Why We Cannot Separate Art from the Artist
Justin Roiland, Chris Brown and Kanye West. These are just a few names that come to mind around the media debate on whether or not its…
Justin Roiland, Chris Brown and Kanye West. These are just a few names that come to mind around the media debate on whether or not its possible to separate art from the artist. For some, it’s easier to enjoy the work put out by artists whose actions they disagree with, as they treat the artist and their art as two separate entities. However, being an artist is a deeply intimate experience, and artists often draw from their own stories to create their art. To remove an artist from their creations, is to decontextualize their work and leaves it devoid of meaning.
A prime example of a problematic artist whose fans tried to separate from his art is R.Kelly. After the release of the documentary “Surviving R.Kelly” that highlighted the singer’s long history of sexual abuse and pedophilic behavior, many fans strongly advocated for R. Kelly, the singer, be separated from R. Kelly, the pedophile. However, its important to note that Kelly’s songs posed as an outlet for him to express his sickening sexual desires. Songs like “The Greatest Sex,” which is about him having sexual intercourse with his wife, the late singer Aaliyah who was 15 at the time and “Down Low,” which is about keeping an abusive love affair secret.
To say it is possible to separate the art from the artist is to say it is possible to separate R. Kelly from songs he wrote that are direct accounts of his perversion. The reason why it’s impossible to separate the art from the artist is because artists are their art. Everything they create is an extension of themselves and a glimpse into their identity. Besides that, they also pose to be significant for socio-cultural reasons, and artists also happen to be financially dependent on it.
The Creative Process of an Artist
All creative minds in the world know that creating art is a prolonged arduous process that forces us to pour an immense amount of time, thought and energy. Art only becomes significant when we connect to it, and when you connect to art, you inherently connect to its artist. Take Otto Dix, a German painter during World War I, who created art that was inspired by the brutality of war. Without experiencing the war, his art would be notably different, or wouldn’t even exist. It’s important to understand that works of art impact both responses to culture and shape it, and artists are not just mere illustrators of their time. This idea shows the relationship between the art and the artist is more complicated than simply a person creating art.
The moral flaws of the artist have an affect on our appreciation of its aesthetics, a common example could be Adolf Hitler, while he was known to have been a talenter painter, he was also a monster that perpetuated war, genocide and dictatorship. Of course, one can appreciate a painting without knowing the artist, but the question remains of whether one can revert to that state of ignorance once an offensive creator is discovered. In some instances, it becomes clear that a creator’s twisted values are reflected in their art. Thus, separating the two becomes impossible. But art isn’t always a mirror image of the artist’s crimes. Take Hitler’s paintings, which are quintessential pieces of art that do not visually reflect the tyrant he was .This is a prime example of art that we don’t visually associate with its artist, but once we learn about past infamy, it becomes nearly impossible to forget.
Socio-cultural Reasons
Time can alter what is deemed culturally acceptable. Artists who create in the present have immediate consequences on the way people perceive our culture. But if Vincent van Gogh made a painting with a certain context 150 years ago, the cultural consequences are not the same. But should a time period excuse the action of the artists? How do we, as the public, negotiate their moral flaws with their famed works. Take Richard Wagner, a renowned composer who was a pioneer in his field, was also known as an anti semite and adulterer. While his contributions to music are culturally revered, he as a person is inarguably flawed. Richard Wagner is not our contemporary, so how do we negotiate his moral flaws with his famous works? The answer is broadly speaking, that we cannot financially affect him, but we can educate him. It’s important that the flaws of an artist must be acknowledged now more than ever, because his work is a product of his existence and his actions.
Accountability is not the same as cancel culture. There is nothing effective about writing a person off completely before allowing them to make reparations. Plenty of creators have had consumers bring to light some of their issues. They acted on them to make reparations.
That’s not to say that every artist who’s done anything wrong should be canceled, but we must remember that the art and the artist go hand in hand. Ignoring the background of an artist is a disservice to their creations. Frida Kahlo and Nina Simone are both artists whose cultures and experiences as women deeply impacted their art. Both Kahlo and Simone used their art to protest discrimination against and express their identities as Mexican and African-American women, respectively. To separate the art from the artist would be an insult to their legacies. That being said, art isn’t only a personal experience for the artist. Art is also individually interpreted by the viewer, listener or audience. When it comes down to it, art is personal. Even though I think you can’t separate art from the artist doesn’t mean you necessarily agree. All art is a matter of opinion.
Financial dependence
In modern days, we cannot shy away from accusations, trials and skeletons in closets, as we become ubiquitous in the media. We, as consumers, can have a momentous impact and can no longer claim ignorance to what is constantly in plain sight. For example, musician Chris Brown has been known for his documented history of violence toward women, and In 2009, musician and businesswoman Rihanna was a victim of his abuse. Despite his violent actions and behaviour toward women, Brown releases music regularly. Streaming a Chris Brown song puts money directly into his pocket, and if a person pays to consume some piece of art regardless of whether or not they care for the artist, they’re supporting that artist. The price of an album or a book makes it difficult to avoid thinking about the person behind it. It’s impossible to separate the art from the artist because listening to Brown’s music supports his career and ability to create more content. You can’t listen to Brown’s music and willingly ignore his history as an abuser because consuming his art directly benefits him. However, it’s still more complicated, like in the case of Harvey Weinstein, one individual might have worked alongside hundreds of others in the production of a single film. Art is often produced by many artists, and when a problematic person is involved, the whole creative team is hurt. If an audience chooses to avoid one star, they may in turn avoid all innocent co-stars.
Besides that, the situation could be different after an artist has died. If they can no longer receive the benefits of consumer’s support and do no further harm, then maybe there would be less guilt as a consumer purchasing their work. Work in the public domain is easier to separate from the artist because they’ll never again reap benefits. Still, many don’t feel comfortable consuming art created by immoral creators regardless of whether or not they gain profit. When it’s revealed that an artist has done a terrible thing, the meaning behind the art might change.
From a societal standpoint, it’s apparent that this isn’t a black-and-white issue, so it’s important that one decides for themselves what feels right and what doesn’t. A white person may have the privilege to overlook a novel’s racist themes while a person of colour may not. Men might have an easier time enjoying music with derogatory lyrics that make women uncomfortable. A victim of Harvey Weinstein would likely be much less inclined to watch his movies than the average person. One’s personal preferences develop from how their perception of art is changed by an artist’s actions.
[Written by: Harshaall Medha Naidu. Edited by: Adryna Chin]