[dimask]

I like the following quote from an old greek rock singer, from those old times that musicians produced music in the form of actual material work (vinyls, cds etc) and deleting content was not a thing as it is now:

> [...] a work, when it leaves the hands of its creator, acquires its own personality, its own identity, according to which its course is drawn and it is the irrevocable right of the work to follow an autonomous way which, in the name of any paternity, you have no right to stop, otherwise the state has the same right in the form of censorship.

[janalsncm]

Artists may not have a right to have their works forgotten (whether they actually do or don’t is a legal one) but I believe what GP was getting at is whether it’s respectful or moral to listen to art the artist wants to disassociate from.

[pavel_lishin]

It doesn't feel any less moral than someone dictating what art I should or shouldn't enjoy. Yes, there's a greater weight placed on someone's opinion if they're the ones that made the art, but in the end, if I buy a CD of music or a print of an artwork, it would be a ludicrous proposition that the artist should demand that I stop listening to it or looking at it.

[GauntletWizard]

Yes, I would definitely give more credence to the artist who produced it saying "This work was trite crap, and I disassociate myself from it" than from a music critic saying "this work was trite crap, and you shouldn't waste any more brainpower on it", but either is very marginal- sometimes any art that is very much a product of it's time has reason for a second life, possibly a Renaissance; history doesn't repeat but it has a tendency to rhyme.