this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2025
27 points (84.6% liked)

Asklemmy

49942 readers
1168 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I would say it's not possible. The art IS the artist. The art only is what it is because the artist is who they are. But a lot of people seem to be very comfortable with the idea of separating the art from the artist. What say Lemmy?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Kennystillalive@feddit.org 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Depends what the artist did and when they did it as well as the conection to the art.

The internet really likes to forget that people and their believes change over time. You don't have the same believes you had at 14 when you are 30 or 40.

So you could be a biggot and racist as a teen because you grew up in a home in which this was normal. Mybe you later get to know people you had prejudiced against before and are now in your 30's/40s an ally.

You could also be chill growing up and than for some reasons, fall pray to the right wing propaganda machine and become an anti-woke poopy-head.

So in my opinion, the time when the art was created plays a huge impact on how I see it and if I can separate it from the artist.