Separation of the art and the artist has been an ongoing area of debate which has only increased in discussion with the development in online celebrities, ‘cancel culture’, and in the wake of movements like ‘#Metoo’. It’s now much harder for those with a platform to have their wrongdoings swept under the rug, and good for it. Celebrity figures are losing their sense of untouchability and being held accountable for their actions in the public domain.  

While we are now finding out more about these figures on a personal level, the question stands – can you enjoy the products, pieces, and work of a person separately to themselves? If it came to light your favourite musician was a misogynist, racist or homophobe would you still enjoy their songs? If your favourite movie director was found out to be paedophile, would you still watch their movies?  

Historic books and art – a different time and would be difficult to appreciate almost any from a certain era without considerations of historical lack of progression. 

Cancel culture and digging things up from the past (when legal) also must be looked at through a certain lens. At the time people accepted what they were saying, so some of those same people cancelling someone for things said, were the exact same people enjoying it when they watched decades ago.  

Problematic is hard to quantify. Legal/illegal obviously, but outside of that there’s grey areas – to what extent do we erase authors? Once stopping appreciate work from someone for doing a specific thing, then you also have to shut down authors who have done more related things etc etc. at what level of historic do we stop caring about actions? 

If the work does not relate to the authors views, it’s a personal decision of a persons enjoyment.  

I think where it’s more apparent that a persons work is an extension of their personal views – e.g a comedian usually makes jokes relating to their personal experiences, which could very well be misogynistic etc is where art and artist cannot be separated. But seemingly art is removed from the, as a person – the question is tougher. 

Regardless of opinion, their actions would definitely effect the enjoyment of it.  

One of the important considerations when thinking about this actually monetary. Are you indirectly funding someone who is fundamentally a bad person? Do you want your money getting sent to enable and give a horrible person a good life and profit?  

We don’t know what everyone has done. So much media has been made by horrible people but they are still talented.  To an extent, I don’t think anyone can comment on another persons decision regarding separating art and artist. We mindlessly consume so much media in all formats every single day that you simply cannot vet every single creator involved in things you consume. If you do there’s no issue in that, but for those who listen, watch, read and view on a surface level, I think it’s putting a lot of responsibility on that individual rather than looking towards these figures that have done wrong and putting the energy towards the real causes that some artists may be effecting. Obviously those who have done outright illegal and immoral activities should not be given any form of platform to share their art with the world. 

Image: Pexels