Point (Dan): As a musician, I find it hard to separate the art from the artist. The music somebody creates is an embodiment of themself, which cannot and should not be kept separate from them. Specifically, songs and albums alike represent the thoughts and values of artists, meaning that their work is closely connected to who they are as people. Separating the art from the artist would be the equivalent of thinking of the mind and the body as their own independent entities, when in reality they are dependent on each other.
But separating the art from the artist also results in a lack of accountability for the actions of an artist. This approach allows artists to hide behind their music to evade backlash and negative perception. One of the best examples of this is Eric Clapton, the legendary English guitarist. While he is regarded as one of the greatest guitarists of all time, which I don’t disagree with, Clapton has a history of making racist statements, including an incident at a concert in 1976 where he proclaimed, “Keep Britain White.” But Clapton has largely escaped retrospective criticism of his statements thanks to his musical prowess. By ignoring the actions of musicians like Clapton and only focusing on their music, it excuses artists from their actions. By not separating the art from the artist, it creates a more accurate view of a musician that gives a greater, more holistic perspective for listeners.
Point (Nell): It is possible to separate the art from the artist. Art is a form of innovation in that it transcends time. Individual pieces of art, be they paintings, literature, music and so on, can pass through successive generations both in form — hanging on museum walls — or through the techniques they employ and the social messages they convey. In the age of artificial intelligence, even obscure art from independent creators can become components in digital creations, although the ethics of this is a separate subject.
Additionally, art may inspire people differently or take on distinct messages according to how different groups see it. We understand poems that emphasize the “White Man’s Burden” or paintings that exalt “Manifest Destiny” very differently than patrons of the arts when those racist and colonial ideologies were dominant. This understanding is completely independent of the artists’ individual qualities and intentions. Conversely, we can appreciate a hit song from a problematic but genre-defining musician according to the song’s societal impact. It should be mentioned here that separating the art from the artist need not be done to justify consuming an art. These examples go to show that all art will inevitably be out of the hands of the artist, thus separating the two.
Counterpoint (Dan): While I agree with the point that we can appreciate songs and art from problematic artists, I believe it is still important to consider the artist when enjoying this. Art is an expression of the artist, which makes it difficult to keep them separate. I also think that while an artist can be celebrated for their art and their contributions to their artform, this cannot be the only thing the artist is remembered for. A prime example of this is Kanye West. He’s one of the most influential rappers of all time and has made some incredible albums, but has also made several, horrible antisemitic statements in the past two years. Just because he made “Graduation” doesn’t mean his statements should be forgotten about. His music can and should still be appreciated, but his music should not be the only thing remembered about him.
Counterpoint (Nell): While I agree that using an artist’s legacy to cushion them from criticism or public accountability is an issue, I would argue that this is distinct from separating the art from the artist; rather, this is further cementing the relationship between a creative work and its creator, with the former carrying water for the latter. Separating art from the artist would more accurately look like, for example, criticizing Clapton for his racist comments while also listening to his music and judging it for its own qualities. An even more augmented way to separate the art from the artist would be a musical group made up of refugees or children of refugees playing covers of Clapton’s music, or writing parodies that criticize anti-migrant, racist sentiments.
There are more complicated examples. “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling, for example, is very divisive for her statements that are hostile to the transgender community as well as a substantial donation to an anti-trans legal organization. Royalties from the continued consumption of her series may very well contribute to materially harmful anti-trans political causes. Still, it is possible to separate “Harry Potter” from Rowling because that work expands far beyond the original IP, and fans can take creative liberties — fanfiction, do-it-yourself cosplay, independent video games — to honor a fictional universe that is foundational to them without contributing materially to its problematic creator.