Art and the Artist must be separate if we really want a better society.
/
In the wake of the death of alleged abuser and Hip Hop artist XXXtentacion, and allegations of pedophilloic abuse for R. Kelly, and Michael Jackson, a long standing debate has followed on social media about the separation of Art and the Artist. In the case of "X"'s untimely death it sparked a debate that pitted a social impropriety (speaking ill of the dead) against actual abuse. This bit of nonsense formed out of a desire to cover up for the fact that his fans - either never believed he committed these acts of abuse and rape, or that they paled in comparison to his art - prompted them to ask that we separate the art from the artist. The counter argument being that they are one in the same. That as an extension of the artist, art is ultimately inseparable from its creator. Citing for instance Woody Allen’s appearances in most of his films not only in physical form, but in psychological form as well. A form that acted at least as a baseline for many of his protagonists. That that separation is a form of cognitive dissonance that makes it impossible for the public to do the work of holding our favorites accountable. I must respectfully disagree with the premise. Great art is not synonymous with great people, with great politics, or wisdom. Great art is simply great art. Art is a production, and as such it has value but contrary to what capitalism may assert implicitly, that value is not inherent, but directly beholden to what we assign it. When I hear a good rhythm and I move my hips, that has no inherent value other than however it might make me feel. The kind of value that would see that almost involuntary reaction turn into making its creator beyond reproach…that’s a different story. It's I believe an absolutely important distinction to make precisely because of its difficulty. It’s an important distinction to make because it scapegoats our own response to what essentially moves us rather than interrogate patriarchy, misogyny, our myths about genius, celebrity culture and our desire to often give art more importance than it actually deserves as what actually leads to the destruction of principality, and morality much more-so than merely appreciating the art.
Art as inseparable from an artist in any reading is a premise based in fear of society's ability to wrestle with moral complexity. The fear that propels this position ostensibly lets capitalism, and celebrity culture off the hook. Reducing them to gallery players in this macabre play, when in fact they are the stars. It acknowledges the fact that the great bulk of people who say “separate the art from the artist” in fact do not separate the art from the artist, while never truly reckoning with the main forces behind that lack of recognition. In what I’m sure is mostly unintentional it points the largest finger at the audience for tapping their feet to a good song, or acknowledging the aesthetic qualities of a film, or enjoying a game changing TV show, (the production of which are collaborative processes) , rather than the infrastructure that creates the problem. The process of making the important decision as to whether you want, or in fact should divest from the art of an artist, is a difficult one, but one that in my opinion is A. Much easier to do, when you can reckon with what makes the art separate from the artist, and B. Make a decision to divest from and criticize a culture that allows any human being to consider themselves as apart from and often times above the rest of us. Granting art such cultural importance, and privilege that it acts as a stand-in for activism, morality, or politics. Enjoying, buying, or patronizing art did not create the the safeguards, towers, and sycophancy that insulate artist, capitalism and the evolving culture of celebrity fanaticism rooted in those very capitalistic ideals did that. It’s important to understand that for much of history artist were the working class, and suffered the same sort of a sort of moral equivalence that extended from what society thought of that kind of work. Patronage in medieval and renaissance Europe in part helped elevate the social status of the artist to something akin to that of a celebrity, even while many of them remained financially destitute, and enjoyed very few of the kind of freedoms and protections they enjoy now.
Myths about Amadeus Mozart persist more easily than the truth, which make it hard for us to acknowledge that Amadeus was less a rock star than perceived.
Art is a creation, a physical gathering of personal expression in a house of visual, and audible cues that reference cultural values, or personal emotions, creating entertainment for an audience. Our response to it many times is primal, and in many ways can't be helped, but the artist is just a human being, who found in themselves a desire or ability to craft stories or express themselves in a way that others found valuable. Our response to the creator also being contemptible or even criminal though is absolutely under our control. I don't think that giving a person millions of dollars immediately flips into "Oh so I can be terrible". Though we're still not asking enough for my taste why we pay these people millions in the first place? Art is extremely valuable to society, but that much more valuable than what teachers and doctors, and scientists do? Some may respond “well that pulls in much more money than other disciplines”, and my response is “Do you think that is a coincidence?” Acting, dancing, or making music has evolved from a craft no different than any other, into celebrity, and celebrity has evolved from the screaming-fainting fanaticism of the eras that made stars of Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe, The Beatles, Elvis, Michael Jackson- to the "stanship" generation that we now currently exist in. From being born of the awe, wonder, mystery, and yes talent associated with creation and performance, to the deification that seems born of the fact that we are in awe of materialism, and fame in and of itself to such a point that we not only admit our obsession with it, but we are proud of our obsession. Stan after all is word created by the culture, not the artist in reference to. A combination of the words stalker and fan (itself shorthand for fanatic) traced back to a popular Eminem song about an obsessive fan that ends in tragedy. What's so interesting about the etymology from this particular song is that Eminem's Stan is also about a fan who is unable to separate the difference between the art produced, and the artist.
"But what's this shit you said about you like to cut your wrists too? I say that shit just clownin' dog, come on, how fucked up is you?" -Eminem "Stan"
Whether conscious or unconscious this is an important connection, as this admission of a lack of ability or desire to engage in any critique of our favorite artists, or cognitively disassociate two clearly different things can mature from a benign act like making the mistake that an actors performance is simply "Them being themselves" or a winking reference to some celebrity as being actually "divine " to a much more perilous Hardy Boys Jr detective type amateur sleuthing that I would wager would have some social media inspector-detector passing off "Murder by numbers" by The Police as an indication of intention and/or guilt if Sting were to someday be charged with murder. “I knew it! It was right there in the song!” Or inversely the same disassociation the cause of an unwillingness to imagine or engage with the possibility that he could have murdered someone. In the negative, this association can lead to revisionist history without context, perspective, and reductive criticism. In the positive it is equivalent of a quote from Bojack Horseman about "rose colored glasses".
Donald Trump having money surely helped his ascendency to the presidency, thus capitalism, but I'd argue that another important factor was the fact that so many were willing to imbue him with qualities he most certainly didn't have due to his role in the apprentice. It created a false correlation between the entertainment and the reality that helped him arguably more than even his monetary privilege, or exterior popularity of the show. The artists currently at the vortex of this discussion especially in the black community from Kanye, to Nas, R. Kelly, to Cosby, and Michael Jackson, and outside of the community a Kevin Spacey, or Weinstein and Allen are at various way stations in their careers. Ye for sure is still at his peak, and Nas saw a bit of redemption from teaming up with a Kanye whose shenanigans always seem in proximity to promotion, but Nas's previous efforts were well short of the multi million numbers he was doing in his hay-day, and the buzz around those efforts was noticeably lighter too. R Kelly's album sales have been even worse, and widely reported on.
Spacey was doing quite well on House of Cards before his abuse came to the light, but Cosby was all but invisible save for his classic hit television show, and occasional appearances on white news stations as their local black grand wizard to conjure up some nonsensical finger wagging at black people. My point is I see very little to connect popularity, or consumption of art to people's willingness to defend reprehensible people or those who commit or say reprehensible acts and things. The Cosby show is or maybe was beloved no doubt, but even if you assume that the popularity of the show is what contributed to Cosby's ability to get away with so much for so long, at the root of that assertion you must inevitably come to the conclusion that the association between Cosby and "Dr Huxtable" is the stem. The roots are patriarchy, and the soil is hardened by the culture around celebrity, and the idea that the art is in fact the artist. You cannot pick and parcel the parts of that position that fit your narrative, you leave the answer then to perception. I can pick scenes from the Cosby show that indict him, ignoring all others, or pick scenes that show the kind of man he wanted to be seen as, ignoring all others. The impetus that led to Kanye saying "George Bush does not like black people" is the same impetus that led to him interrupting Taylor Swift, and the same that ultimately led to him saying "Slavery was a choice". The difference is in the " "landing" , the perception, and that he was emboldened by the audience who began to confuse Kanye the artist as a wholistic representation of Kanye the man. They missed this valuable distinction because they believed College Dropout Kanye was an actuality. As told to us by others who knew Kanye before he became known to the world ( Dave Chappelle, Jamie Foxx) Ye was always extremely confident in his assertions I would gather as both a survival and defense mechanism in an industry that often wants to tell you (especially people of color) your worth. But that same braggadocio, under the influence of the sycophancy, and insulation particular to fame, and massive amounts of money morphed into provocateurism, and that from a call and response that earned Kanye (sometimes rightfully sometimes not) a voucher as a socio political voice, when the reality was Kanye was a man in search of the truth, more than anything willing to speak his truth, as if it was the truth whenever he felt the urge. And that subjective bit of narcissism was the motivation for his actions moreso than any staunch political stance.
Kanye interrupted his concert to espouse his own personal "truths" about Beyoncé, Jay-Z, and Hilary Clinton in 2016.
Art is an expression of a person or an ideal, but it is not that person or that ideal, because if it is, it stands to reason that if the art is great, so then is the person, or the ideal. Art is the offspring of the artist, but it is no more an exact copy of the artist than actual offspring. Children much like art are the result of a collaborative process. They may take on some of our image, they may embody our desires, our hopes, dreams, but they are not us. I think if you get to the root of a culture that allows us to discuss almost any and every important issue through the lens of a celebrity, and capitalism which says you are merely what you produce, therein is your value - when the origins of God or the cosmos isn't mostly hosted by Morgan Freeman, and Climate change brought to you by Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon, you'll get to a place where people will make better decisions about whose art to divest from or support. The "rose colored glasses" are not so evident in our ability to consume art (that in actuality may still be great under the given parameters of whatever made the art or artist great in first place) as much as they are representative of the aesthetic political culture we have nurtured. The kind that has us voting based on appearances, rather than our interests. After all a chef's political inclinations has no bearing on whether or not his food is good. And my refusal to eat at his restaurant has little to no bearing on the political/ social environment in the country at large. I argue that "cancellation" culture (because actual cancellation does not exist while the culture around it most certainly does) ignored the grim realities and processes of actual change in favor of superficial acts of evolution and denies its own role in the creation of fabricated role players in social justice within institutions known for make believe. The template becomes clear.. In a world where your every move is being watched with curiosity, where a misstep, mistake, or bad take could mean the worst kind of publicity, and potentially "cancellation" which can have real world consequences on said career, where hyperbole wins the day, and deep interrogation or nuance is written off as coddling or complicit support, - careful and even cynical curation is your best friend. It doesn't matter how real these threats are objectively, only how real they feel to the artists and the people around them. Celebrity in this form takes on the character of the Chinese magician Chung Ling Soo in Christopher Nolan's "The Prestige". A carefully curated performance that never truly ends even beyond the stage. The ways in which fans, and critics hang on the every word, and action of these people with looming consequences to their public profile that can deflate or inflate their popularity is incompatible with the natural process of internal change or evolution in social political mindset, which in turn is incompatible with any ability by us the audience to properly judge as to authenticity.
