• Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I just came all the way back and you seemed to be accusing me of something I did not say (or meant to imply).

    Eventually all the way down our little tète-à-tète you’ll see I’m explicitly saying that it makes all sense to mention an artists sexual orientation when that is part of what makes the art she or he makes be what it is.

    (However in that thread you seem to be defending unprompted celebration of specific human characteristics because they have contributed to making the art of some people what it is, and that’s WAY broader than recognizing them for their specific contribution in specific artist, artworks and art styles).

    As for artistic works themselves, everything and nothing are relevant and irrelevant: it’s all up to the artist what should go there.

    However in this specific case somebody was telling a true story (so, not a work of art) and what was being disputed was if mentioning a specific person’s sexual orientation made sense or not here, which IMHO does make all sense (it’s actually quit crucial).

    Telling a true story is all about conveying information, in which case relevance does make sense as a criteria in including or not something.