The Art vs. the Artist
Art by Yelizaveta Rogulina
In the era of #MeToo and #TimesUp, seemingly every few weeks a new celebrity is exposed to be different behind closed doors. Whether it be domestic or sexual abuse, dozens of high-ranking industry leaders have been accused of these heinous acts and, for the most part, the public has fiercely vied to hold them accountable. But what do you do when a “visionary” has been accused? What happens when the art that moves us has been created by someone who morally disgusts us? Do their creations reflect their personal choices, or are they separate from the creator?
If it is understood that behind every aesthetic decision there is a calculated choice, and behind that choice is a personal value, experience, bias, positionality, etc., then how can someone’s art not be personally reflective? How can their character not be involved?
Some may argue that you should always keep the two separate. That you should appreciate work from people such as Woody Allen, Harvey Weinstein, R. Kelly, etc. and shouldn’t disregard it’s impact solely because of the creator’s distasteful personal life. Even a legend like Tupac was once arrested for sexually abusing a 19-year-old but his legacy is widely honored and celebrated. Michael Jackson has also been a point of recent controversy due to the release of the HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland,, which details two allegations of his pedophilia. But this angle of strict separation maintains that, in the grand scheme of things, the art has been integral in the evolution of culture and should be acknowledged. It’s not necessarily condoning their sins, but it’s also not punishing the art.
Delaney Katz, an Emerson freshman and VMA major says, “I think art is a collaborative effort with oneself. I don’t think it’s really fair to say that art is completely separate from the artist. Yes, there are always going to be problematic people who have made some very important pieces of work, but there are just as many good people who have made art that is just as impactful.”
Even people to the likes of Chris Brown, XXXTentacion, 6ix9ine or Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K., Mario Batali, the list goes on, have been up for debate: As a content consumer, should you boycott the work of questionable individuals in the name of morality?
Katz says, “I think each issue is really up to the specific situation. I think that boycotting someone’s artistic work can be a really powerful statement and something that I know I have definitely participated in. I think that there is some validity behind both positions. But there is a difference between actively choosing to consume the art of say, someone like XXXTentacion, and just acknowledging that it exists. I personally don’t really feel comfortable consuming the art of someone I know has done bad things, and I think it’s a bit selfish if you refuse to acknowledge what they have done.” She adds, “There is a lot of power in choosing to say no to a certain type of consumption. I think that having the power and privilege to do so and choosing to act upon it is going to naturally create a domino effect that gives others the encouragement to do the same.”
So in terms of boycotting a musician, is it even a worthwhile cause? As of May 2018, Spotify, with 75 million paying subscribers, stopped recommending R.Kelly’s music on its platform to listeners and removed it from all pre-made playlists. This was in lieu of the #MuteRKelly campaign which has been present for the past few years and focused on banning Kelly’s music from all radio stations and streaming services. So while a big name like Spotify responds to the demands of its consumers, it does not necessarily mean it will hurt sales. Data analytics company Nielsen found that song and album sales more than doubled, and streams spiked by 76 and 85 percent. It seems that exposure, even if it’s bad, is still intriguing to the public.
The bottom line is that the choice is up to the individual consumer. If you are morally comfortable consuming an artist’s content, even with the understanding of their allegations, then that’s you. But the best that we can do as a public market is to be aware of the content we consume and make educated choices we are proud of. Sometimes a boycott or blacklist is effective and sometimes it is not. Regardless, the public is the sole reason for their fame and success. Katz notes, “I think a lot of young people have collectively chosen to be more conscious of the media they consume and that has definitely created a shift in our culture. I would like to think that we are a lot more picky over who we bring into power these days, but I know we have a long way to go”.