can you separate the art from the artist? should you? bbc says it isn’t easy to do, and the issue gets murkier when the artist is alive
many world renowned artists were said to be terrible people in real life -- like salvador dali, pablo picasso, and caravaggio
and in the entertainment industry, many stars have been accused of pedophilia -- like michael jackson, roman polanski, and chuck berry
so what do we do about their art? the appalachian says there’s no way to separate -- art is just too personal, and when you buy art, the artist gets money
wbur agrees. for that reason, we shouldn’t consume art from problematic artists, even dead ones
onstage wants to put responsibility on entertainment execs. they should hold problematic artists accountable, and everyone else should just trust their gut
reveille disagrees with all of the above. we should always separate the art from the artist. artworks are stand-alone pieces that can and should be enjoyed independently
right! says the daily free press. how far does the separation go? if the ceo of apple was cancelled, would you stop using your iphone? would you stop using your car if a toyota board member had a big scandal?
digital spy says it’s a sliding scale: watching a movie by a problematic artist isn’t as bad as buying a signed copy of their newest book
the conversation asks a different question: if it’s wrong to censure art bc of its content, is it wrong to censure art bc of the artist’s behavior?
vox reminds us that the concept of separating the art from the artist isn’t a new thing -- it had literary roots in the early 1900s, with radical writers who prized poems which hid who the poet was
the debate rages on: some huge fans of the tv show euphoria are very anti the show’s creator, sam levinson -- the nyt says this might be bc levinson wrote and directed the whole thing, making him a clear target for criticism
and what about culturally influential artists and their art? a vox writer says she “broke up” with harry potter bc of jk rowling’s trans comments. but queer people can still identify with queer friendly characters like tonks and sirius black
the globe and mail says there’s no need to break up -- it’s okay to fully enjoy harry potter, even if you disagree with rowling. the books/movies have serious personal and cultural value, we can’t just throw that away