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?
Well take JKR, for example. You consume Harry Potter content and a portion of the royalties go to her. She then funds anti-trans movements like For Woman Scotland.
Thus, if you consume Harry Potter content you’re supporting anti-trans causes. Personally I can’t have that on my conscience.
Not if you don’t pay for it
i just find it hard to watch louis c.k. without thinking about him jerking off in front of his employees. it makes him less fun to watch i guess.
doesn’t help that alot of his comedy is also about jerking off
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
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.
If they use their money to do evil shit, like funding wars against queer people, then giving them money actively supports funding wars against queer people. That makes sense.
What doesn’t make sense is throwing away/destroying decades old media becsuse it was discovered last week that the artist who made it was, in fact, a piece of shit. That’s not hurting them nor is it sending a message. Just don’t buy any new shit from 'em.
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.
Art is interpretive. Therefore it can be interpreted as political.
Spoken like someone whose freedom of expression and creativity has never been criminalized.
my hope of hopes is that you realized while typing this out, maybe you shouldn’t be supporting tom cruise anymore.
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
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.
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
For me the art pays the artist. So i enjoy my right to exercise my small but still there economic power. The artist also use their image to heavily market the art so for me they are intertwined. It did get ok for a while for actors, we understand they play a role, however if the make decisions that entangle themself in unacceptable behavior then bad luck. You don’t get to only play and profit from the hero whilst acting like a arsehole.
Ok, but what about dead actors/artists? If they get ‘cancelled’ after death, why then do we cancel their art also despite that they don’t get paid and the art has nothing to do with whatever controversy they suffered, what’s the deal with that?
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.
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.
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?
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.
But that applies to dead artist that have been good people as well.
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.
May I ask why you think it’s bad to own art with a good message from a good artist, who is dead?
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.
Whilst it logically shouldn’t i still associate. I think of it because art is based on emotion. the artists sell the product to me on my emotion, on my moods, on my ideology. They are a brand and they market to me. So when it gets tough on their side i cant just disassociate and say oh yeh the show or the song is just their job because they sold at to me at a personal and emotive level. So i respond back as such.
Interesting. Thanks for your perspective. I presume you are an artist of sorts?
I will also add that i think we as a community have been conditioned in recent years to easily forgive or not speak up when bad behavior occurs. We are made to feel like we should be extra tolerant, and overly pacifist. I believe that respect and love is the way forward…but not at the expense of accepting greedy and horrible within our communities. Shame has a place in society and we should be allowed to call for it.
No.
And I don’t mean this in a rude way but you ask a lot of divisive questions. When its a new users I always feel like this is a training, fishing or farming exercise, however I understand wanting to be critical in your thinking.
I wouldn’t say I ask divisive questions, though I do think I post too often. I shall have to scale back
No, keep posting, its more me questioning if you are some kinda bot really. We need posters and we need critical thinkers.
Nope, not a bot. Definitely not a bot (do you get a lot of bots here or something?)
I can. After the artist has been dead for 50 years.
Why are conservatives always so upset at the consequences of a free market?
No idea, why is that?
the first six words of your post might have said more than you meant to.
Huh?
Edit: oh, ok nvm. Well I’m not conservative. Fuck the conservatives
if that’s true, you might want to interrogate why you so readily buy into their framing.
Are you talking in terms of a legal/political definition of cancel culture I presume, because I wasn’t.
yea, this combined with “Oh don’t start…” further down the thread, I’m all set. you’ve got that “just asking questions here!” vibe that got old like fifteen years ago.
That’s because I didn’t want people to bring politics into this, because the post wasn’t about politics. I’d appreciate it if people could stop behaving like the media and trying to turn everything about politics. That is all. Thank you.
Well I’m not conservative. Fuck the conservatives
This is the first thing most conservatives say right before they start offering opinions on traditional gender roles, homophobia, transphobia, isolationism, nationalism, and a whole myriad of other things that tells us you need to read more broadly and stop listening to Joe Rogan.
Yes but I’m not going to do so. Because I am genuinely not conservative.
Maybe now is the time to explore why you feel so strongly about cancel culture and how people should separate art from the artist then.
Mainly because in my country we have too much examples of stuff ‘cancelled’ because of the maker’s bad behaviour, that’s why I find it a semi interesting topic.
You should try asking yourself how artists create art. Where did that art come from that you so badly want to disconnect from the artist’s mind that produced it? What ideas is the artist expressing that you’re choosing to ignore?
What ideas did the artist also hold that are the reason the rest of human society decided that this artists art did not need to persist?
For example - These are questions that anyone involved in anything “Lovecraftian” needs to answer for themselves.
I understand that, but it’s irrelevant. My point is: not all art is political. Just because some people say a particular piece is political, it doesn’t make it so.
My point is: not all art is political.
Everything is political. You have just lived such a privileged life that you haven’t been required to see why.
You have “just gotten” things throughout your life that others have had to fight for. And you now take it for granted that everyone has your same experience. Not everyone is so privileged because the people who operate the systems that benefit you, are taking far too much from others in order for you to have those privileges.
As soon as you start seeing the things that others are forced to do that you’ve never had to confront, then you will understand why everything is political. Then you will understand what a disservice you’re doing to your fellow man by not doing your part to ensure everyone else gets the privileges you already take for granted.
You don’t know my life, my hardships etc. don’t pretend you do.
You don’t know my life, my hardships etc. don’t pretend you do.
You thinking that’s what I’m doing is why I’m saying what I’m saying.
You haven’t yet matured to the point where you understand not everything everyone else says and does is about you. Other people live rich, detailed lives that are completely unlike your own and you will never understand the huge varieties of ways the world works until you get outside your own tiny, self-centered universe.
lol, you don’t know my personality, you don’t get to judge that level
You’re putting enough on display for us to know.
Can I ask you 1 final question?
I understand that, but it’s irrelevant.
then you don’t understand it.
There’s so much art, its so accessible with the internet, why am I going to waste time enjoying stuff made by pieces of shit? I want them forgotton. I can enjoy art made by good people instead.
There’s a term I’m drawing a blank on just now that refers to one’s tendency/ability to think of things as separable. It’s something like high vs. low segmentation/delineation/compartmentalisation/discretion individuals. For some people, different aspects of a person/concept/etc. can be more readily separated in their consideration. For others, the associations are too strong to be ignored.
Some people have low (word I am having trouble remembering). These are people who cannot or have difficulty in separating different elements of consideration. These are people who say the only way to understand, say, The Lord of the Rings is to understand Tolkien, or that one cannot separate the mysogyny of Tomas from the music of Nightwish. They are also the kind of person who, if they met Ted Bundy in the office, would then have great difficulty reconciling that friendly experience with new information saying he was a murderer.
Some people are high (word). They split concepts frequently and easily. These are people who can look at things which are connected by being parts of the same whole but consider each part separately, like say, looking at the beliefs of Ted Kaczynski and saying he was right about this one technology but wrong about bombing as the optimal solution, or that it’s wrong to murder but eating the dead is fine. These are also the kind of people who are more capable of meeting someone, being their friend for years, trusting them, but still having the cognitive distance to see the evidence in front of them and realise their friend is abusing his daughter, even if that doesn’t comport with how they have previously seen that friend.
Each way of thinking is as alien to the opposing end of the spectrum as introverts vs extroverts or the religious vs materialists.
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
“Separate art from artist” is one of those vague phrases that can mean very different things depending on context.
From a media analysis perspective, it can mean to simply evaluate the work on its own without considering who made it or authorial intent. Another way of saying Death of the Author. This is a valid lens of media analysis, but it should not be the only lens.
More often though it gets used as a way of saying “I’m just going to pretend any controversies surrounding the author don’t exist and enjoy it anyway.” Now I’m not going to tell anyone they can’t enjoy anything by problematic creators, because I certainly have my share of such works I still enjoy. I’m not pure and I think anyone who claims to be is lying.
But I still think it is necessary to acknowledge and engage with those controversies - especially when it comes to financially supporting such creators or boosting their platform. You have to decide for yourself where to draw the line, but you should make that decision without plugging your ears and sticking your head in the sand.
The worst way of using this phrase though, is when people use it to mean “You should pretend any controversies surrounding the author don’t exist, stop bringing it up, don’t even talk about it. I don’t want to do any introspection about it, so it makes me feel insecure when anyone else does.” When people try to use it as a conversation stopper in response to controversy, that’s complete bullshit.
Consider H.P. Lovecraft. Lovecraft was a hugely influential writer who spawned an entire subgenre of horror. He was also a horrible racist, and that puts his body of work in a different light when you recognize how much of it is ultimately about fear of Other.
As far as media analysis goes, it’s not like his work is inherently racist. Just because he was a bigot doesn’t mean his writing is. But his bigotry certainly did influence his writing, and it’s necessary to understand this to truly understand Lovecraft. Lovecraft is tied to his work in a way that can’t fully be separated.
From a financial perspective, Lovecraft is long dead, and all of his work has passed into the public domain. Reading his work won’t fuel further bigotry, and so I don’t think it’s something anyone has to feel bad about.
I just can’t. I’ll strive for immersion into some fantasy world and suddenly I’m wait? Wasn’t that the actor who was accused of dismembering their spouse? And that’s very distracting. Same for re-reading Harry Potter and always being on the lookout for some red flags. It just takes a good amount of fun out of it.
And while being a liberal, there’s some people who aren’t on my side. I don’t listen to right-wing metal. Why would I? And if someone cancels them, I’d give those people a round of applause. I mean I don’t want to set the band members on fire. But they can do a different job?! Their art sucks.
If you don’t like right-wing music, don’t listen to it. In the US, people have a right to make whatever art they want; you can’t silence someone just because you don’t like their message. If you think their art sucks, make some art you do like.
The trouble with banning ideas is who gets to decide what’s banned. If you do set up a system of laws that allows control over what music is made, what stops someone in the future from taking control of that system and abusing it?
The trouble with banning ideas is who gets to decide what’s banned
I didn’t see anyone besides you mention banning ideas.
Me? Or gastroglizzy? I didn’t propose that either. My suggestion is to fight people who are trying to take away people’s freedom. Not ban them. I mean I’m all for that music being available. I even read Hitler and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I mean with me reading the book. Of course everything about that man is wrong.
I was responding to the person I quoted. I’m not claiming you said or did anything wrong
Fair enough. Though I think banning ideas is the ultimate authoritarian fantasy. It might be a factor?! I don’t really know. It’s complicated in reality, as for example for identity politics or fascism, you’d also need clear enemies. So they kinda need the idea to be out there as well. I think that’s for example why I hear MAGA and my country’s variant of it talk about transgenders, bathrooms and gay people that much. It’s not really an issue for anyone in the population. But they need it for their hate to work.
And I think cancel culture is sometimes linked to authoritarian fantasies.
The issue is: Protesting those asshats is an art form. People design wristbands and stickers. Write songs about it. Talk about it. Last festival I went to had an entire drone show with a political message… Why am now I the one who isn’t allowed to practice or consume art, and them not being opposed is more important than me, my friends and the artists who did all the aforementioned works of art? Isn’t that banning ideas as well? I would like to continue to oppose whomever I want?!
I think you can’t seriously fight cancel culture by applying cancel culture yourself. I mean you can do it, but I think it’d be quite nonsensical, since you’d then be doing the thing you’re simultaneously opposed to.
There’s the money but also by engaging with work from an artist, even if you don’t pay, you are usually increasing their cultural cachet. This can be through things like engagement statistics (making them more likely to be recommended by algorithms, get more royalties, and be more likely to get further investments) or even just word of mouth. This can both help them financially and make their behaviour seem more acceptable in society (even when the issues are acknowledged).
How this interacts with forgiveness and growth is tricky because we need that for people to not reject the part of society that is critical of them but earning back trust on such a large scale is very difficult. I don’t think there’s one solution but it is good to be aware of the problems.