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
[–] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The existence of art is political. The ability to create art is political. The freedom to create art and have a voice is political.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Explain how

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Art is one way we relate to or communicate with each other. It is inherently political.

    Hannah Arendt, in her work The Human Condition, redefines politics as the space of appearance where individuals, through action and speech, reveal their identity and participate in the construction of the common world. For Arendt, politics is not merely an institutional activity but the manifestation of human plurality and the capacity to initiate something new.​

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •