|
|
|
|
|
|
by watwut
978 days ago
|
|
|
Saying he did X is not the same as cancelation. Also, if actual art piece is related to the real world acts, it is entirely fair to talk about it. Just like when we talk about political purposes of art. There is also difference between "not mentioning person existed" and refusal to celebrate that person as hero or moral founder. Or just, putting contemporary complains about historical character into context. The "do not mention this person" is quite rare, actually. What people object about regarding cancelation is adding shade of grade to the person story or refusal to celebrate them. |
|
|
Cinema students are literally asking teachers not to include Woody Allen in their syllabus. I don't know if everywhere, but I'm telling you of a second hand account of someone I know who witnessed this. And it's not the only example.
> There is also difference between "not mentioning person existed" and refusal to celebrate that person as hero or moral founder.
This brings us back to the initial comment I posted in this thread: why celebrate a public figure as a hero or moral founder? People seem to want to do this. Everyone must be either a hero or a villain; and a hero who falls from grace and turns into a villain in the public eye is doubly reviled!
It's fascinating but also irritating how we are so eager to create gods and then destroy them.