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?

    • velma@sh.itjust.works
      10·
      6 days ago

      Even the very fundamental beginnings of the term “politics” is rooted in how we relate to each other.

      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?

      • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
        1·
        6 days ago

        Ok, fine.

        Aristotle, in his work Politics, conceptualizes politics as the activity that seeks the common good within the community.

        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?

        • velma@sh.itjust.works
          8·
          6 days ago

          find ‘the common good’ in people with no polarisation?

          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.

          • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
            13·
            6 days ago

            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?

                • velma@sh.itjust.works
                  5·
                  6 days ago

                  Why would I continue to waste time engaging in a respectful and interesting conversation with you when you’re insistent on redefining my own comments and others’ definitions solely so it fits within your own defined idea of politics? You’re not engaging in good faith.

                  • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
                    15·
                    6 days ago

                    I’m asking you a simple question. If you can’t explain it, fine, but don’t pretend you know what you’re talking about.

                    All art is political. That doesn’t mean it is created with the purpose of being political

                    That’s bullshit. Not all art was made for the purpose you define as political, and not all art achieves that aim either

                • zbyte64@awful.systems
                  1·
                  4 days ago

                  I mean even defining what is the “common good” is political and that is the point of the exercise. If art exists that is deemed bad for society then we tend to ban it. For example, there are people who define CSAM as art, but the cost to society is so great we don’t allow even the possession of such material.