Separating the Art from the Artist

We've all heard that phrase before haven't we? So often we hear it mentioned when someone is discussing art they enjoy and the artist has been branded "problematic." In a world where free speech has been magnified by the internet, the freedom to enjoy things at face value seems to have vanished. Before we can comment on our interest in music, movies, fashion, or art, we must first check to see if the creator fits into our peer's description of moral accountability. I stress "our peer's description" because left to ourselves without outside judgement how often would we analyze our own likes and dislikes?

Yet the question remains; can we truly separate the art from the artist? If the answer is no, at what point of the artist's corruption does their art become morally unconsumable? No matter what side of the debate you lean towards, or where you draw the the line, this is a divisive subject and there will be always be people who disagree. Even when I first started researching this topic some of the first articles I came across made claims both that the separation was needed, and that truly separating the art was impossible.

Does the separation of art from artist decontextualize their work and leave it void of any depth or meaning? Perhaps, or as so often the case, this to could depend greatly on piece by piece intention and translation. Is the song or painting referencing the controversy surrounding the artist? Does their latest fashion show encourage unethical consumption? It's pieces like this that are inseparable not just from the artist's controversy, but it's own as well.

The ability to disregard the entirety of an artist's life's work is further complicated by their own influence. Andy Warhol comes to mind as an example who's influence across several different fields can't be denied, much less disregarded. Putting your feelings on his personal beliefs and statements aside, his mark on the worlds of pop art, film, and even fashion have become historically significant. To erase this history because you disagree with the views of the artist would decontextualize most post-modern art being created today.

I have found a large amount of cancel culture surrounds around the idea of an artist creating moral controversy, and not about whether or not the art itself reflects that controversy or creates it's own.

After the recent death of Bridget Bardot there was a considerable amount of discussion surrounding how ethical it is to morn or celebrate the life she lead. Bardot was a fashion icon, sex symbol, and all around "it girl" in the 1960's, known for her big bouffant hair as well as for her work as an animal rights activist. However in the more recent years leading up to her death, she was noted for being convicted on five* separate accounts for inciting racial hatred. A mark that certainly overshadows her more charitable features.

*I have seen posts attributing her to six convictions, however I have only been able to confirm five through my own research.

Naturally the internet had lots of hateful things to add to the discourse. Some people sided with her, adding further hurtful comments on race, religion and political views. Others made equally hateful accusations against her, broadening the blame to anyone whose so much as saved a photo of the late actress to a Pinterest board labeled "Hair."

Now that some time has passed, and the rage of anyone with access to a keyboard has died down, the argument has again boiled down to the same question: Can we separate the art from the artist? Bardot's work, both as a model and film star leave behind a legacy of 1960's pop culture, one that can't easily be ignored. So how are we to interact with the piece of history that has been left to us?

As I've stated before, I believe art can be viewed separately from the artist as long as the art is taken in context of itself. I do not view Bardot as a suitable role model, however, I do have her picture saved on a Pinterest board labeled "Hair." This is not my way of condoning or disregarding her comments or views, but maybe my Pinterest board wasn't meant to be political.

Where we so often ask if the artist is problematic, do we stop to consider what message the art itself is sending? We listen to songs about topics we would never feel comfortable with their writers participating in, we enjoy runway fashions with little to no concern as to whether or not the models gave consent to what they would be made to wear. (Gisele Bündchen who walked topless for Alexander McQueen's S/S 1998 show.) We as a culture are quick to pass judgement with little care for context. We're so eager for our own opinions to be heard we often fail to properly articulate them. Wishing only to be marked with approval by our peers and praised for the work of a critic. Perhaps it's because it is easier to say something negative than it is to remain silent, and the only thing worse than having the agreed upon "wrong opinion" on the internet is holding no real opinion at all.

Thanks for reading, if you've made it this far consider leaving a review!

-Coco Elouise Marie