Just recently, two documentaries have shaken the world for fans of two different music icons: Surviving R. Kelly and Leaving Neverland. They depict the alleged history of terrible sexual misconduct by R. Kelly and Michael Jackson, respectively. In the wake of the controversy, Kelly has been charged with sexually abusing 4 victims, most of them underaged.
As society becomes more aware and the amount of celebrities accused of sexual misconduct increases, we are faced with the question of whether we can separate art from the artist. Can you value a creator’s work independently of an assessment of the creator themselves? What should fans do when confronted with the fact that their favorite celebrity is—or might be—a criminal?
These are not easy questions to answer. It’s a multilayered issue, so there’s simply no straightforward solution at hand.
Via Instagram
On a similar note: After Taylor, Are Celebrities Really Obliged To Take A Political Stand On Social Media?
Art vs artist
First and foremost, we must acknowledge the obvious: moral quality and artistic ability are two separate things. You can be a good person with no talent as much as an evil creative genius: there’s no contradiction in either case. There are many good people that are terrible artists, and there are also likely many good artists that are terrible people. Still, we can recognize that their art is good, can’t we?
That someone is a bad person does not entail they make bad art, after all. So, what’s the problem then?
There’s a political and moral component to art
Art is not only about skill and technique. Not our contemporary conception of art, at least. Nowadays, and since centuries ago, art has been about challenging social ideals and engaging with the political climate of the time. That’s what Picasso did in his famous Guernica. That’s what Duchamp accomplished with his celebrated urinal “sculpture.” And that’s what many attempt today.
A politically-neutral art is itself often seen as supporting the stronger side, following the ancient wisdom that not doing anything in the face of evil is as doing evil yourself. Those who stand idly by as oppression takes place by default take the side of the oppressor inasmuch as they “enable” evil to occur.
Guernica, by Pablo Picasso, 1937
But perhaps that’s too demanding and extremist. Maybe there are people who really want to remain politically neutral without thereby pledging their allegiance to one side or the other. Why couldn’t we do that, after all? But then even if we try to take away the political side, you cannot possibly avoid the moral one: art influences its audiences, and that entails a big moral responsibility.
So, regardless of how skillful they are, it’s hard for artists to divorce themselves from all political and moral undertones. But what about fans? Is it okay to be fan of a morally questionable artist?
Via Instagram
Also important: What Happens When Your Favorite Films Are Tainted By Sexual Harassment?
We can refuse to give them our money
Well, as long as the artist’s work doesn’t actively promote harmful ideals, it seems, at first at least, that there’s likewise no harm in being a fan regardless of the artist’s personal character. Perhaps we can separate art from the artists. If we now found out that Shakespeare was actually a serial killer in addition to an artistic genius, his plays wouldn’t in themselves be any less admirable. Likewise, if it turned out that Einstein was a rapist, it wouldn’t change the fact that the Theory of Relativity is correct on many accounts. The creation does not necessarily inherit the sins of the creator.
But it’s unfortunately not that simple. Even if someone’s work of art aligns with our moral standards, and even if we acknowledge that moral quality is not the same as art quality, if the artist is a danger to society, then there’s a problem with providing them with the means to harm others.
Via Instagram
Consider someone like Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein. For years, society empowered them. They became loved figures and garnered considerable power and influence over their peers, to the point where both could make or break careers as they pleased. Especially Weinstein. They used this power, and their impressive wealth, to impose their will upon others and commit crimes that go unpunished. Even if Weinstein did have a great vision as a producer, and even if several good works in Hollywood were possible only because of him, providing him with the fruits of his labor gives him the ability to easily fight justice.
Suppose R. Kelly is also guilty. As good a musician as you think he is, and as much as we can evaluate the quality of his art independently from his crimes, buying his albums or streaming his songs still gives him revenue and power—power which he can use to escape punishment and continue his harmful behavior. And that’s clearly not fair.
Via Pinterest
The art which outlived its creator
Then, you have artists like Michael Jackson. Even if he did in fact abuse children, his talent is simply undeniable. The case against listening to Jackson’s songs or watching his dance moves is far less clear than listening to R. Kelly, for instance, since you wouldn’t be giving Michael Jackson any resources at all. Since Jackson is dead, there’s no direct consequence with admiring his talent. The art outlives its creator, and celebrating the former is not quite as empowering the latter.
I see little reason to stop people from listening to MJ even if he is proven guilty. I do see plenty of reason to stop listening to and promoting R. Kelly. It’s not that you can’t separate art from artists—you straightforwardly can. You can still claim to like his art and admire his skills. But you shouldn’t give money or a platform to abusers.
Some works of art go beyond an artist’s time period, and we can admire their quality regardless of their creator’s moral character.
Dead artists can no longer be given a platform. Living ones can. And that’s the single greatest danger when it comes to being an irresponsible fan. It’s not only about the money; but about the prestige and influence which they can turn to power in order to sway the masses. And that’s simply unacceptable.
Your voice matters:
Are you a worried citizen? Do you want to be heard? Click on this link for a chance to share your thoughts with the rest of the world.
Check out these other articles:
Asia Argento Or What Happens When Abuse Victims Become Abusers Themselves?
