Can you separate art from the artist ?

Richard Wagner comes to mind.
I see Wagner essentially as the constructor of modernity in music. His importance can hardly be overrated. When it's about opera, there's a time before and after Wagner. He's the watershed between old and modern. I'm not saying we can no longer enjoy Mozart's Magic Flute, but that opera is a thing of the past now. Old music from days long gone. What artist other than Wagner can claim that?
Wagner's personality was flawed, however, and some strains thereof are outright despicable. Whether or not his anti-semitism has influenced some characters in his operatic work (Mime, Beckmesser) is still a matter of debate. Does his anti-Semitism cast a shadow on his work?
On a related note, can we separate science from the scientist? Will Isaac Newton's personality be of importance when we talk about planetary motion or angular momentum conservation? I think most people would agree that Newton's inner demons (of which he had some) are irrelevant when it's about his scientific achievements.
However, if we can separate science and the scientist, why is it so much more difficult to separate art and artist?
Sorry I have no answers, just more questions. Anyway, the notion that "This artist must be a great human being because his art is wonderful" is just plain wrong.

I can, I mean I still enjoy the movie or music without thinking of what a horrible person they are, but after that I do want justice so I hope as people they get what they deserve. It's easier to do it with someone who's already dead, like you know no matter how much of their art you consume, they will not earn from it in any way. But with those who are alive, the dilemma is do I still want them to be popular and continue earning despite what they've done? Also if they've been proven to have done a crime and justice is dealing with them, I leave it up to the system, but if they're openly racist or have done things that the system cannot punish them for I think do they deserve to get away with it so easily? And that's where "cancel culture" comes, it's a way to let people know that they're still the means of getting these people rich and giving them a platform they can spread their harmful ideologies on. If an artist has been questionable and people stay away from their art, it's a logical thing. I don't know where I draw the line yet, the thing with me is I don't idolize any of them so I'm never surprised when it turns out x,y,z are abusers, racists etc. If I like something I'm not going to turn my head from it because the person who created it is bad, I guess I can try to limit how much that person will earn from me though.

That's up to the individual. I think it's a dangerously slippery slope, and routed directly to our Cancel Culture pitchfork brigade.

Take someone like Gary Glitter, people aren't going to play his music anymore, and imo rightly so. But how about someone like LA session drummer Jim Gordon? Brilliant player who performed on everything from "You're So Vain" to "These Boots Are Made For Walkin". Wrote the piano tag to Layla. Or wait, cribbed it from his girlfriend Rita Coolidge, with whom he allegedly fought physically. Sadly, Jim ended up in prison for homicide, as his degenerating mental condition caused him to hear voices which told him to end his mother's life.....which he did.

There are plenty of citations of male rock stars having been with underage females back in the day, and plenty of songs written about that subject, too.

What should one do, exactly? 🤔 Begin a neighborhood LP/CD/Cassette burning like the Beatles one after John's "More popular than Jesus" comment? Does one morph into a one-person jury, who shoves people through a myopic shredder of virtue?

My point is that, if one looks far enough, and does not want to be *gasp* hypocritical, you'll definitely want to get rid of all Phil Spector productions, the abovementioned Gary Glitter, R. Kelly for sure. How about TV, film, or albums from Bill Cosby? Watch any Roman Polanski films lately? How about listen to the Beach Boys' 20/20 album? That LP has contributions from THREE convicted murderers on it(Spector, Gordon, and yes Charles f-ing Manson). Beach Boys themselves could be their own subject on not-so-great behavior...if they could stop suing each other. Judee Sill? Made some unbelievably, heart-wrenchingly beautiful music, but had a trainwreck of a life(drugs, armed robbery, prostitution).

Read anything by Allan Ginsburg, who was a well-known member of NAMBLA?

You're gonna need to rent a dumpster, and/or delete/avoid a TON of music, movies, and books.

I'm a more "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of guy....to a point. I don't have the time to suss out if my fave album's mastering engineer was a Satanist, or misogynistic, or racist, or anti-this or that. Yes, there are some people I will not read or listen to.

I've worked with enough creative people to know that they can be deeply, deeply fucked up. Recently deceased Robert Gordon was both highly complimentary AND terrible to me, personally. I have witnessed both Kevin Spacey and Alec Baldwin give generously of their time to raise much-needed money for charity. I completely loathe Jon Bon Jovi's music, but recognize that he gives back quite a bit(Soul Kitchen). That's a twist on the formula, because although I recognize that Jon is a charitable man, his music is completely unlistenable to me.

So people are shades of grey. Art is what it is. Everyone is going to have a different threshold of what is acceptable.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go sing "Well she was just seventeen..." You know what I mean? :)

There is no shortage of famous people current or in the past that were/are racist, pedophiles, rapists, abusers, sexist, molesters, homophobes, transphobes, cheaters, plagiarizers, addicts, murderers, negligent, violent, intolerant, bigots, dickheads, etc.

No shortage of ordinary people like this too.

This is of course, terrible.

Sometimes a creator’s bad character actively interferes with my appreciation of the said creation. Some works are just so steeped in the creator’s prejudices or beliefs that it’s horrifying and what you know will haunt you as you watch a movie, read a book, or listen to a song, or look at a painting or sculpture. etc. There are some writers, actors, artists, directors and musicians and others that I cannot separate my disgust of them from what they create, and so I don't support them in any form. I feel good about that decision, so I stand by it.

There are some in which I can't always explain why, but I retain some enjoyment of what they created. Perhaps the effect of the work somehow surpasses my view of the creator as a person in some way. Or I accept that they are a terrible flawed person who is capable of creating something incredible. And I don't hide that. And somehow in that I feel more free to consume said content because I am also actively protesting against the creator's beliefs or actions in some way and feel it balances it out a tiny bit? Idk.

In such cases, I think deeply about the effect of purchasing anything, paying attention to them, etc anything and everything. Whatever I decide, I tend to think a good decision is to protest the nefarious actions of said creator in some way. Because I think that has a larger effect. Talk about it. Talk about who that person was, why their views or actions are wrong.

An example might be that I greatly enjoy David Bowie's music. Always have. Still do. However, David Bowie also slept with a lot of 14, 15 and 16 year olds well in his thirties and forties.
Quite frankly, I'm not ok with adults sleeping with underage minors. Even if it was common for some people to do so back then.
He was considered a sex addict and would fuck anyone young or old if he liked them and they were willing. I never stopped listening to his music, but I did stop buying it until he died in 2016. I like some Elvis music, and he was a dick who slept with 14 year olds (supposedly He preferred that age) and supposedly was very abusive. If I were to listen to Elvis music and someone didn't know anything about them, I would try to tell them about who he was. An Honest history. Let them decide what they think. Bill Cosby had some very funny standup, but I can't listen or watch it anymore. Idk. I could go on and on.

A friend of mine told me his teenage daughter once asked him, " Why do you listen to so and so's (I forget who)music if they were a bad person?" He didn't really know what to say.

It is a tough question. I suppose it depends on whether you value the creator or the content or both or neither and what the significance is or how much you are willing to put up with morally from other people, and what your own values are. I think it's a difficult thing but not a inherently bad thing to value good things coming from terrible people.
Isn't everyone flawed after all? Just some have much more terrible flaws, I guess.
But supporting terrible actions and beliefs is reprehensible and wrong, I think. That's the difference to me. I guess. And one has to personally choose how they want to behave accordingly. Idk.

@bijouxbroussard With the examples that you listed the first person that came to mind was Woody Allen. Anyone who is familiar with his life will understand. ❤️

I've been pondering this all day, and it's a tough question. If the artist's hatred or bias is reflected directly in their work, then that's clearly a problem. Otherwise it depends a bit more on the context, the nature of the issue, the nature and quality of the work, etc. A few examples, considering only the area of anti-Semitism:

Mel Gibson: I don't see any reason to watch his films given his prolonged an unapologetic anti-Semitism (some of which comes through in his work) and misogyny. If he were as good a film director as Alfred Hitchcock, that might be another story.

Sally Rooney: I was troubled by her refusal to have her books translated into Hebrew as a protest against Israel. The fact that she didn't have concerns about Saudi Arabia, China, or any number of other countries suggests to me that the issue goes beyond political protest. I'm a big reader and bookstore browser, but I've chosen not to purchase or read her work. There are a lot of other good books in the world. But again, if she were as good as George Eliot, I might feel otherwise.

Kanye: He's batshit crazy and I'll have nothing to do with him.

Classic writers: Charles Dickens, George Eliot, Anthony Trollope, TS Eliot and Ezra Pound all had aspects of either their work or their other writings that could fairly be called anti-Semitic. For some, like Dickens and Eliot, they had later recognition of that fact and were apologetic in later works. For others, not so much. I love and read all of these writers except Pound.

🤔 it is an interesting question... i think it differs from one discipline to another.

posters talk about actor Crosby. when you see his work, you see the man, they are inseperable. he is a convicted abuser, i assume the conviction was fair, so when you look at a performance, you are seeing the abuser. it is difficult not to think of his victims.

@helenS refers to Richard Wagner. it is easier in his case to separate the music from the "philosophy". his undoubted musical genius can be appreciated without in any way endorsing his nazi views.

many who have produced what we recognise as great art were/are not great people. alcoholics, abusers, thieves, murderers. we should not devalue the art as a way to condemn the artist. it is the crudest form of virtue signalling. a retrospective deplatforming designed only to make the deplatformer feel good.

great works of art, be they paintings, sculptures, music, literature, express a value in humankind, not just in the artist, through their shared recognition. devaluing a body of work because the artist was flawed, is devaluing ourselves, denying our ability to judge art and artist as different entities.

As an artist, I would never discredit anyones passion or talent. But I won’t support it if that person is an absolute shit head.

I can.
A few musicians i grew up listening to have since been accused and found guilty of awful acts. But their songs are part of the soundtrack to my life, and i cannot erase certain songs from a memory.
I
wouldnt support those artists if they were to release new music though.

yes absolutely... Kevin Spacey is a crazy motherfucker but he is also one of the best actors around and his movies are brilliant masterpieces

There's a line there somewhere but I can't say precisely where. I'm inclined to overlook "cheating on partners". There's often more than one side to the story and it's so common that whatever conflicted feelings it causes tend to be lost in time.
On the other hand I have stronger feelings about antisemitism and racism. Did they say something they thought was funny without realizing it was offensive? Maybe I'll give them a pass. Or did they say something so stupidly offensive anyone with half a brain should have known better and then double down when called on it? If someone sounds like a raving antisemite I tend to believe that is because it's what they are. That's a hard no for me because antisemitism tends to breed more antisemitism.

At the moment I'm having trouble thinking of an artist that I found repulsive but still enjoyed their work. I could probably think of a few that I disagreed with their political views and still enjoyed their work.

I usually can, somewhat. I was just thinking about this once again yesterday afternoon, when re-watching a movie I really like. Kevin Spacey was in it, and he wasn't at all a loveable character. Yet, he played the part admirably, and after the intial thought of the allegations against him, I just enjoyed his talent as an actor.

I can't explain where I draw the line very well, I don't think.

I used to be able to properly do that. I am still able to appreciate art for art's sake fundamentally but now I try to actively detach myself from the art so I don't support the artist in any way. Listening to the music, going to the shows, watching the films are still ways of supporting them especially financially. Their finances are an avenue that allows them to continue to be terrible people

Art is separate from the artist. I had an argument years ago with a woman about a singer.

Apparently he beats his wives and gfs.

She won’t listen to his music because of that.

I don’t see what his relationships have to do with the music he makes.

You ask good questions,BB......I remember a show at the Met showcasing the art of Caravaggio ,oblivious to his life .So time is a great deodorant,to an extent.But what about all the music artists of our time?I TRY to distinguish between art/artist but I can't always ....the line is not clear

It is the only way I ever enjoy art or music or any form of creativity.
If I started digging into everyones lives and attached it to their art, I'd probably never be able to appreciate it.
Art is just art - open to interpretation and perspective. I can appreciate it from mine.

There's often a narrative in artistic production. It's more detectable in literature and cinema, but it can also be found in pictorial art and in music. Because we look for comfort in art, we may choose to ignore this narrative, although sometimes we do feel a bit uncomfortable about some words, some bias (like who is presented as a victim, who is represented as a villain).
Knowing more about the person can enable us to pinpoint the cause of this discomfort. It can also alert us about a special bias .
So far I can't say I had a traumatic revelation about an artist I used to like. I often had already acknowledged something wrong. But as I get older, I tend to expect grey areas anyway, I'm no longer looking for a saviour.

I generally don't fixate on the artist. I hear a song and I like it or not, perhaps remember the name of the song, but rarely remember the artist. Oh sure, there are some who are famous but ...... truth be told 5 years later I remember the song but not whatshisname who sang it.

I do believe, there are some whose private life taints my appreciation of their work. Michael Jackson is one, although honestly, I never cared for most of his work and don't understand all the "great artist" rep he gained even before his notoriety. It is even easier to dismiss it now. I never liked his work in the first place, detesting his private life just seems to be piling on.

That depends,

Its kinda weird but I guess it really depends on why I liked the art to begin with?

Sometimes I see a cool pic or hear a cool tune and know nothing about the artist

as long as the art itself isn't depicting anything gross or messed up

but other times I come to love the art because I discovered the artist before the art and looked up to them as a hero and kinda developed a liking to the art over time,
and there've been times where I was badly disappointed with my heroes and it kinda ruined it for me

if its the latter case, then I have trouble separating art from the artist, because from that point the art just leaves a bad taste in my mouth

Pretty much. But I find the approbation some artists receive personally despite what they have done outside their art hard to figure out. Same goes for sports stars.

Quote:

'Words Build Bridges Into Unexplored Regions"

Painting:



By Him:

Wow that's a tough question.

To some degree yes, if I like the art then I like the art regardless of who produced it but so often then if someone said "Oh that's by so and so" my attitude changes birthday is more because I don't want give financial support to someone like that.

Where to draw the line? In your example cheated on partner would definitely less bother me as that's something where I told know inside that relationship etc etc in most cases I'd let that slide.

I separate the living from the dead. The distinction is whether my continued use/viewing, etc. contributes to their finances.

"I believe I can fly" is still a great song, but I can longer separate that from the artist. And while Woody Allen was never charged, I still can't get over the undisputed fact, that he taking nude photos of his step-daughter, having sex with her, and then marrying her.

It seems that so many of the most talented artists, actors, athletes, painters, vocalists were outright terrible human beings. when i go see a movie, or a football game, or a band. most of the entertainers/players are probably stand up folks, but, theres always going to be a couple who like to get drunk and beat their girlfriends. hard to take the time to research everybody who is going to benefit from my monetary contribution.

I look at the art. If it appeals to me, it appeals to me. Plain and simple.
I sincerely doubt I will never ever meet the person, so I'll just appreciate their art.
All their personal business is for them to deal with, not me. I am not going to convict them from the allegations of others.

But if I see and hear them talking all the time, chances are I am going to be bored with them in no time and my interest will diminish.

I generally can't.

That is a good question. I think my answer is that it depends how much I like the art itself.

I rarely know an artist well enough to judge the person from the art.

I really don't recognize celebrities either. I dislike the unneeded attention they get. It's all overrated to me.

Award shows to me are the worst offenders. You won't catch me watching any award shows.

So when it comes to the actual art, I have no personal bias either way. I either like it or I don't like it.

Movies and Music , I enjoy without analysing everything about the people in it.

I think most People believe that actor who is a hero in the movie is supposed to be a hero in real life, that is why, when they are not people gets heartbroken and stop watching the movies.

I don't care for them, so I think I can separate the art easily.

I got into a big argument about this with someone once. I believe the less you know about the artist, the better. Knowledge of the artist will effect the experience, especially if the artist has unpleasant traits. If the artist is especially awful, like ted nugent, I'd avoid his work, though.

I thought this might be interesting to add.
The Museum Of Bad Art. MOBA is the World's only museum dedicated to the collection, exhibition and celebration of bad art in all its forms. 1250 Massachusetts Ave. Boston MA

It’s easier to separate them when the artist is in the past. For a living artist, you have to ask if you’re willing to support the other damage they’re doing just because you enjoy their art.

Not after watching Hannah Gadsby's 'Nanette':
It blew my heart wide open ; I wept with empathy and her show it has given me hope.

Also, she won an Emmy for outstanding writing and a Peabody award.

Yes if the work is exceptionally good and itself doesn't contain something negative but as soon as it starts getting me bad aftertaste, I stop listening/watching it.

Woody Allen has made a number of movies on that topic (gee, I wonder why). Some are excellent (Sweet and Lowdown comes to mind), others not so much.

Picasso was that way.
insisted that art was devoid of meaning and also the world’s biggest chauvinist but very very view could touch his work.

Once they've done horrible things their art is forever tainted, I feel guilty listening to gary glitter now lol

It's an art to stay away from the sin; Not the sinner.
Those who learn it, can Live freely; others keep sulking in their limited range.

Good question
I think if i was heavily influenced by the art, id want the background of the artist. Tough question haha. 🤔

i fight with this a lot.
now, when I like an artist's work? I often make a point of NOT learning too much

If it's a turn-off I quickly lose interest - there's plenty of good stuff out there.

I can appreciate the art without supporting or condoning the artist.

Yeah, I still love Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Woody Allen, etc.

Actually for the most part I can, but it's not always easy.

Depends really.
If the artist still collects wealth and I have their old material, I can still enjoy it, despite them being shitty people. But I wouldn't contribute money for their newer material to further enrich them.

Let's take JK Rowling for example.
I love Harry Potter (and yes I've read other books lol), but she is a rapid TERF/transponder. I wouldn't buy her newer books, but I can still appreciate that she is a good story teller. I just wouldn't buy her stuff any more. Hell her last book was so transphobic, I didn't bother reading it.

It depends on what they did

No. I am very bad about this. I instantly don't care to see movies if the main actor has been a sexual assaulter or said horrible stuff.

I don't know why. Take R Kelly. I can't listen to his music and I really like so much of his music. If its on I'm not going to flip out but, I won't purposefully download it, payfor it.
Everyone tells me Im silly or a downer for feeling that way so sometimes I just shut up but thats how I feel.

Yep