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
    3·
    4 days ago

    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 :)

    • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
      4·
      4 days ago

      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

    • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
      3·
      4 days ago

      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)?

      • velma@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        4 days 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.