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.
post
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh I completely agree. Cancel culture has existed ever since the days of Herostratus, maybe earlier, it just wasn’t called that by name
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."
Why are conservatives always so upset at the consequences of a free market?
No idea, why is that?
the first six words of your post might have said more than you meant to.
Huh?
Edit: oh, ok nvm. Well I’m not conservative. Fuck the conservatives
if that's true, you might want to interrogate why you so readily buy into their framing.
Are you talking in terms of a legal/political definition of cancel culture I presume, because I wasn’t.
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.
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.
Everything is about politics.
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
"Cancel culture" is not able to be parted from politics.
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’
more the raw human emotion of rejecting something for whatever reason they don’t like it
That's politics.
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
seems like you're not really sure what you're arguing.
Who are you again?
They're a participant in this conversation. What's it to you?
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?
Then talk about that instead of trying to shame someone out of conversing with you on this topic.
Ok, so I’ll ask you a sensible question: what is your specific definition of politics?
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.
I agree with Velma’s definition. The problem is, she’s claiming it means something it doesnt
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.
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.
Yes but I’m not going to do so. Because I am genuinely not conservative.
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.
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.
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.
I’m sure you are
Really not beating those accusations of being conservative, are ya?
I don’t care what other people think. I know what I am
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.
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.
I understand that, but it’s irrelevant.
then you don't understand it.
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.
You don’t know my life, my hardships etc. don’t pretend you do.
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.
lol, you don’t know my personality, you don’t get to judge that level
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 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 :)
Thanks. We may not fully agree (and I think, to be fair I was too hung up on the mass media definition of politics as ‘political party’ type definitions) but I would hope we both got something out of this
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)?
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.
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.
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?
The trouble with banning ideas is who gets to decide what's banned
I didn't see anyone besides you mention banning ideas.
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.
I was responding to the person I quoted. I'm not claiming you said or did anything wrong
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
top 100 comments