Separating the Art From the Artist
The last decade has seen more accountability and increasing calls for public and celebrity figures to be held responsible for their actions and statements. Recently, Johnny Depp was removed from his role as Grindelwald in the Fantastic Beast franchise after he lost his libel case against a UK tabloid that labelled him a wife-beater. This is not an isolated case but rather, the latest of a long line of celebrity scandals just as Kevin Spacey was asked to step down from his notable role in the political drama show, House of Cards. Similarly, Hachette Book Group decided to drop Woody Allen’s memoir, which garnered split reactions, with some saying it was a suppression of speech while others insisted he should not be given a platform.
The real question behind these actions and the question that comes up after the revelation of scandal and injustice by actors, authors, artist etc. is whether it is possible to separate the art from the artist? Can we truly enjoy the work without consideration of who the person is?
In 1923, modernist poet T. S. Eliot said, ‘I have assumed as axiomatic that a creation, a work of art, is autonomous’. In other words, for Eliot, and many followers of modernism and New Criticism believed that a work of art had to stand on its own, separated from the author’s intention or purpose behind writing the work. Eliot was specifically referring to poetry, but the question is relevant across all areas of art.
Indeed, it has become a common bit to show watercolour landscapes, ask if it is considered good art and then reveal that it was created by Adolf Hitler. The anticipated reaction here is that it makes one doubt their perception of the work as ‘good’ because of the deeds of the man. However, the reality is that it is a fallacy to connect quality with context. The context of when and who does not change the quality of the work that in isolation may be considered positive, however, it does raise the question of support.
In the past few years, famed author J. K. Rowling, creator of the Harry Potter book series, has come under fire for posting controversial comments about the transgender community, promoting an essentialist view of sex that excludes trans-individuals as biological women (you can read a full rundown of the controversy here). For many, the story of Harry Potter, an outsider that finds his place in a community and fights against hate and discrimination, has been tainted by the politics of the author.
In response, Daniel Radcliffe, who played the titular character in the film adaptation of the series, encouraged readers to separate the value of the work from the author, stating ‘I really hope that you don’t entirely lose what was valuable in these stories to you…. And in my opinion, nobody can touch that. It means to you what it means to you and I hope that these comments will not taint that too much’.
Radcliffe here advocates for a Barthesian approach of reading that holds that the biography of the author should have no bearing on the work. The actor emphasises the importance of the emotional connection people had with the art, especially as for many, the books dominated huge parts of their childhoods.
Film critic, A. O. Scott stated, in an article for the New York Times entitled ‘My Woody Allen Problem’, ‘The separation of art and artist is proclaimed—rather desperately, it seems to me—as if it were a philosophical principle, rather than a cultural habit buttressed by shopworn academic dogma.’ He argues that the work of filmmaker Allen is ethically troubling, however, we also cannot erase his works, as they are ingrained into the cultural canon of many. He suggests instead a method of reassessment, in returning to beloved works and considering them afresh.
The reality of the matter is that art is never produced in isolation. Moreover, art is created in a society that already benefits a system with entrenched patriarchy and systematic racism. The reason for this is because all art produced is tied to a commercial market that will in turn benefit those creators. Art is money. And whether you can use various theological frameworks to either follow Barthes’ conviction that the author is dead and the emotional value of work speaks for itself or consider moral failings as reasons to turn away from work, any work finds itself undeniably entwined in such a market.
Therefore, while the work may hold value and merit on its own, it becomes clear that that merit should not excuse the creator from reprehensible acts. The removal of actors from roles, authors from publishing lineups and art from gallery walls is a clear sign that there are consequences to your actions and they will not be overlooked, even if you are talented. What has existed will always exist, turning away from it does nothing except attempt to rewrite history to erase the evidence of a society that did not hold people accountable for their injustices. But that does not mean that their future cannot or should not be affected by their actions.
Featured Image by Markus Winkler on Unsplash
