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
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.
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.
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.
Why are conservatives always so upset at the consequences of a free market?
No idea, why is that?
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
“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.
If the artist gives 25% of their income to fund the orphan crushing machine, I’m incentivized to give them 0% of mine.
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.
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.
Hmmm… ngl I feel like you overcomplicated that a little. You had me, then you lost me at excrement
The metaphor’s not that deep. Sometimes people cause actual harm. Sometimes they’re “only” what we colourfully name after the part of the anatomy that’s largely responsible for excrement.
People might disagree on where a particular artist falls, but either way, their work is tainted by it.
