This dilemma really messes with our mentals and challenges our notions about ourselves in very special ways. For example, would I be happy to discover that I am excited and stimulated by the artistic work of a child abuser, absolutly not. But yet there I am helpless when I find myself in a waiting room and the music from the speaker, with seemingly defiant undertones, is Michael Jackson's 'The Way You Make me Feel'. Resistance is futile, the beat the rhythm cannot be ignored and art wins despite any notions I may hold about where I stand on this issue. Ree Hall
As I was typing my comment, on my cell, your comment is visible above my keyboard and I was immediately drawn to the name Michael Jackson as that was going to be the subject of my comment. He was undeniably an artist of great talent, with several "first" in the music industry industry. Even though he was found innocent of charges I believe that he was guilty. Why? Simple, the children's fingerprints were on the pornographic DVDs in his bedroom. And, let's go with.."kids get into things they're not supposed to all be time." Sorry, that's a big nope from me. They weren't locked away, they weren't even hidden, they were in plane site. End of oral arguments for me. Guilty on all counts. Now, do I listen to his music? One can't avoid his songs being played at various public spaces. Do I buy his music or purposely play a song of his? Nope again. I don't condem others, I keep quiet with my personal protest. Unless, like this article, you ask me about my thoughts on separating art from the artist. Then my opinion, and reasoning, becomes known. Others may feel differently, that's their moral choice.
Isn’t this true of any (and every) profession? It’s impossible to separate the judge from the judgement, the politician from the politics, or the physician from the medicine.
What if you didn't know the art was created by a 'monster' and had a particular relationship with it/ experience of it? And then you found out later.....what would be the change? Surely if it changed it means the art and the artist are disconnected and that it returns as always to what we project on the world depending on where WE are at in all aspects of our life at that moment. What if we never found out they were a 'monster'. That could be true of various pieces of art we admire at the moment.
This was my point as well. What if the art had an impact on me in the past -- should I undo that because I know now the artist was a monster? I can get behind the moral argument, and not support their work anymore, but the prior impact their work had is not undoable. My life starts now -- I can't change what happened then.
I have wrestled quite a bit with this question. I can usually enjoy the art of assholes who are long gone, but for those still living (and presumably still being assholes), I really don’t know what the answer is.
If I had to guess, with a dead artist, there’s no risk of rewarding or enabling future harm. The past feels “settled,” even if it’s morally messy. With a living one, talking about their work can feel like supporting them—their platform, their income, their influence.
And the dead can’t talk back, so I’m not as scared to criticize them. There’s just less social and emotional risk
Art is a force similar to gravity, or electromagnetism, only it manifests seldom. I am not speaking here about art’s social influence. It is real but it is not its main power. Art changes the universe regardless of whether it is recognized, understood, admired or loved.
Kafka left instructions for his writings to be burned after his death. A friend chose not to respect his wish. Had he fulfilled it, would that mean today that Kafka's writings had no value? Caravaggio was a murderer. Very few people know this today. His paintings are very much alive.
We recognize art on the cave walls in France without any knowledge about its author or his/her intentions. We have no idea if Homer has even existed. We send Bach’s music into space with the hope that his music has a chance to communicate to a different species something essential about humanity.
The author and absolutely everything about her/his biography are mortal. Art is not.
I think whether or not we’re affected by an artist’s actions is a decision—one we construct, even if we don’t realize it. Saying “it doesn’t affect me” doesn’t mean the biography has no effect; it means we’ve chosen to engage with the art despite it. That’s very different from not knowing anything about the artist at all.
For example, if I know an artist was a murderer and I still appreciate their work, that’s a conscious stance I’m taking. It’s not neutral. It’s a relationship I’m choosing with the art, and with the context around it.
And with Kafka—I do think if his friend hadn’t published his work, it would have far less value. I don’t believe anything has intrinsic value. Meaning and value are co-created between the work and its audience. Without a reader, the writing means nothing to anyone. In fact, the story of his friend publishing it against his wishes adds to the cultural weight we now give those works.
So to me, it’s not just about the art or the artist—but the dynamic between the two, and us
I recall a reply written by the actor Will Wheaton, to a fan who was concerned about how they should feel about the abusive behaviour of Joss Whedon. He worked on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", and an episode of that show helped the fan deal with a tragedy in their life. Now, knowing how he behaved towards others, they didn't know how they could justify their love of the work.
Will basically said, yes, his behaviour is bad, but the thing you loved is more that just his work -- there was a whole crew of people who worked on that show, not just him. The impact that episode had on the fan was more important than the actions of one person who worked to make that episode possible.
Other than the obvious point here (there were many talents who created the art, not just one dark individual), there is another point about how the work impacted us in the past at play. Art and music and literature that deeply impacted and affected who I am now may have been made by monsters -- that does not change the impact it had. I am still now who I am because of it, despite the darkness of the creator. If I was unaware of that dark connection, and the changes in me are for the better, why should suddenly having that knowledge undo those changes?
The moral argument is still valid -- I don't need to continue to support the creator -- but I don't need to undo parts of myself just because I was inspired in the past to change my life for the better based on the work of a monster.
Human beings are animals. We are complex, unpredictable, contradictory, and endlessly fascinating. Our DNA and random circumstances from birth to death determine who and what we become, and our cultures judge us on their standards which change over time: what was once acceptable, admireable, or loveable, may not be today. Take rape for instance: used to considered macho—now anathema. I believe that timeless art is beyond the creator. Another example: our Constitution was created and signed by slaveholders, many of whom may have fathered children with enslaved women.
As a music and art obsessed layman, I’ve thought a lot about this (to no clear answer), but, especially with narrative arts, I’ve felt knowing some of the ugly facts might be important to be able to identify where that ugliness seeps into the art.
It’s not always blatant and readily dismissible. I guess fear unconsciously steeping myself in ideas or perspectives that would exert some nefarious influence. Not that I think you are what you consume, but what consume en masse can’t be without impact either.
I agree it’s a question of whether you can ever consider the work as separate from the person, if you know who the person is, in whatever profession. As someone from the postcolonial part of the world, I’ve found beauty in the architecture and infrastructure of the cities I’ve lived in, but I hope I would never have condoned the bigotry and slavery practiced by any of the city planners or governors.
In the specific context of art, though, I don’t think it’s necessary to backtrack from your original response when you discover the artist’s “stain.” If you find you can no longer enjoy the work, you have the right to stop subscribing to it (if the artist is still alive and profiting from it) or to give the book or physical copy of the movie or music away, or just never read or watch or listen to it again. But as its audience, you were responding to it as a work of art to begin with - not to the person who created it. Your relationship to the work need not change unless you can’t separate one from the other.
If it does change, then we’re all being human - the artist, the audience, and those who criticise one or the other. We’re all capable of great art and great monstrosity - as many works of art have shown.
"We all have three lifes: public, private, secret. Who knows what lurks in the deepest recesses of the human soul?
If you disapprove of the artist because of the artist beliefs, you negate purpose or raison de etre.of the action. Some are defined by what they think and others by what they do.
How slippery the slope is to apply same ethical standard to every combat trained member of U.S. Armed Forces able to take life at direction.
"The mark of true intelligence is to hold diametrically opposed thoughts in your head at once."
. . . there will be both angels and demons in the artistic otherworld. And such is Life for those who dare to see the whole it.
Seems to me, the full measure of being an adult human, is the reconciliation of the conflict between that which gives and that which takes away from aliveness.
We live in a particularly censorious age. We are quick to condemn others’ behavior, writing, speech, and thoughts. We are quick to judge another’s character based on what we think we know about them. We rarely take time to consider that we may not know what we think we know. If the work engages and inspires you, give precedence to that over what you think you know about the creator. Harder to do in this age when we think we know all there is to know and need to judge others on it. We don’t (know) and we needn’t (judge) in most cases.
I probably boycott more than most people. If a company has deplorable policies or politics, I boycott. I’m thinking of a couple of examples. I’ve spent thousands of dollars at Amazon, but since Bezos is tearing down the Washington Post, I stopped. Cold turkey. Another is Walmart, famous for low prices, but notorious for moving into a community and driving small businesses out, and then leaving if the profit isn’t what they expected, not to mention refusing to give employees health benefits. In my town, many employees of Walmart were on public assistance.
As for artists, they have their demons, as we all do. I won’t contribute to their wealth while they can benefit from it, but after they are gone, I am more able to look at their work objectively. Woody Allen and Roman Polanski come to mind. Their work is phenomenal, but I can’t spend money on it. I have a couple of movies from both of them, purchased before their failings became public. I still watch them with clear conscience, but the watching doesn’t benefit them anymore. Some of the musical artists that have fallen from grace don’t really affect me as I am not interested in their work already, but some actors take wildly unpopular (to me) positions and I avoid them.
I’ll never stop loving ‘American Boy’ by Estelle featuring Kanye West regardless of what I may think of him. That song brings back powerful memories of events in my own life, aside from it being a great work of art. I think the art can stand on its own.. until it can’t.
This dilemma really messes with our mentals and challenges our notions about ourselves in very special ways. For example, would I be happy to discover that I am excited and stimulated by the artistic work of a child abuser, absolutly not. But yet there I am helpless when I find myself in a waiting room and the music from the speaker, with seemingly defiant undertones, is Michael Jackson's 'The Way You Make me Feel'. Resistance is futile, the beat the rhythm cannot be ignored and art wins despite any notions I may hold about where I stand on this issue. Ree Hall
As I was typing my comment, on my cell, your comment is visible above my keyboard and I was immediately drawn to the name Michael Jackson as that was going to be the subject of my comment. He was undeniably an artist of great talent, with several "first" in the music industry industry. Even though he was found innocent of charges I believe that he was guilty. Why? Simple, the children's fingerprints were on the pornographic DVDs in his bedroom. And, let's go with.."kids get into things they're not supposed to all be time." Sorry, that's a big nope from me. They weren't locked away, they weren't even hidden, they were in plane site. End of oral arguments for me. Guilty on all counts. Now, do I listen to his music? One can't avoid his songs being played at various public spaces. Do I buy his music or purposely play a song of his? Nope again. I don't condem others, I keep quiet with my personal protest. Unless, like this article, you ask me about my thoughts on separating art from the artist. Then my opinion, and reasoning, becomes known. Others may feel differently, that's their moral choice.
Isn’t this true of any (and every) profession? It’s impossible to separate the judge from the judgement, the politician from the politics, or the physician from the medicine.
What if you didn't know the art was created by a 'monster' and had a particular relationship with it/ experience of it? And then you found out later.....what would be the change? Surely if it changed it means the art and the artist are disconnected and that it returns as always to what we project on the world depending on where WE are at in all aspects of our life at that moment. What if we never found out they were a 'monster'. That could be true of various pieces of art we admire at the moment.
This was my point as well. What if the art had an impact on me in the past -- should I undo that because I know now the artist was a monster? I can get behind the moral argument, and not support their work anymore, but the prior impact their work had is not undoable. My life starts now -- I can't change what happened then.
I have wrestled quite a bit with this question. I can usually enjoy the art of assholes who are long gone, but for those still living (and presumably still being assholes), I really don’t know what the answer is.
If I had to guess, with a dead artist, there’s no risk of rewarding or enabling future harm. The past feels “settled,” even if it’s morally messy. With a living one, talking about their work can feel like supporting them—their platform, their income, their influence.
And the dead can’t talk back, so I’m not as scared to criticize them. There’s just less social and emotional risk
Art is a force similar to gravity, or electromagnetism, only it manifests seldom. I am not speaking here about art’s social influence. It is real but it is not its main power. Art changes the universe regardless of whether it is recognized, understood, admired or loved.
Kafka left instructions for his writings to be burned after his death. A friend chose not to respect his wish. Had he fulfilled it, would that mean today that Kafka's writings had no value? Caravaggio was a murderer. Very few people know this today. His paintings are very much alive.
We recognize art on the cave walls in France without any knowledge about its author or his/her intentions. We have no idea if Homer has even existed. We send Bach’s music into space with the hope that his music has a chance to communicate to a different species something essential about humanity.
The author and absolutely everything about her/his biography are mortal. Art is not.
I think whether or not we’re affected by an artist’s actions is a decision—one we construct, even if we don’t realize it. Saying “it doesn’t affect me” doesn’t mean the biography has no effect; it means we’ve chosen to engage with the art despite it. That’s very different from not knowing anything about the artist at all.
For example, if I know an artist was a murderer and I still appreciate their work, that’s a conscious stance I’m taking. It’s not neutral. It’s a relationship I’m choosing with the art, and with the context around it.
And with Kafka—I do think if his friend hadn’t published his work, it would have far less value. I don’t believe anything has intrinsic value. Meaning and value are co-created between the work and its audience. Without a reader, the writing means nothing to anyone. In fact, the story of his friend publishing it against his wishes adds to the cultural weight we now give those works.
So to me, it’s not just about the art or the artist—but the dynamic between the two, and us
Well put!
I recall a reply written by the actor Will Wheaton, to a fan who was concerned about how they should feel about the abusive behaviour of Joss Whedon. He worked on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", and an episode of that show helped the fan deal with a tragedy in their life. Now, knowing how he behaved towards others, they didn't know how they could justify their love of the work.
Will basically said, yes, his behaviour is bad, but the thing you loved is more that just his work -- there was a whole crew of people who worked on that show, not just him. The impact that episode had on the fan was more important than the actions of one person who worked to make that episode possible.
Other than the obvious point here (there were many talents who created the art, not just one dark individual), there is another point about how the work impacted us in the past at play. Art and music and literature that deeply impacted and affected who I am now may have been made by monsters -- that does not change the impact it had. I am still now who I am because of it, despite the darkness of the creator. If I was unaware of that dark connection, and the changes in me are for the better, why should suddenly having that knowledge undo those changes?
The moral argument is still valid -- I don't need to continue to support the creator -- but I don't need to undo parts of myself just because I was inspired in the past to change my life for the better based on the work of a monster.
Human beings are animals. We are complex, unpredictable, contradictory, and endlessly fascinating. Our DNA and random circumstances from birth to death determine who and what we become, and our cultures judge us on their standards which change over time: what was once acceptable, admireable, or loveable, may not be today. Take rape for instance: used to considered macho—now anathema. I believe that timeless art is beyond the creator. Another example: our Constitution was created and signed by slaveholders, many of whom may have fathered children with enslaved women.
As a music and art obsessed layman, I’ve thought a lot about this (to no clear answer), but, especially with narrative arts, I’ve felt knowing some of the ugly facts might be important to be able to identify where that ugliness seeps into the art.
It’s not always blatant and readily dismissible. I guess fear unconsciously steeping myself in ideas or perspectives that would exert some nefarious influence. Not that I think you are what you consume, but what consume en masse can’t be without impact either.
I agree it’s a question of whether you can ever consider the work as separate from the person, if you know who the person is, in whatever profession. As someone from the postcolonial part of the world, I’ve found beauty in the architecture and infrastructure of the cities I’ve lived in, but I hope I would never have condoned the bigotry and slavery practiced by any of the city planners or governors.
In the specific context of art, though, I don’t think it’s necessary to backtrack from your original response when you discover the artist’s “stain.” If you find you can no longer enjoy the work, you have the right to stop subscribing to it (if the artist is still alive and profiting from it) or to give the book or physical copy of the movie or music away, or just never read or watch or listen to it again. But as its audience, you were responding to it as a work of art to begin with - not to the person who created it. Your relationship to the work need not change unless you can’t separate one from the other.
If it does change, then we’re all being human - the artist, the audience, and those who criticise one or the other. We’re all capable of great art and great monstrosity - as many works of art have shown.
"We all have three lifes: public, private, secret. Who knows what lurks in the deepest recesses of the human soul?
If you disapprove of the artist because of the artist beliefs, you negate purpose or raison de etre.of the action. Some are defined by what they think and others by what they do.
How slippery the slope is to apply same ethical standard to every combat trained member of U.S. Armed Forces able to take life at direction.
"The mark of true intelligence is to hold diametrically opposed thoughts in your head at once."
. . . there will be both angels and demons in the artistic otherworld. And such is Life for those who dare to see the whole it.
Seems to me, the full measure of being an adult human, is the reconciliation of the conflict between that which gives and that which takes away from aliveness.
Like all things in life it’s very complicated. Picasso was a misogynist but then he painted Guernica’s central figure as a suffering woman.
We live in a particularly censorious age. We are quick to condemn others’ behavior, writing, speech, and thoughts. We are quick to judge another’s character based on what we think we know about them. We rarely take time to consider that we may not know what we think we know. If the work engages and inspires you, give precedence to that over what you think you know about the creator. Harder to do in this age when we think we know all there is to know and need to judge others on it. We don’t (know) and we needn’t (judge) in most cases.
I probably boycott more than most people. If a company has deplorable policies or politics, I boycott. I’m thinking of a couple of examples. I’ve spent thousands of dollars at Amazon, but since Bezos is tearing down the Washington Post, I stopped. Cold turkey. Another is Walmart, famous for low prices, but notorious for moving into a community and driving small businesses out, and then leaving if the profit isn’t what they expected, not to mention refusing to give employees health benefits. In my town, many employees of Walmart were on public assistance.
As for artists, they have their demons, as we all do. I won’t contribute to their wealth while they can benefit from it, but after they are gone, I am more able to look at their work objectively. Woody Allen and Roman Polanski come to mind. Their work is phenomenal, but I can’t spend money on it. I have a couple of movies from both of them, purchased before their failings became public. I still watch them with clear conscience, but the watching doesn’t benefit them anymore. Some of the musical artists that have fallen from grace don’t really affect me as I am not interested in their work already, but some actors take wildly unpopular (to me) positions and I avoid them.
I’ll never stop loving ‘American Boy’ by Estelle featuring Kanye West regardless of what I may think of him. That song brings back powerful memories of events in my own life, aside from it being a great work of art. I think the art can stand on its own.. until it can’t.
Yes, it's not a black or white question. As Caravaggio himself would have said 'It's more chiaroscuro'!