On the separation of art and artists The link between creator and creation is an existent, permanent one Fletcher Haltom
T
haltofle000@hsestudents.org
here is possibly no cliche more often depicted in popular culture than the troubled genius; the brilliant artist whose controversies have left a nagging, persistent stain on their legacy. Along the same lines, there is perhaps no debate more rampant among these circles than that of how to reconcile these creative contributions with the existence of such blatant missteps and wrongdoings. Take, for example, Ye (formerly Kanye West), a talented megastar who has encountered as much critical acclaim (“Rolling Stone” placed six of his albums in their “500 Greatest Albums of All Time”) as he has criticism. From minor feuds to divisive political messages, West has certainly made a wealth of questionable decisions, prompting some fans to consider whether enjoying his music is worth, at least indirectly, endorsing or validating these actions. Of course, listening to a Beatles hit does not mean you condone John Lennon’s adultery or abuse. Just as owning “Kind of Blue” is not a validation of Miles Davis’ horrendous treatment of women, hearing a song by The Smiths on the radio is not advocacy for Morrissey’s political views and learning an Eric Clapton riff is
not support of his xenophobia and racism. However, the sheer number of objectionable artists in mainstream culture, especially as of late, does force listeners to question whether the separation of art and artist is necessary in order to consume any form of media at all. The short answer is that no, this separation is not necessary. While it may seem easy to create a distinction between the creator and the vices (i.e. out of sight, out of mind), to do so is to favor complacency over culpability. If one artist is excused of their immorality because of the magnificence of their work, it becomes impossible and arbitrary to determine where the cutoff lies. The politically divisive artist is significantly less reprehensible than the abusive or bigoted variety, but condoning one on account of their creative genius opens the door to condoning the others. The foremost reason why the creation is impossible to separate from the creator is because art is so inherently and intrinsically personal. Not every work is deeply personal (J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” is hardly an autobiography, although it does still reflect her attitudes and perspectives), but art is, on the whole, a reflection of the artist and their views. It is paradoxical to create a product that is devoid
of influence from the creator, so when that influence is a morally destructive one, it becomes an undeniable blemish on the work. To endorse the art is to endorse the artist, at least to some degree. Clearly, the issue is ethically ambiguous, and a great degree of nuance must be added to the conversation. At the risk of catalyzing a philosophical debate over the subjectivity of morality, it must be stated that certain shortcomings are distinctly more permissible than others. It is up to the individual to determine if the character and actions of an artist warrant their support, but it is an indisputable truth that supporting the art is in itself supporting the artist. Furthering the career and earnings of the artist by listening to their music, watching their films or purchasing their products is incidental support of them as a person. In short, the art is always linked to the artist and cannot be separated, though there are certainly varying degrees of personality associated with the works. Ultimately, it is up to the consumer to decide whether or not the actions of an artist warrant their blacklisting, but it may be better to err on the side of caution - although it may be difficult, foregoing the creations of a troubled artist may be the more moral option.
Graphic by Fletcher Haltom.
Opinion Opinion
Tiger Times
Page 27
