Separating the art from the artist
Trying to separate the art from the artist is one of those controversial things that people will never unanimously agree on. Like almost everything else in life, separating the art from the artist is circumstantial and the variation of those circumstances is dependent on your personal moral compass. With this concept being so heavily linked to your own moral virtue, this means that judgment and indictment of your character, as a person, are almost guaranteed. Rightfully so too, because your actions are the only things that we can use to evaluate your character and try to predict your conduct in the future.
Determining who cannot be separated from their art is far easier than determining who can. Here is where people’s personal values play a significant role and it’s impossible to not judge people based on these positions. Where there is a ‘grey area’, then surely there must be a black and white on either side to complete the spectrum. There are situations where we should all be in consensus, granted that moral good for the betterment of society is our collective goal. What role does the perpetrator's work (art) plays in their offense? If a causal relationship between the art and the offense can be established, then it’s a no-brainer that no leeway shall be given. If your work is what enabled/empowered you to commit that offense, then it’s impossible to separate the art from the artist. The pencil cannot be separated from the writing when it’s the lead within the pencil that left the mark. It is only when there is a correlation between the art and the offense that there should be further analysis and a strong correlation may still be enough reason to not accept the separation of the artist from the art.
When it comes to a situation like R Kelly, separating him from his music is impossible because his music was the vehicle that enabled him to be a predator and his music was about the things he did. The songs he wrote just don’t sound the same when he croons now. Take for example the words, “My mind is telling me, no, but my body is telling me yes”; knowing that he was sexually abusing under-aged girls, which he must have known to be wrong but he just didn’t care repulses me and I cannot listen to his music with virgin ears anymore. Even the songs he wrote for other people are tainted because the meaning of those songs is perverted. He allegedly wrote Michael Jackson's “you are not alone” for a teenager whom he had impregnated, and she lost the baby. Whether that is true or not, knowing how muddied the waters are, separating him from his art is impossible.
The same goes for Harvey Weinstein. It's impossible to applaud and appreciate his contributions to Hollywood and films while discarding his transgressions because his violations were tied to the movies his studio produced. It's hard to see Miramax or The Weinstein Company at the beginning of a movie and not wonder how many women were assaulted, groped, or violated in the making of this movie. Separating him from his work is impossible.
Chris Brown is a convicted abuser with multiple transgressions. Attaching his music to his violations the same way it can be done with R Kelly is not the same possible due to the nature of his offense. However, choosing to support him despite his transgressions, is something you can argue for using whatever justification helps you sleep at night. That justification will be a position that you personally believe and that you will be judged for. This is often the best course of action for everyone involved.
Trying to separate the art from the artist is a dirty business that rarely has a positive outcome. It is up to everyone to draw their line in the sand on what they will and will not accept and they must be prepared to fall on their own sword. Personally, trying to defend an offender of any kind is not a position I will ever be willing to make the hill I die on. It’s an important part that you realize that this is not a difference of opinion, but that of moral values; and It is within people’s rights to choose to not associate with someone contrary to their moral positions. If you feel strongly enough about someone’s art to try and overlook their transgressions, I will come to certain conclusions about your character and you will forever be stained by that stance you hold.
Determining who cannot be separated from their art is far easier than determining who can. Here is where people’s personal values play a significant role and it’s impossible to not judge people based on these positions. Where there is a ‘grey area’, then surely there must be a black and white on either side to complete the spectrum. There are situations where we should all be in consensus, granted that moral good for the betterment of society is our collective goal. What role does the perpetrator's work (art) plays in their offense? If a causal relationship between the art and the offense can be established, then it’s a no-brainer that no leeway shall be given. If your work is what enabled/empowered you to commit that offense, then it’s impossible to separate the art from the artist. The pencil cannot be separated from the writing when it’s the lead within the pencil that left the mark. It is only when there is a correlation between the art and the offense that there should be further analysis and a strong correlation may still be enough reason to not accept the separation of the artist from the art.
When it comes to a situation like R Kelly, separating him from his music is impossible because his music was the vehicle that enabled him to be a predator and his music was about the things he did. The songs he wrote just don’t sound the same when he croons now. Take for example the words, “My mind is telling me, no, but my body is telling me yes”; knowing that he was sexually abusing under-aged girls, which he must have known to be wrong but he just didn’t care repulses me and I cannot listen to his music with virgin ears anymore. Even the songs he wrote for other people are tainted because the meaning of those songs is perverted. He allegedly wrote Michael Jackson's “you are not alone” for a teenager whom he had impregnated, and she lost the baby. Whether that is true or not, knowing how muddied the waters are, separating him from his art is impossible.
The same goes for Harvey Weinstein. It's impossible to applaud and appreciate his contributions to Hollywood and films while discarding his transgressions because his violations were tied to the movies his studio produced. It's hard to see Miramax or The Weinstein Company at the beginning of a movie and not wonder how many women were assaulted, groped, or violated in the making of this movie. Separating him from his work is impossible.
Chris Brown is a convicted abuser with multiple transgressions. Attaching his music to his violations the same way it can be done with R Kelly is not the same possible due to the nature of his offense. However, choosing to support him despite his transgressions, is something you can argue for using whatever justification helps you sleep at night. That justification will be a position that you personally believe and that you will be judged for. This is often the best course of action for everyone involved.
Trying to separate the art from the artist is a dirty business that rarely has a positive outcome. It is up to everyone to draw their line in the sand on what they will and will not accept and they must be prepared to fall on their own sword. Personally, trying to defend an offender of any kind is not a position I will ever be willing to make the hill I die on. It’s an important part that you realize that this is not a difference of opinion, but that of moral values; and It is within people’s rights to choose to not associate with someone contrary to their moral positions. If you feel strongly enough about someone’s art to try and overlook their transgressions, I will come to certain conclusions about your character and you will forever be stained by that stance you hold.
Comments
Post a Comment