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?
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.