6
Why don’t we separate the art from the artist? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 week ago* by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
166 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 1 week ago* (8 children)

Just because they are dead, doesn’t mean someone isn’t profiting off it. Anything popular within the past 100 years has some sort of estate or corporation associated with it that will gladly profit off of someone else’s legacy, no matter how deplorable they may be.

Once things enter the public domain, it’s easier to make that seperation but art often reflects the opinions, thoughts and feeling of the creator so even in death it can be difficult to separate fully.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago

    You're painting with mighty broad strokes. Bob Ross is unquestionably a good person, but his estate is owned by people who lied to him and stole it from him; you shouldn't buy anything with his name on it. Conversely, everyone loves Disney stuff but he was an anti-semite and arguably a nazi sympathizer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 1 week ago* (6 children)

    Just because they are dead, doesn’t mean someone isn’t profiting off it.

    If the art itself isn't bad and the bad person that profited off of it is dead, why does it matter if someone else (presumably not bad) would profit off of it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    why does it matter if someone else (presumably not bad) would profit off of it?

    I don't think that's a fair assumption. The people with the kind of money able to buy the rights to art tend to be the rich.

    And you don't get rich by being good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago* (4 children)

    But that applies to dead artist that have been good people as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    I think that's slightly different, as artists that were good people typically means there message is good.

    Esentially:

    Artist Alive Message Ownership
    Bad Dead Bad Bad
    Bad Alive Bad Bad
    Good Dead Good Bad
    Good Alive Good Good

    The bad/evil artists are clearly going to be the worst of these options. There messaging will typically match (ex: Ed Sheeran's neutrality on genocide).

    But for artists who are good people we should generally expect the opposite. The ownership may be in the hands of bad people because they're dead, but the message will likely be better than the alternative, which is a point of distinction.

    Also I think it's worth noting that artists that are good people would be more likely to have their estate go to a good cause.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    I think that’s slightly different, as artists that were good people typically means there message is good.

    Well if the evil is part of the art itself, then there is no need to separate the art from the artists in the first place, so I'd drop the entire "message" column. The question really only makes sense when they are unrelated.

    But alright, you only support artists you like while they are alive. That's fair enough.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent