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?
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.”
Well, you know what they (should) say: a shit by any other name would smell as foul
Art is political.
Not always, not necessarily
There is also lots of popcorn stuff where a problematic artist may work on. Take movies, I hate tom cruise the person, but I love his movies. I’m not spending money on his movies, arr, I wouldn’t, but the movies are a good watch
I’ve always hated that argument that “all art is political, because the existence of the art, the freedom to create it, the ability to share it, etc is all political”, because it fails to acknowledge anything specific about the artwork in question being political. By the same logic literally anything existing is political because its ability to exist, or to be destroyed is political. But some random rock 78 miles off the shores of California in the Pacific isn’t going to be meaningfully political in any way that matters to almost anyone ever. Therefore I think it’s fine to consider some things (such as some works of art) not meaningfully political, also often just called “not political”.
I think some silly pieces of art can be reasonably interpreted as political in some regards (drawing dicks around potholes), but sometimes it’s just there because someone thought it would be funny/look nice/was a mistake.
Spoken like someone whose freedom of expression and creativity has never been criminalized.
Oh don’t start…
It is though. Pretending it isn’t is also a choice with a political motive. You don’t necessarily have to act on every feeling it gives you though, which is kind of freeing once you learn to enjoy art like that
What about caveman hand paintings? Are they not art? What politics did they hold?
Not all art is political, and that’s just a fact. Yes, some art is political — I don’t disagree with that. I’m just saying, not all art is. Just because people (politicians) try to twist it into something political doesn’t always make it so.
What about caveman hand paintings? Are they not art? What politics did they hold?
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’?
The term “politics” originates from the Greek politiká, meaning “affairs of the city” (polis). Aristotle, in his work Politics, conceptualizes politics as the activity that seeks the common good within the community.
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
Since Velma was quick and already pretty well defined what we know about cave paintings, I’d actually like to add on to your question since this is one of my favorite topics.
There’s a lot of art out there that was created because artists set out to create something that isn’t specifically political. That’s a little harder to escape politics on because the artists had a motive in mind when they wanted to pursue that goal. Something of note though that was in popular discourse around four years ago though was Zombie Formalism which was shown to be created as a genre of painting used as fiat currency for the wealthiest people to exchange and launder money. While that context is pretty political, if you only look at the intent of the artists they were trying to make art that said as little as possible in order to not draw any attention and be an effective form of untaxed currency. That could be a plausible bet, depending on how you personally invoke Death of the Author
Zombie Formalism which was shown to be created as a genre of painting used as fiat currency for the wealthiest people to exchange and launder money.
This was a good read, thank you for linking it!
My pleasure, thanks for bearing with me through all the typos in that reply
All art is political, because it depends on the politics of the society it was created.
First we need to agree on a definition of political, in general I think a good definition is “dealing with the structure, organization, and administration of the state”.
So, a cave painting, just like any art that shows you how people live in a society is exposing the structure, organization and possibly administration of the state, which is the very definition of politics.
Here’s the thing, any art is either based on reality or fictitious. Art based on reality like portraits or biographies are political because they show you the society as it is. On the other hand fictitious art shows you failures or limitations of the society they were written in, or sometimes they offer metaphors to draw parallels or point at stuff in the society they were written.
If you think art is not political I ask you to find me some piece of art that does not deal with the structure, organization or administration of the state.
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
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.
My personal opinion, it’s about not wanting to support evil. I really want to watch the Harry Potter series and listen to the full cast audiobook, but I don’t want to give money to Rowling to fund things that hurt transgender people. If it weren’t for that, I’d watch the series. I still love Harry Potter
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.
I won’t go hungry without creative works, I always have a choice whether to engage with them. I consume them in order to feel an emotion. Those emotions can change and become tainted by controversies or the actions of the people involved, but not always. Because my relationship to the art is and always was about how I feel, if I don’t like the feelings it gives me I get rid of it.
Don’t forget that Hitler was a painter. Have you been enjoying any of his pieces lately?
Because you cannot have art without the artist.
Art isn’t some product. A thing. An item for a consumer. It is something that is created from the inspiration of a person, and that person’s experiences and world views directly effect their inspiration.
The artist is inside the works of art they create. So trying to separate the art from the artist means you’re not appreciating the art. Just the “thing” that it is.
For me it’s like this: some art I really like, and if there is no good alternative I will still enjoy it even if the artist may be a criminal or promoting hate. If I can avoid the art somehow, then I’ll do that.
Ignore what everyone else says. They’re applying their own moral judgements to what is ultimately your own personal decision.
Whenever someone posts this they’re usually feeling guilty for enjoying the Harry Potter series. Personally, I can’t enjoy Harry Potter anymore because the author is transphobic and awful. It makes me sad to watch it anymore because of that. If I found out later that something I enjoyed is also made by an author I dislike, I similarly stop enjoying it.
You might think that’s silly, but think of it like Nestle. You can enjoy their chocolate, it’s genuinely good chocolate. But they’re one of the most evil companies on the planet. It’s your personal decision, nobody else’s, whether you’re willing to ignore that, and still eat their chocolate and support their business practices. It’s a psychological phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance.
As for dead people… it’s more nuanced. If it’s from 100+ years ago; basically everyone was racist etc back then, so it’s more a sign of the times changing. If they died yesterday, that doesn’t fly.
So my moral framework can be summarised as:
- I don’t like financially supporting evil
- I don’t like culturally supporting evil subtexts or evil authors
- Historical works get a pass
You’ll need to find your own moral framework, something you can work on and stand by with pride. Don’t just copy others’.
I think a big part of the “rise of cancel culture” has to do with the Internet and how fast information can spread. Like if a director is a huge asshole to the crew and makes the actors stay on set for 18 hour days re-doing a scene for thousands of times without breaks, in the past no one outside of the cast and crew would have really known about that, maybe there’d be some rumors getting spread by tabloids. But now, you’d get a 4k smartphone camera video of the director flipping out and screaming at a gaffer for 15 minutes straight because a light is 0.001mm out of place. Or before all you knew about a musical artist was what they put in their songs and their sanitized personality for an interview, but with social media they can put their entire stream of consciousness on display for the world. It’s kinda weird when all of someone’s songs are about partying and having a good time, but on an average Tuesday the same person tweets out 174 times saying a certain group of people don’t have the right to even exist. I don’t need to agree with someone 100% to support their art, but there is definitely a point where they cross a line and I just can no longer justify supporting them. I know my choice to not watch a movie or listen to an artist is a drop missing from an ocean, but at least I get some piece of mind that I’m not supporting those actions/views. And even if the person is dead, it still matters who we idolize and who we vilify. If some celebrity is only talked about positively and everyone loves them but they married a 16 year old when they were 38, that might lead some people to believe that a relationship like that isn’t so problematic.
Any celebrity is still a person who has their own thoughts, opinions, and flaws. I don’t believe anyone should be put on a pedestal have their misdeeds be forgotten because they made a good painting, song, or movie. Art is an extension of a person who shaped that art with their thoughts, opinions, and flaws. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say, “Even though I like this art, I think the person who made it is an asshole and I am taking my time/energy/money elsewhere.” But that’s just how I feel. I may not agree with this thought process, but I also don’t think it’s unreasonable to say, “I don’t care who made this art or what their thoughts and opinions are, I like this art and I want to support it.” You do you
I think it’s more complicated than yes or no to separating the two. Sometimes I cannot, sometimes I don’t want to, other times I don’t but still somewhat enjoy the work of the dubious artist. Michael Jackson was probably a child molester. I don’t listen to tons of his work but I also don’t shun it. When I hear it, it makes me think about people being complicated. I don’t know for sure he fucked kids, but he probably did. He was also creative. Will I be defending him? No.
With JK Rowling, I didn’t like Harry Potter from the beginning, so yeah now that I know she’s a hateful bigot I won’t be giving it another chance. Picasso, apparently was a piece of shit. His artworks still impress me. I literally think about him being a shitty person while enjoying the art. Not everything is simple or black and white. I don’t think anyone (at least on the left) is defending what Picasso did nor should they. He was abusive and misogynist. I don’t celebrate him and rarely think about him. When I see his stuff in an art museum I think about the full spectrum of his life. I don’t see anything wrong with that at all. In fact it for me provides another glimpse into people being complicated. Somebody out there has probably cured a disease and also murdered someone. It would be interesting to learn about that rather than simply dismiss them as evil and get angry if they are brought up. There almost certainly has been a somewhat famous artist who was secretly a serial killer, just statistically.
I know making this comment that someone will tell me I’m excusing someone’s bad behavior but I’m not. My house doesn’t have any Picasso displayed. I don’t knowingly celebrate any bad actors or demonize their artwork unless the artwork itself is full of bad ideas. Either the art sucks or it doesn’t. If you like artwork that you find out was made by a shitty person, I don’t think you have to start hating the art immediately. But on the other hand if you remain really into that artwork, it’s a weird look. There’s nuance in this topic and I think prescribing how people should think about it is not a good thing to do.
For me it depends on the consequences of consuming the art today.
PDF Michael Jackson made incredible and catchy music, but listening to his music (streaming service) puts money into the hands of people who were in close association with him. Those likely knew about his pedophilic nature, and still didn’t intervene.
Having a painting of hitler would be ok, a bit questionable, but ok, because nobody profits off that anymore. (This is lemmy so I will add more context: the aspect that if hitler would have been accepted in the art school he could have gone through a different career, away from politics is kind of interesting.)
Our society shifted. Before it was more socially acceptable to be able to ignore these things, and they were more hidden. Now people judge you for it.
