In the Wake of Misconduct

 

In the Wake of Misconduct 

If you were to step into my bedroom, there are many things that might draw your attention: the original artwork adorning my walls, my record collection, and the posters covering almost the entirety of my room. Posters of artists, entertainers, and bands such as The Beatles whom I’ve grown to admire, but also people who've made personal choices that have made their character difficult to tolerate. In the age of the Me Too Movement and more recently, cancel culture, revelations of artists’ misconduct are continually surfacing. It poses the question of whether or not we should continue to support the art originating from controversial artists. When artists from all industries are being criticized for their moral shortcomings or problematic behavior, we as a consumer-based society should ask ourselves, should we separate the art from the artist? When stomach-turning accusations, like those of R-Kelly, come to light, it is understandable that some would want to boycott the artists’ work. There are many aspects that complicate this approach that suggest a better method would be simply separating the artists from their art, media, or music. However, to completely separate the art from the artist without holding them accountable continues a cycle of power that allowed the artist’s to commit their wrongdoings in the first place. Instead of boycotting artist’s work or separating the two, we should find a middle ground that will allow us to ethically consume their art. 

In a media-based society, it is best to conclude that what we decide to consume matters. When a wave of big time Hollywood producers are exposed for sexual misconduct or a music artist is being persecuted for racially insensitive tweets, it is our job as the consumers of these artists to decide what to do in the wake of their misconduct. Especially in a society where “cancel culture” is becoming more relevant, ways to hold these people accountable is a thought constantly churning in the back of our minds. From the New York Times opinion column, Natalie Proulx invites the most influential group of stakeholders to comment their thoughts about the issue of separating the art from the artist. Student’s ranging from age 13 and up had many different views on the topic, but the general consensus seemed to be pretty black and white. They either felt that you should not separate the art from the artist or that you should do so with reason. One student, Zach Gill from North Carolina, stated “I think if we can separate the idea of what the disgusting people have done from the art they have created it is possible to both enjoy the artistry and condemn their wrongdoings.”. While it makes sense for people to continue to like the art as long as they condemn the artist’s immorality, I still can’t help but wonder if people feel as though the art has been tainted. Another student, Kevin C., commented on his love for the show House of Cards and his thoughts after hearing of Kevin Spacey’s sexual assault allegations. 

He was a longtime fan of the show and of Kevin Spacey’s work, but still decided it was best to hold the art and the artist hand in hand. In his opinion,  “Spacey should be punished but one must also realize that punishing Spacey also, regrettably, punishes the producers, directors, and other actors of the show.”  Although Spacey is merely an extension of House of Cards, it is evident that his contributions stigmatize the entirety of the show. There are many different pathways you can choose when holding your favorite artists accountable for their actions. Whether you decide to no longer watch a tv show, stop listening to a music artist, or continue to do these things while not supporting the artist as a person, these are all completely valid responses that no one should feel guilty for choosing. 

After realizing that the argument of whether or not we should separate the art from the artist is simply not black and white, it leads us to decide for ourselves what to do when we are met with controversy. More importantly, it shows us that this issue is a matter of tracing cause and effect. To separate the art from the artist means that you are continuing to consume their art while mentally disconnecting their actions from what they have created. This attempts to ease our conscience and while it is notable that we attempt to condemn the artists, we are still in a way contributing to their career. Counterintuitive actions such as buying a Michael Jackson song on Itunes or renting a Harvey Weinstein movie erases any attempts to denounce an artist because you are still funding their success. Even modes of consumption that do not involve fiscal transactions still grant popular artists the influence to evade consequence. And so it becomes a vicious cycle of power fueled by fame, industry, and consumerism that we must be conscious of. As consumers we must recognize how our own actions affect these artists and control who we give a platform to. In the article “Ethical Media and Consumption”, Abigail Eck asserts the notion that media is controlled in the hands of the real people in power, the consumers. She highlights the issue of continuing to support problematic people’s creations, but also criticizes the media as money-grabbing institutions that turn a blind eye to allegations in order to make a quick buck (Eck 1). However, this is the effect of people still willing to consume and buy into these productions which further affirms music and movie industries to continue ignoring the moral downfalls of artists. In a money-driven, consumerist society, we have the power to prevent big industries from profiting off of horrible artists and in-turn continuing to abuse their fame. We must not create a culture that excuses the misdeeds of the rich, talented, or powerful, which can only be done through ethical consumption. 

The debate over whether or not you should separate the art from the artist is a cultural hotspot that quite literally affects everyone who consumes media and art in any way, shape, or form. As the transgressions of every public figure - from heinous crimes to rude encounters are put on trial by a number of fans and critics, we evaluate ways to hold them accountable for their misdeeds. The more strident side of this argument is to fully deplatform and “cancel” these artists, which seems almost impossible. The true solution to this issue, however, does not lie in one set stance or another, it is all much more subjective to what we decide to consume, which changes daily. No one should feel guilty for continuing to view someone’s art, but in the matter of ethical consumption it is best to make sure that these controversial artists don’t still benefit from this consumption. Alongside this, we should also acknowledge that severe situations should not evade scrutiny or true accountability. The moment we start to question how we should think about any piece of art, we should consider the tools we have to wield our own decisions on who to continue supporting and when. 

Works Cited 

"Ethical Consumption and Media." University Wire, Nov 02, 2018. ProQuest, https://libezproxy-syr-edu.libezproxy2.syr.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/wire-feeds/ethical-consumption-media/docview/2128052491/se-2?accountid=14214.

Proulx, Natalie. “Can You Separate Art From the Artist?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 Nov. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/learning/can-you-separate-art-from-the-artist.html.