Faceoff: Can you separate art from the artist?

Family channels across social media are generating profit at the expense of exploiting children

Graphic by Krystal Wu, News Editor & Kevin Xiang, Copy/Multimedia Editor

Yes

Krystal Wu, News Editor

Ludwig van Beethoven rose to fame because of his musical talent, but Beethoven was much more than just an artist. With an alcoholic father and his own deafness, Beethoven had his fare of struggles, emotions, and life challenges. Aside from his musical genius, however, he was a person.

Like Beethoven’s music, art evokes emotion; the paint strokes and dynamics tell a story, but the art should not define the artist. If every novel reflected the novelist, if every painting represented the painter, and if every song represented the singer, then the feelings harbored towards those pieces of art would then create unfair prejudice against the artist. Agatha Christie’s books about gruesome murderers and scary situations highlight the peculiarities of the plot, but her life tells a story beyond the terrifying stories she writes about. Artists serve as the window panes that tint our views of life, and, as the best-selling novelist of all time, Agatha Christie wrote books that alter perspectives with each page. She separated herself from her art and lived an exciting life with her husband, Archie Christie. She was not, by any means, a murderer or monster like the characters within her novels. So why should we perceive an artist solely based on the work they produce?

On the other hand, who the artist is could negatively bias us against the art. Separating the art from the artist allows us to enjoy the art regardless of our view of the artist themself and protects the beauty of the art. When singer Alexander James O’Connor, who is more widely known as Rex Orange County, faced sexual assault charges, fans and listeners boycotted his music. It was only after authorities dropped his charges did his fan base slowly return. However, if we separate the music from the artist, fans of his music can still listen to his songs without supporting him. At the end of the day, “Pluto Projector” remains a first-rate song. Another situation catalyzing music boycotts happened with former rhythm and blues star Robert Sylvester Kelly, who uses the stage name R. Kelly. He engaged in child pornography and sexual abuse amongst other crimes. Instead of abandoning a song that one enjoys, one can find the means to listen to the song without supporting the artist themself through cover music and other platforms that they do not affiliate with. It makes sense to not want to support an artist’s work because of the kind of person they are, but there are other ways to enjoy an artist’s work without supporting them. We must not overlook the talent and musicality of the work simply because of the creator’s actions beyond their creation.

Sometimes, art stands alone, and an artist does not exist because certain forms of art have not always been acceptable for different demographics. In the earlier centuries, because of gender roles, women commonly wrote anonymously or under pen names to protect themselves whilst sharing their art. Artists under these circumstances cannot tie any of their work to themselves. Writers like Emily Brontë hid behind another name in hopes of sharing their thoughts without fear of prejudiced criticism. Despite not knowing the artist, we still enjoy the content and value the works themselves. Frankly, the art standing on its own creates a clean slate where different features of the artist cannot hinder the success and perception of the work (these biasing features could be race, gender, or sexuality). Another reason to be anonymous is that the artwork could negatively affect how others perceive the artist. When standing alone, the art expresses the artist’s thoughts without the worry of governmental penalization or societal judgment. Willingly signing your name on a political cartoon calling Donald Trump an orange Cheeto might not carry huge consequences, but, in other time periods and other countries, your expressing an opinion against the government could kill you.

The artwork biases our views of the artist and vice versa, which is why being able to set the two apart is necessary.

No

Kevin Xiang, Copy/Multimedia Editor

When we think of the Mona Lisa, we think of Da Vinci; when we think of Harry Potter, we think of J.K. Rowling; when we think of the Eiffel tower, well, it is in the name.

For the greatest pieces of art, their creators are synonymous. Think Claude Monet, and it's obviously going to be Impressionist water lilies. With what would normally be worthless oil splatter chaos, attaching the name Jackson Pollock to it makes its value go up to the millions. Those artists have a unique style that is sought after. Art is the creator.

Even if those works are not at auction at Christie’s auction house, to truly appreciate art is to understand its history. The artists who created a piece are obviously going to be a part of that piece’s history. Picasso’s pieces would not be what they were if you did not understand his struggles and “Black Panther” would not be the masterpiece it is today if the producers and actors were not Black.

The truth is that art is inseparably tied to its creator. To truly understand these works, it is necessary to understand the context from which they originate. That requires an understanding of the creator. These are the same pieces of information that language arts classes teach their students to look for. So, even for lesser-known pieces, to appreciate art is to appreciate its creator.

In today’s world, there is an additional reason that ties art to its creators: money. In today’s interconnected world, the revenue from art is increasingly directed back to the creator. Songwriters make money off of their albums, authors make money off of their books, and there are even NFTs that encode art worth billions of dollars.

So, when one accesses art, whether that be listening to songs on Spotify or purchasing books, they indirectly support the creator. Usually, that is good; artists need to make a living, after all. However, when that artist is problematic, such as if they make controversial comments or commit an untenable action, then that relation becomes ever important. By accessing these types of art, one would not only be giving support to a questionable cause but also enabling such behavior is able to continue.

That connection can take a more intangible side as well. Say you are reading a book, and you find out that the author has committed child molestation. Then, you are reading a creation from the same hands that have committed unspeakable sins. There is little difference then between this scenario and paying a murderer to hand you a bloody gun just used to murder someone. To separate art from the artist, it would be necessary to ignore actions that are impossible to do so with.

Artists, along with their angels and demons, are inseparable from the art they create. The only way to avoid that fact is to be ignorant of the connection in the first place.