Can you separate the art from the artist?
J.K. Rowling. Michael Jackson. R. Kelly. Woody Allen. Pablo Picasso. Charles Dickens. Karl Lagerfeld.
These are some names that might come to mind when we consider whether or not we can separate the art from the artist. Following Ye’s (formerly Kanye West) antisemitic remarks on social media, this debate has intensified, leaving fans conflicted as to whether or not they can express their displeasure with an artist without giving up the consumption of their art.
I used to have a staunch opinion on this debate, arguing that we cannot separate the art from the artist. It sounded like a cop-out: a way to disassociate from an artist's monstrosities. Ignorance is bliss, right? However, I realize it isn’t so black and white. Coming to terms with this moral dilemma has required some honest, moral interrogation.
Saying that we cannot separate the art and the artist means acknowledging that making art is an intimate experience. Artists draw from their own experiences and worldviews to create something unique. Separating the two assumes that art doesn’t have a source, meaning, or influence. After all, we wouldn’t separate art from an artist that we love and agree with. People who love Taylor Swift’s music also tend to love Taylor Swift as a person, for example.
I suppose that, for the most part, our struggle to separate the art and the artist is monetary. By consuming a problematic artist’s art, we indirectly contribute to their financial success. Some of us might personally boycott these artists by refusing to consume their content, which is a perfectly acceptable response (I never really liked Kanye’s music that much, anyway). However, like most of us, I am a huge Potter-Head. Reading and watching Harry Potter was a huge part of my childhood and has influenced my creativity today, so coming to terms with J.K. Rowling’s transphobic rhetoric while simultaneously loving her work has been difficult territory.
Removing ourselves entirely from the world of Hogwarts is difficult, but the expectation to do so might be reductive and outright patronizing. It isn’t rational for us to love a text for decades and then retrospectively unlove it. One way to ease this cognitive dissonance is to ask ourselves, what does the art ask of us? Does the context of the art have any relation to the controversy of the artist? Does the artist ask us to subscribe to their problematic views?
Yes, there are some problems with the Harry Potter franchise that have come to fruition over the years. Some argue that the books and films have traces of antisemitic rhetoric, such as the greedy, hook-nosed goblins that run an underground bank. Others defend Rowling by saying that she was merely utilizing centuries of cultural context and has been outspoken in her support of the Jewish community for decades.
Rowling has, however, expressed her disagreement with the trans community — a stance I find an issue with. In saying this, I don’t think Harry Potter shows concrete evidence of the artist’s immorality. By loving Harry Potter, you and not subscribing to Rowling’s beliefs. Fan-based communities, such as mugglenet.com, still celebrate the content of the narratives while denouncing J.K. Rowling as an author. Many college quidditch teams have even changed their names to disassociate with the franchise while still enjoying the game.
On the contrary, there can be some damning evidence in art that reveal the horrors of an artist. For example, in 1993, R. Kelly wrote singer Aaliyah’s debut album, “Age Ain’t Nothin’ but a Number.” The next year, 27-year-old Kelly married Aaliyah — who was only 15 — and demanded her secrecy. Knowing R. Kelly’s history, many of his lyrics are truly skin-crawling. In this case, is prioritizing Kelly’s music more important than the many women he harmed? In some cases, we must ask ourselves if our love for an artist’s work is greater than the weight of their misconduct.
There are some cases where the artist isn’t as easily identifiable. I don’t think there is a moral person on earth who would condone what Harvey Weinstein did, for example. However, he does not stand alone as the sole artist for his films. To boycott his films could discredit the huge crew that also contributed, such as the producers, actors, set designers, and even runners.
Arguing that you cannot separate the art and the artist is not the same as saying someone is problematic for consuming their content. Our individual relationships with art are, frankly, no one’s business. However, we should be able to answer why we like a particular work of art regardless of the artist’s history. If we do not know, then perhaps we are simply ignoring who the person is and thus ignoring the things they have said and done. Enjoying art made by problematic artists may require an additional layer of critical thinking.
On the flip side, there are some reasons why we can (and perhaps should) separate the art from the artist. It is true; there are instances where separation is a cop-out; some people tend to make excuses for those who do abhorrent things to give themselves peace of mind, all while blaming “wokeness” and “cancel culture” on an artist’s downfall. However, there are also instances where separation truly allows us to condemn and denounce the artists without feeling the need to soften the blow of their actions. By completely alienating the problematic artist from their art by giving the art subjective meaning, we remove the power of interpretation from the artist’s hands.
Without separating the art from the artist, the future of censorship may remain unclear. Is there a line that can be drawn based on how bad a person is? Our society is built upon patriarchal, racist, homophobic, and antisemitic ideologies. Omitting things like the Bible, philosophy, ancient Greek work, and certain works of art may seem like the morally correct thing to do, but it also doesn’t leave us with a whole lot. Are there things that should simply not be accessed because of an artist’s monstrosity? I would argue no, as removing art not only threatens our freedom of speech, but our freedom to interpret things in a critical manner.