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?
They were to tell stories and communicate ideas of community, shared identity, and warnings. They were political.
May I ask, what’s your specific definition of ‘politics’?
Even the very fundamental beginnings of the term “politics” is rooted in how we relate to each other.
No, I said what’s your definition, not the one you’ve just pulled off google
Here is my personal comment on it. Do you think I would pull a definition of politics that I don’t agree with to bolster my point of view here?
Ok, fine.
So would you argue that every single piece of art seeks to find ‘the common good’ in people with no polarisation? Are you really telling me that by your agreed definition, all art is created with this purpose?
You’re expanding on the original definition that you pulled to make it seem like Aristotle would agree with you here.
All art is political. That doesn’t mean it is created with the purpose of being political.
Hang on, you’re saying ‘common good’ isn’t aiming for all people to be united? What’s your definition then? Some but not all?
You’re putting words in my mouth like you did to Aristotle.