Separating the art from the artist: a useful or harmful thing?
In today's society in a world where so-called 'cancel culture' is more prevalent than ever before, people are quick to judge others actions, especially those in the public eye. Although this can be useful in alerting others to an individuals behaviour, it can be damaging, as it seems to suggest that people don't have the capacity to change (although this is only relevant in some situations) and also raises the issue of people who 'unstan' (for want of a better word) acting as if they're morally superior to the people who still choose to enjoy an artists work, despite their actions.
It seems as if it was much easier to separate people from the art they created before the internet became widespread and media scrutiny became commonplace. Although this isn't a bad thing and has brought countless advantages, it would probably also be fair to say that over-analysis and 'cancel culture' has sucked some of the enjoyment out of our art consumption. It would certainly have been a much more guiltless life in the early 20th century in particular where it was believed that art should be autonomous to enjoy it properly, and any contextual information you happen to know is irrelevant. An issue with this in the current day and age though is that it would simply be naive to treat everything as autonomous, especially if you know what the artist has done, and they are potentially profiting off your continued consumption of their work.
Another idea that encourages separating the art from the artist is the notion that the individual interprets the art in their own way, with everyone experiencing a different feeling towards the same thing (essentially the song is 'yours' once it has been released). With this idea, the creator has no control over the way their work is interpreted, their personal life or wrongdoings do not contribute anything to their work, and if a consumer like me or you think twice about a creator's actions, we are giving them the power to influence our views about their art and not formulating our own. It should also be said that your enjoyment for something rarely comes from one factor alone, although someone with questionable morals may have played a part in the creation of something you love, it was not only them, and thinking that way, or retracting your support for something, discredits the hard work and effort put in by others to create that art. Personally, I disagree with the idea that the creator shouldn't have any say over the way their work is interpreted but that may be because I am someone who analyses lyrics and the meaning of songs, and believe that context is important. In regards to the fact that it is never one person who contributes to something, It still stands that usually the 'dodgy' one is still gaining some money off of the work, and that despite there perhaps being one perpetrator in a group, it doesn't automatically make everyone else innocent (Neck Deep for example), but then again it also seems unfair to write off a whole band when there's only one member who has acted questionably and the other members were none the wiser.
It's also been said that we shouldn't expect morality from an artist as their job isn't to be moral. To me this argument is flawed though as I believe anyone in the public eye with people looking up to them has a moral duty to uphold and should be held accountable for any majorly harmful actions. As well as that, I would say that there are so many talented people out there, that if someone was outed to be abusive, why give them the attention they don't deserve, when someone could easily take their place? Despite saying this though, I can wholeheartedly admit that I haven't followed this myself and continued to support Don Broco (amongst others) despite the (refuted) allegations against them, as there wasn't another band that would fill that space for me.
When asking people what they thought about the issue in regards to music, many said it eventually came down to one of two things, the time they've been listening to the artist, and the severity of their actions. One example a few people brought up was the band Brand New, who's lead vocalist Jesse Lacey was accused of sexual misconduct in late 2017. A few people said that it's much harder to let go of a band like Brand New, who they have been listening to for years, but still end up feeling guilty now every time they listen, and sub-consciously find themselves listening to the band less and less as their music makes them feel different after the allegations, regardless of the impact the band has had on their lives previously.
In regards to judging based on the severity of someone's actions, I think this is understandable in a lot of situations but at the same time there is definitely a risk of giving some people a 'free pass' and judging others more harshly, even if their actions are quite similar (although this is probably innate, perhaps with an artist you prefer, you can excuse their behaviour much more easily). A good example of making a judgement based on the severity of someone's behaviour is comparing Morrissey to someone like R.Kelly (not the same type of music at all but we'll pretend its similar for the sake of comparison). Although Morrissey has some pretty close-minded views and political opinions, for me The Smiths' music can definitely be separated from Morrissey's views now, and it is instead much more effective to challenge those views when possible, than refuse to listen to anything he's created. However I think completely differently when we take someone like R. Kelly who sings about themes that have evidently matched his personal life. Although I can't say I was an avid R. Kelly fan before the allegations, I certainly wouldn't listen to his music now as the themes in his songs, like sex, consent, and age differences, clearly reflect his actions and listening to that music would make me inadvertently complicit to that behaviour.
Basically what I'm saying here is that it is very difficult for me to have a clear standing point on this issue when there are so many different factors and conflicting ideas that come in to play. It would also be completely unfair for me to tell you how to approach the issue and whether you should continue listening/watching/enjoying the work of artists who have allegations against them or harmful views as it is all down to you personally, and it would make me incredibly hypocritical since I still listen to bands like Don Broco and Nothing But Thieves (however allegations against both have been refuted), and I have friends who listen to Chris Brown and other artists with serious allegations against them. Sometimes I just want to listen and enjoy music, forgetting the context, but at the same time it's hard to ignore any misconduct and listen with a clear conscience all the time.
It seems as if it was much easier to separate people from the art they created before the internet became widespread and media scrutiny became commonplace. Although this isn't a bad thing and has brought countless advantages, it would probably also be fair to say that over-analysis and 'cancel culture' has sucked some of the enjoyment out of our art consumption. It would certainly have been a much more guiltless life in the early 20th century in particular where it was believed that art should be autonomous to enjoy it properly, and any contextual information you happen to know is irrelevant. An issue with this in the current day and age though is that it would simply be naive to treat everything as autonomous, especially if you know what the artist has done, and they are potentially profiting off your continued consumption of their work.
Another idea that encourages separating the art from the artist is the notion that the individual interprets the art in their own way, with everyone experiencing a different feeling towards the same thing (essentially the song is 'yours' once it has been released). With this idea, the creator has no control over the way their work is interpreted, their personal life or wrongdoings do not contribute anything to their work, and if a consumer like me or you think twice about a creator's actions, we are giving them the power to influence our views about their art and not formulating our own. It should also be said that your enjoyment for something rarely comes from one factor alone, although someone with questionable morals may have played a part in the creation of something you love, it was not only them, and thinking that way, or retracting your support for something, discredits the hard work and effort put in by others to create that art. Personally, I disagree with the idea that the creator shouldn't have any say over the way their work is interpreted but that may be because I am someone who analyses lyrics and the meaning of songs, and believe that context is important. In regards to the fact that it is never one person who contributes to something, It still stands that usually the 'dodgy' one is still gaining some money off of the work, and that despite there perhaps being one perpetrator in a group, it doesn't automatically make everyone else innocent (Neck Deep for example), but then again it also seems unfair to write off a whole band when there's only one member who has acted questionably and the other members were none the wiser.
It's also been said that we shouldn't expect morality from an artist as their job isn't to be moral. To me this argument is flawed though as I believe anyone in the public eye with people looking up to them has a moral duty to uphold and should be held accountable for any majorly harmful actions. As well as that, I would say that there are so many talented people out there, that if someone was outed to be abusive, why give them the attention they don't deserve, when someone could easily take their place? Despite saying this though, I can wholeheartedly admit that I haven't followed this myself and continued to support Don Broco (amongst others) despite the (refuted) allegations against them, as there wasn't another band that would fill that space for me.
When asking people what they thought about the issue in regards to music, many said it eventually came down to one of two things, the time they've been listening to the artist, and the severity of their actions. One example a few people brought up was the band Brand New, who's lead vocalist Jesse Lacey was accused of sexual misconduct in late 2017. A few people said that it's much harder to let go of a band like Brand New, who they have been listening to for years, but still end up feeling guilty now every time they listen, and sub-consciously find themselves listening to the band less and less as their music makes them feel different after the allegations, regardless of the impact the band has had on their lives previously.
In regards to judging based on the severity of someone's actions, I think this is understandable in a lot of situations but at the same time there is definitely a risk of giving some people a 'free pass' and judging others more harshly, even if their actions are quite similar (although this is probably innate, perhaps with an artist you prefer, you can excuse their behaviour much more easily). A good example of making a judgement based on the severity of someone's behaviour is comparing Morrissey to someone like R.Kelly (not the same type of music at all but we'll pretend its similar for the sake of comparison). Although Morrissey has some pretty close-minded views and political opinions, for me The Smiths' music can definitely be separated from Morrissey's views now, and it is instead much more effective to challenge those views when possible, than refuse to listen to anything he's created. However I think completely differently when we take someone like R. Kelly who sings about themes that have evidently matched his personal life. Although I can't say I was an avid R. Kelly fan before the allegations, I certainly wouldn't listen to his music now as the themes in his songs, like sex, consent, and age differences, clearly reflect his actions and listening to that music would make me inadvertently complicit to that behaviour.
Basically what I'm saying here is that it is very difficult for me to have a clear standing point on this issue when there are so many different factors and conflicting ideas that come in to play. It would also be completely unfair for me to tell you how to approach the issue and whether you should continue listening/watching/enjoying the work of artists who have allegations against them or harmful views as it is all down to you personally, and it would make me incredibly hypocritical since I still listen to bands like Don Broco and Nothing But Thieves (however allegations against both have been refuted), and I have friends who listen to Chris Brown and other artists with serious allegations against them. Sometimes I just want to listen and enjoy music, forgetting the context, but at the same time it's hard to ignore any misconduct and listen with a clear conscience all the time.
Comments
Post a Comment