In a world obsessed with cancel culture and political/ethical correctness, there is a pressing question the general public must give attention to; what do we do when our favorite content creators show up with a spotty track record?
The debate on separating the art from the artist has existed for a handful of years now, popular examples being Woody Allen and his movies VS his assault allegations and charges, or Chris Brown and his music VS his domestic abuse scandals. In recent times, with stories and accusations flying from mouth to mouth, there may have been a point where you sat down and looked into some of the entertainment you consume; should we be creating a line, a split, a gap between the art created by an artist and the actions/thoughts/beliefs held by the artist in question? Does enjoying something produced by a hateful person make me a hateful person too?
There are several perspectives and points to dissect and acknowledge. No, enjoying Chris Brown's music does not make you an abuser. No, listening to The Smiths does not mean you share the same views as Morrissey. And no, watching Midnight In Paris does not make you a pedophile. That being said, what seems to be the issue with consuming content made by individuals one might not support or agree with?
To some, the origin of art is something important. For example, imagine watching a movie involving young children knowing that the director of the movie was sexually attracted to the minor playing the lead role. For most, theres a sickening feeling that follows that information.
On one hand, there is that emotional and moral perspective, where you can't sit through a 6ix9ine song knowing he engaged in the exposure and sharing of child porn- on the other, there is the topic of 'support' in contrast to 'consumption'. Without a doubt, everyone reading this has 100% pirated music, a movie, or a tv show before. As the internet has very well explained, the reason that is illegal is because it is basically stealing content from the creators of that said content and consuming it without providing a fee to the creator. This basically means that if you can get past your own moral beliefs against the artist, consuming their content without actually paying them seems like a win win situation.
This in contrast to supporting is the point being made; supporting an artist involves paying for the content. Listening to music on Spotify, official youtube channels, buying albums off iTunes, renting movies, going to the cinema, all types of entertainment consumption that involves a cost can be considered supporting the artist. Many people don't mind paying for their entertainment, no matter the length of accusations and charges tailing the artist in the spotlight; they simply support the art the artist makes, not their actions or beliefs. This is where the separation of creation =/= creator comes into play; they see the art and only the art, blind to the disaster of a place it comes from.
Now that the general courses of action have been discussed, let's dive into the intricacies of distancing a creation from its creator.
"Separating the artist from the art, this argument goes, is the best way to approach all art, no matter what you are trying to get from it. And to fail to do so is both childish and gauche, because only philistines think it necessary to reconcile their feelings about a piece of art with their feelings about the people who created it," writes Constance Grady (@constancegrady) for Vox.com. However, she presents the alternate to this debate as well;
This way of viewing art was purely constructed to be able to judge and award pieces of art by The New Critics- paraphrased, of course- meaning that this divide is devoid of emotional connection to the place of inspiration, activities, and lifestyle of the artist.
To make it more relatable, have you ever been given a lower grade than deserved simply because your teacher disliked you for being rowdy in class? From this point of view, one might consider the divide as necessary when evaluating their preferences of entertainment. Yeah, I enjoy Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow, not to be confused with her ideas of representation or politics.... do I support Scarlett Johansson, though? Hmmm.
How much inspiration comes directly from the most flawed aspects of creators? How much content can we claim is pure to begin with? Now, what exactly is pure content? Who is untouched by controversy?
Questions like this dissolve into the spiderweb of 'cancel culture' and its impact on an artist life. The analysis of apologies, of how 'cancelling' people may not even effect them in the slightest, what to think when 'cancelling' someone leads them to do something incredibly drastic- a predominant aspect of society proves to be the lengths we go to to (maybe?) forgive but not forget mistakes.
When it comes down to it, the only opinion that matters on topics like these is your own. If you can find it in yourself to forgive, to reprimand, or to ignore, that is a choice you make. Some people have no issues separating a creation from the person who created it, while others do; entertainment and consumption of media is something personal to each individual. No amount of people behind a screen are going to be able to tell you how to watch/listen to the things you enjoy.
The act of separating art from the artist is a personal decision, depending on how you write your own moral system and how you observe your interests- how attached you are to the places art comes from is important, and nobody can really give you a framework on how to analyze your own preferences and beliefs about things like this.
PS,
The Attic Diaries does not encourage the theft of intellectual content, nor do we endorse the promotion of any of the artists mentioned in this article. Further, we believe pirating content is a criminal offense.
:)
Comments