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?
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.