Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should Art Made By Abusers Be Removed From Cultural Institutions?
Art made by abusers should be removed from cultural institutions.
Celebrating works by abusive artists perpetuates a culture of abuse.
This move could discourage future abuses.
The pain of those suffering from the artist's behaviour is ignored.
Abusive people should suffer consequences.
Banning abusers' art would be beneficial to cultural institutions.
The function of art is not to present or embody moral clarity.
Abuse is an ambiguous concept.
The punishment of removing art created in part by an abuser also indirectly punishes collaborators, who may or may not be culpable. Innocent people are punished for actions they did not commit.
Displaying the art is not equivalent to condoning the abuse.
We should not attempt to judge past events by current standards. The crimes and abuse of the past should be acknowledged but not sanitized, because it is important to acknowledge that these negative acts can be perpetuated by people who would otherwise be idolized or looked up to.
Most of literature, music, and the visual arts would disappear.
Censoring art/media/achievement simply because you disagree with a social, political or other stance should not diminish the value in the art.
Since art fosters discussion, then removing the art also removes a possibility for discussion about the artists abuse. If fewer people know then fewer people can change for the better.
Cultural appropriation is wrong
Is Pornography Art?
Should Culturally or Historically Significant Artwork Be Property of the State?