Read on Twitter
You can’t separate art from the artist unless you think of art as contextless product - it isn’t.
You might want to separate the two, but it’s clear when you want to do that because you want to enjoy stuff without caring what harm went into its production.
You might want to separate the two, but it’s clear when you want to do that because you want to enjoy stuff without caring what harm went into its production.
Like we literally study art history so we have context for why art is art.
Anyone who has ever created art invested their own experience into it. And if that persons experience is being a bigot well...
Anyone who has ever created art invested their own experience into it. And if that persons experience is being a bigot well...
I’m trying to imagine art without context and at best it’s reproduction.
Also anyone who wants to read their favourite bigot author without context so they don’t have to listen to critique are doing art a disservice.
Because part of art is critique.
Also anyone who wants to read their favourite bigot author without context so they don’t have to listen to critique are doing art a disservice.
Because part of art is critique.
I’m guessing this ‘separate art from artist’ is also used to delegitimise own voices in writing which is more interesting dishonesty.
It’s also sort of a stealthy way to appropriate art - since theft is context.
It’s also sort of a stealthy way to appropriate art - since theft is context.
If the context is that theft destroys the livelihoods of people producing art then there is no more art.
So yes, the context of the artist matters.
If the financial freedom of the artist matters then art is often controlled by the wealthy.
So who can produce it matters.
So yes, the context of the artist matters.
If the financial freedom of the artist matters then art is often controlled by the wealthy.
So who can produce it matters.
