to buy the rights to art tend to be the rich.

    And you don't get rich by being good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    But that applies to dead artist that have been good people as well.

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

    I think that's slightly different, as artists that were good people typically means there message is good.

    Esentially:

    Artist Alive Message Ownership
    Bad Dead Bad Bad
    Bad Alive Bad Bad
    Good Dead Good Bad
    Good Alive Good Good

    The bad/evil artists are clearly going to be the worst of these options. There messaging will typically match (ex: Ed Sheeran's neutrality on genocide).

    But for artists who are good people we should generally expect the opposite. The ownership may be in the hands of bad people because they're dead, but the message will likely be better than the alternative, which is a point of distinction.

    Also I think it's worth noting that artists that are good people would be more likely to have their estate go to a good cause.

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

    I think that’s slightly different, as artists that were good people typically means there message is good.

    Well if the evil is part of the art itself, then there is no need to separate the art from the artists in the first place, so I'd drop the entire "message" column. The question really only makes sense when they are unrelated.

    But alright, you only support artists you like while they are alive. That's fair enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Whilst it logically shouldn't i still associate. I think of it because art is based on emotion. the artists sell the product to me on my emotion, on my moods, on my ideology. They are a brand and they market to me. So when it gets tough on their side i cant just disassociate and say oh yeh the show or the song is just their job because they sold at to me at a personal and emotive level. So i respond back as such.

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

    Interesting. Thanks for your perspective. I presume you are an artist of sorts?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    I will also add that i think we as a community have been conditioned in recent years to easily forgive or not speak up when bad behavior occurs. We are made to feel like we should be extra tolerant, and overly pacifist. I believe that respect and love is the way forward...but not at the expense of accepting greedy and horrible within our communities. Shame has a place in society and we should be allowed to call for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    No.

    And I don't mean this in a rude way but you ask a lot of divisive questions. When its a new users I always feel like this is a training, fishing or farming exercise, however I understand wanting to be critical in your thinking.

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

    I wouldn’t say I ask divisive questions, though I do think I post too often. I shall have to scale back

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    No, keep posting, its more me questioning if you are some kinda bot really. We need posters and we need critical thinkers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago

    If they use their money to do evil shit, like funding wars against queer people, then giving them money actively supports funding wars against queer people. That makes sense.

    What doesn't make sense is throwing away/destroying decades old media becsuse it was discovered last week that the artist who made it was, in fact, a piece of shit. That's not hurting them nor is it sending a message. Just don't buy any new shit from 'em.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 1 month ago

    They say art is a conversation between the artist and the viewer.

    I don't want to have a conversation with a rapist. I don't want to associate with people who hate trans people.

    If I had a friend and found out these things about them, I would cut them out of my life.

    Did you cheat on your wife or commit tax fraud? Maybe it changes the interactions, but I'm not going to cut you out entirely.

    That line will be different for everyone

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 1 month ago

    There's so much art, its so accessible with the internet, why am I going to waste time enjoying stuff made by pieces of shit? I want them forgotton. I can enjoy art made by good people instead.

  • source
  • [–] 78 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Just want to point out that the so-called critics of cancel culture are the most obvious and strictest advocates for it, they just want to have unilateral authority to do it.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    Fair point. It’s like that Churchill quote about freedom of speech: it’s ok until anyone says something you don’t like ig. Not exactly what I was asking about, but good point in any case.

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

    I think it's worth raising the distinciton, because it's probably only people on the left that are going to give a thoughtful reply, while those on the fascist right, being fascist, will be more than happy to censor anything to further their political project--but they are very unlikely to say so outright.

    The truth is every society always has and always will try to control the speech of its members. "Cancel culture" is a term used by the right to invalidate the left's ability counter speech, while still maintaining their ability to cancel people they don't like.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Oh I completely agree. Cancel culture has existed ever since the days of Herostratus, maybe earlier, it just wasn’t called that by name

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

    Yup, the right, who gave the Red Scare and the McArthy era, absolutely HATES it when the Left decides what can be said. Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher are both partly reactions to speech codes started in the 1980's that became "political correctness."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (58 children)

    Why are conservatives always so upset at the consequences of a free market?

  • source
  • hideshow 58 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 month ago (57 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (36 children)

    the first six words of your post might have said more than you meant to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago* (35 children)

    Huh?

    Edit: oh, ok nvm. Well I’m not conservative. Fuck the conservatives

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (24 children)

    if that's true, you might want to interrogate why you so readily buy into their framing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 month ago (23 children)

    Are you talking in terms of a legal/political definition of cancel culture I presume, because I wasn’t.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (22 children)

    yea, this combined with "Oh don't start..." further down the thread, I'm all set. you've got that "just asking questions here!" vibe that got old like fifteen years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 month ago (21 children)

    That’s because I didn’t want people to bring politics into this, because the post wasn’t about politics. I’d appreciate it if people could stop behaving like the media and trying to turn everything about politics. That is all. Thank you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (20 children)
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    Bullshit. There was a time in history when there was no politics (modern, etc.) and human being survived (arguably they even thrived). People try to twist anything into politics now, it doesn’t mean it has to be, if even it were possible, but not so

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    "Cancel culture" is not able to be parted from politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    Depends on the definition. I’m not talking about a political definition, more the raw human emotion of rejecting something for whatever reason they don’t like it — not because it fits into some political ‘theology’

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    more the raw human emotion of rejecting something for whatever reason they don’t like it

    That's politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 month ago* (11 children)

    That’s what we call politics, but was not always so. Again, just because we define politics in a modern sense, doesn’t make it always was

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

    seems like you're not really sure what you're arguing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 month ago (9 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    They're a participant in this conversation. What's it to you?

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

    All I’m saying is: I disagree that politics and art are inherently linked/inseparable. What’s so hard to understand about my point here?

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

    Then talk about that instead of trying to shame someone out of conversing with you on this topic.

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

    Ok, so I’ll ask you a sensible question: what is your specific definition of politics?

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

    I still want to know what your definition of politics is, because this:

    I’m not talking about a political definition, more the raw human emotion of rejecting something for whatever reason they don’t like it

    is baffling to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    I agree with Velma’s definition. The problem is, she’s claiming it means something it doesnt

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

    What do you think politics is, exactly, that it can be so easily excised from... history, or whatever it is that humans do?

    I don't think there's any point in human history that doesn't have politics deeply ingrained. I don't even think history as a concept can exist without politics. Someone has to decide what to write down.

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

    Well I’m not conservative. Fuck the conservatives

    This is the first thing most conservatives say right before they start offering opinions on traditional gender roles, homophobia, transphobia, isolationism, nationalism, and a whole myriad of other things that tells us you need to read more broadly and stop listening to Joe Rogan.

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

    Yes but I’m not going to do so. Because I am genuinely not conservative.

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

    Maybe now is the time to explore why you feel so strongly about cancel culture and how people should separate art from the artist then.

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

    Mainly because in my country we have too much examples of stuff ‘cancelled’ because of the maker’s bad behaviour, that’s why I find it a semi interesting topic.

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

    the maker’s bad behaviour,

    Now I'm curious what your personal line is on how bad a maker has to be before the product is tainted for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Really not beating those accusations of being conservative, are ya?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I don’t care what other people think. I know what I am

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    You should try asking yourself how artists create art. Where did that art come from that you so badly want to disconnect from the artist's mind that produced it? What ideas is the artist expressing that you're choosing to ignore?

    What ideas did the artist also hold that are the reason the rest of human society decided that this artists art did not need to persist?

    For example - These are questions that anyone involved in anything "Lovecraftian" needs to answer for themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] [S] -5 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    I understand that, but it’s irrelevant. My point is: not all art is political. Just because some people say a particular piece is political, it doesn’t make it so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child 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
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    I just can't. I'll strive for immersion into some fantasy world and suddenly I'm wait? Wasn't that the actor who was accused of dismembering their spouse? And that's very distracting. Same for re-reading Harry Potter and always being on the lookout for some red flags. It just takes a good amount of fun out of it.

    And while being a liberal, there's some people who aren't on my side. I don't listen to right-wing metal. Why would I? And if someone cancels them, I'd give those people a round of applause. I mean I don't want to set the band members on fire. But they can do a different job?! Their art sucks.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    If you don't like right-wing music, don't listen to it. In the US, people have a right to make whatever art they want; you can't silence someone just because you don't like their message. If you think their art sucks, make some art you do like.

    The trouble with banning ideas is who gets to decide what's banned. If you do set up a system of laws that allows control over what music is made, what stops someone in the future from taking control of that system and abusing it?

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

    The trouble with banning ideas is who gets to decide what's banned

    I didn't see anyone besides you mention banning ideas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    Me? Or gastroglizzy? I didn't propose that either. My suggestion is to fight people who are trying to take away people's freedom. Not ban them. I mean I'm all for that music being available. I even read Hitler and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I mean with me reading the book. Of course everything about that man is wrong.

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

    I was responding to the person I quoted. I'm not claiming you said or did anything wrong

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Fair enough. Though I think banning ideas is the ultimate authoritarian fantasy. It might be a factor?! I don't really know. It's complicated in reality, as for example for identity politics or fascism, you'd also need clear enemies. So they kinda need the idea to be out there as well. I think that's for example why I hear MAGA and my country's variant of it talk about transgenders, bathrooms and gay people that much. It's not really an issue for anyone in the population. But they need it for their hate to work.

    And I think cancel culture is sometimes linked to authoritarian fantasies.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    The issue is: Protesting those asshats is an art form. People design wristbands and stickers. Write songs about it. Talk about it. Last festival I went to had an entire drone show with a political message... Why am now I the one who isn't allowed to practice or consume art, and them not being opposed is more important than me, my friends and the artists who did all the aforementioned works of art? Isn't that banning ideas as well? I would like to continue to oppose whomever I want?!

    I think you can't seriously fight cancel culture by applying cancel culture yourself. I mean you can do it, but I think it'd be quite nonsensical, since you'd then be doing the thing you're simultaneously opposed to.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Separating the art from the artist is usually meant for academic settings when discussing works from people who were flawed (I'm using very mild language) or who we see through a modern lens as problematic. It's how we can talk about the themes and IP that Lovecraft created despite him being a truly garbage human being in his life.

    I think we have collectively co-opted the phrase to try and engage with entertainment we like when the artist is problematic. I think that's generally okay if the artist is no longer alive or does not own the IP anymore.

    If an artist is alive and actively a shitty person, then it's not really possible to separate their art from them in my opinion (again, non-academically). Doing so can give money, clout, or other forms of power to further enable them. That's why we've been seeing "cancel culture" grow, because boycotting is one of the few ways to limit an artist's reach if they are using their art or status to hurt people.

    As an aside, depending on the artist's actions or reputation, it is genuinely seen as suspect to engage with their art outside of academia even if they are dead. This can be especially true if the art itself espouses dangerous or very hurtful ideas. A common example is stuff like Mein Kampf, which has been studied academically/historically in order to understand it. I think anyone would be wary of someone saying they are a fan of it though.

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

    Came here to say almost exactly this.

    Though, I do still consume some media made by people I dislike. I just torrent it :/ Some stuff, however, I will totally skip over, even beloved and deeply meaningful IP from my childhood, because it's just not worth it to me to engage in some media, even if the author isn't getting paid for, because of just how bad that author is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I think it’s (at least in part) instinctive: humans have probably been listening to storytellers for hundreds of thousands of years, and their stories shape our worldview and society. Rejecting the narratives of storytellers with destructive views would have had real survival value.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago

    There's the money but also by engaging with work from an artist, even if you don't pay, you are usually increasing their cultural cachet. This can be through things like engagement statistics (making them more likely to be recommended by algorithms, get more royalties, and be more likely to get further investments) or even just word of mouth. This can both help them financially and make their behaviour seem more acceptable in society (even when the issues are acknowledged).

    How this interacts with forgiveness and growth is tricky because we need that for people to not reject the part of society that is critical of them but earning back trust on such a large scale is very difficult. I don't think there's one solution but it is good to be aware of the problems.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›