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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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 very much do. Mostly accidentally by simply not knowing/caring what shitty thing they might have done. But even when I know, I can still enjoy the art.

Oh I completely agree. Cancel culture has existed ever since the days of Herostratus, maybe earlier, it just wasn’t called that by name

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.

Funny how it bothers some people, and others simply don’t care, considering the rise of cancel culture in the past couple of decades.

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 wouldn’t say I ask divisive questions, though I do think I post too often. I shall have to scale back

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.

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.

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."

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?

No, keep posting, its more me questioning if you are some kinda bot really. We need posters and we need critical thinkers.

In this day and age its becoming a critical skill.

Well, you know what they (should) say: a shit by any other name would smell as foul

Nope, not a bot. Definitely not a bot (do you get a lot of bots here or something?)

We get a lot of provocateurs...I am no saint on that matter either, so i will be quiet now.

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.

I feel I do to some degree. Thing is if a thing is good but not great then I might avoid it do to the artist and a lot of things don't make it to great.

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

For living people, money is definitely a big factor.

For both dead and living though, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The emotional connection becomes a lot more difficult once I know that the creator did something heinous. This especially goes for music and books, since it's more intimately connected to the creator(s). For things like movies and games though, due to the way larger crew, it's easier to do so (given it's not auteur driven).

But also, just giving it attention is a form of currency. It kind of gives legitimacy to the person, especially over longer periods where the bad stuff gets forgotten.

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.

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

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

Esentially:

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.

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.)

An item covered in the blood of the innocent is still an item covered in the blood of the innocent even if the person who smeared the blood of the innocent all over it is now dead.

Even if you substitute the largely victimless "excrement" for "the blood of the innocent", many, if not most, people are still going to find the stench and the filth impossible to ignore.

You can attempt to reclaim, repurpose, wash or paint over or whatever you like to diminish the effects, but it'll still be there, lurking, giving off unpleasantness on a hot day, whatever that means in terms of the metaphor. Heated discussion, when people learn about the originator, perhaps.

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

Hmmm… ngl I feel like you overcomplicated that a little. You had me, then you lost me at excrement

There is a varying level of separation dependent on whether the artist is still alive, their contribution to the work, their prominence in how it is presented, and personal emotion about what wss done.

Kevin Spacey was in a lot of great movies and those where he is the lead role are off putting to me. Especially if there are any kind of sexual related themes that are sketchy, like in American Beauty. His relationship with a minor is too close to his actual crimes and that is too much for me. But him voicing a robot in Moon doesn't ruin the movie for me, although I wish they made an alternate cut with someone else's voice.

Lovecraft being dead and his works being in the public domain means he is separated from his works because he gains no benefits and his works don't promote racism. Hitler can't be separated from mein kampf because it promotes horrible ides of the author.

Other people will have their own lines or none at all if they separate everything.

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.

May I ask why you think it’s bad to own art with a good message from a good artist, who is dead?

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.

I don't think it's inherently bad, just that it has a tendency to be owned by the rich, who are inherently bad.

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.

We can't. We never could, and never will. Art is inextricable from the context that created it, which includes the artist(s), the time, the place, the culture and acquaintances and ideas that are all woven into the fabric of the work.

When we say "separate the art from the artist" we mean we elect to ignore a part of the art that makes us uncomfortable, but ignoring a thing neither makes it not so nor prevents it from influencing us. Art has ideas and subideas the same way a musical note has overtones, but on a million different ontological dimensions. The artist is only aware of some of these; the others are assumptions, biases, cultural and personal blindnesses, prejudices, coincidences, and bursts of artistic genius.

Side note: you don't have a one-way relationship with art. If you think you can experience art without that art changing you in some way, you are merely blind to its influence. Art changes you. Not always in big ways, and not always for the better. Your options are to either acknowledge and explore the nature of that change, or not. Even refusing to engage with a work of art is an acknowledgement of that work's influence on you.

Back to the main note: even though it's impossible to really separate art from its context (like where it came from), ignoring the context does flatten the appearance of the art and make some of the ideological overtones of the art invisible. We do this for all kinds of reasons: art as unchallenging entertainment is easier to consume passively, so ignoring the challenging parts of it feels good. Like enjoying the rhythm and melody of a pop song without dealing with the misogynistic lyrics, or the political affiliations of the artists. Thinking about those things is hard. Not thinking about them is easy, and it gets easier with practice. Practice ignoring the uncomfortable parts of art long enough and it becomes habitual. Eventually you ignore them without even thinking about them.

They don't stop affecting you, though. Those overtones seep into your brain and influence your thinking in ways you will never be aware of, because you have lost the ability to detect them. It happens gradually. After ten thousand subliminal messages, you'll hold beliefs you neither understand nor can even fully articulate, and you won't know how to change them. It's possible, but it takes almost as long to undo as it takes to do, because they're hard to find.

Second side note: Propagandists are well aware of this property of art, which is why propaganda works, more or less, even when the audience "knows" its propaganda. It's a quantity over quality thing: the overtones slip though unobserved even if you are aware of the main gist of the piece.

That's why you don't separate the art from the artist. You can't, and pretending to do so denies what art does, much to your detriment.

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?

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.

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.

Art is political.

Oh don’t start…

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.

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.

The trouble with banning ideas is who gets to decide what's banned

I didn't see anyone besides you mention banning ideas.