The Inability to Separate Art from the Artist

With technological advancements and the growing desire to share one’s life online, problematic actions and characteristics of celebrities are suddenly being thrust into the limelight. When a public figure is involved in or has been the cause of an undoubtedly immoral event, or acted in an unprecedented manner, many believe the appropriate response is to cancel or remove projects of the artist. Many individuals have begun exposing the rising and rampant sexual abuse within institutions such as the Hollywood film industry. With an action as undeniably immoral as sexual harassment or assault, the question of whether an artist’s art should be ostracized and boycotted has gained relevance. The work of problematic artists should be boycotted along with the artist in the wake of a sexual harassment or assault allegation because the two can not be psychologically separated, these artists should not continue to gain profit, and danger arises when the work “alone” is praised.

From the personal ties and actions that inevitably gain influence within a creator’s art, we as humans cannot have a completely unbiased perspective, uninfluenced by circumstances and knowledge when consuming art. An artist’s work, in any medium, as a result, can become negatively tainted by the learning of a vile act that one has committed. Associate Professor of Philosophy at Wesley College, Erich Hatala Matthes, published the article “Immoral Artists.” This piece, aimed at adults in the general academic field, was written in 2021 and considers the question of whether the immorality of an artist can render their work aesthetically worse as well as what the audience should do and feel in response to knowledge of an artist’s moral failings. Matthes brings up the earlier explored philosophical practice of investigating the ethical criticism of art. By attempting to utilize the same previously developed frameworks, he creates a parallel to this more modern-day topic of separating art from its artists. In terms of ethical criticism of

art, Matthes suggests that all works manifest a kind of attitude. Immoral attitudes, within an artwork, prescribe its audience to have an immorally related or tainted reaction. When an audience is aware, for example, that their favorite singer sexually assaulted someone, they can attempt to ignore the unethical and prescribed response, but that was not the intention or true meaning of the art, and creates “aesthetic flaw[s] (3).” Further exploring philosophical frameworks, Matthes reflects on the common practice in art criticism to “consider features related to the artist’s biography in determining that socio-historical context (4).” He suggests that it would be unreasonable to ignore the moral life of an artist when considering the efforts that fulfill the overarching point of view of the work. Alfred Archer and Benjamin Matheson, support Matthes’ claims in their essay from 2019, “When Artists Fall: Honoring and Admiring the Immoral.” Matheson, a former Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Glasgow, and Archer, an expert on moral psychology and social philosophy, wrote this essay to the general public to help others understand the role admiration plays in our lives, concerning morality, culture, and politics. This presentation of three moral reasons against honoring immoral artists discusses how an immoral artist may still be admirable for their tangible artistic achievements but that their moral flaws “detract from the aesthetic merits of the work (249).” An artwork’s moral value influences its aesthetic value, not properly allowing a consumer to participate in the understanding of the art.

Amid the uncovering of unjust actions, those accused or convicted of sexual assault or harassment should not receive money from the art they produce or have previously produced. This collection of thoughts is what Erich Hatala Matthes coins “consumer ethics” within “Immoral Artists.” He suggests we think of our decision to provide financial support to an artist that has acted immorally as “enabling the harm that they cause (7).” The more wealth a public

figure gains, the more likely their immoral actions, such as sexual assault, will repeat or become more frequent in the face of their rising popularity and power. Many continue to contribute to these artists when aware of their terrible actions and even when in full agreement that their actions were unethical and should receive punishment. Cultural analysis Vox writer, Constance Grady, explained in 2018 within, “What do we do when the art we love was created by a monster,” Through any complex histories and philosophical frameworks of thought, “there’s one very basic and concrete thing that connects most living artists to their work: money.” This undeniable connection should be more prevalent in the minds of consumers. People are often not aware of the impact their purchases directly have on an artist. If people were to understand the influence their consumer choices collectively had on artists, they would see consumerism as a much more morally associated matter. The differences that could be made by a united boycott of an artist would become clear to more people and increased ethical consumption would take place.

Similar to the issue of consuming and financially supporting an artist, a problem arises when an artist and their work are not simultaneously shunned. When people believe someone’s work can still be celebrated, this “strictly art-related” praise gets lost in translation. This praise eventually renders praise of the artist, as a result condoning their immoral actions. Matthes explains in “Immoral artists” the idea of “exemplar identification” involved with the act of honoring an immoral artist’s work. “Even if the honor is only meant to refer to the artist’s aesthetic achievement,” he states, admiration has a “tendency to spread (16).” This reference to ‘spreading’ refers to the acceptance and condoning of horrible behavior, created by making a model out of an immoral public figure. Alfred Archer and Benjamin Matheson’s “When Artists Fall: Honoring and Admiring the Immoral” adds to this idea by explaining how the honoring of

immoral artists creates a pattern of immorality within an institution or society. They suggest that the condoning of a “piece” of behavior communicates that we are willing to accept and tolerate an immoral act, even if we truly believe it to be bad. We see this conjecture stand true within many parts of society. Specifically, with the issue of sexual assault and harassment, this idea perfectly holds up a mirror to the Hollywood film industry. For example, Harvey Winestein, an American film producer and now convicted sex offender got away with rape and sexual assault, and harassment for decades in a community that was aware of the issue. By ignoring his actions and continuing to support his work or work with him, on the basis that his ‘talent’ can be separated from him as a person, members of this community essentially accepted and condoned his actions, leading others to believe they could reproduce the same vile acts against others. Only recently, from an outcry of victims, has Hollywood been able to begin to see the faults in supporting immoral creators.

In regards to boycotting an artist and their work in an attempt to not benefit them financially or through social recognition, one may argue that the general message or overall societal impact of a work may not be worth ignoring or dismantling. Philosopher Mary Beth Williard’s thoughts on this issue are references within Matthes’ “Immoral Artists.” Willard acknowledges that if an artist’s work meant or means something to you prior to learning about their immorality, it is not as easy to boycott the artist’s work as it would be if it were already meaningless to you.” The topic of meanings drawn from art eventually becoming problematic can be explored when taking into consideration reporter Tre Johnson’s, 2018 rolling stone article, “Donald Glover’s ‘This Is America’ Is a Nightmare We Can’t Afford to Look Away From.” The cultural implications of his and other artists’ music and how one could argue those cultural implications cannot be ignored, even if it was later found that the artist acted in some way

immorally. As Johnson explains, Donald Glover’s song “This Is America” confronts the “bargain that black America makes on a regular basis, trading [their] bodies for [their] expression of freedom.” This illustration of the black individuals constantly being exposed to injustice and fear, parallels the normalization of racist violence. If it were to come out that Donald Glover acted immorally and was caught up in a sexual assault scandal, for example, the question to arise would be: will boycotting glover’s work, though it may prevent the repeating of the immoral action by his or others, negatively impact society or a specific community by ending the meaningful discussion it created? No matter how initially impactful the art is, these positive implications are damaged and changed. They should still result in the boycotting of his work. Individuals and society as a whole could continue to explore what works bright to the forefront and now seek out similar portrayals of the same societal issues or support and encourage the creation of more works like the now boycotted work. Boycotting an immoral artist’s initially positive work can act as a vessel to bring other, fully morally correct, untainted works into a societal psyche.

An artist and their work hold an undeniable and unfortunately non-severable tie. Individuals are unable to truly, without bias, judge a piece of work separate from what they know about the artist at hand, specifically an artist’s involvement in sexual assault or harassment. Furthermore, disengaging, as a consumer, with an immoral artist is a morally just action that should be taken when faced with the knowledge of an artist’s immorality. Finally, attempts to try and separate an artist from their allegations or convictions and simply view their work tangibly for what it is and nothing more is impossible and leads to a dangerous cycle of praise and acceptance of immoral behavior. The work of problematic artists should be collectively

boycotted along with the artist in the wake of a sexual harassment or assault allegation or conviction.

Works Cited page

Archer, Alfred, Matheson, Benjamin. “When Artists Fall: Honoring and Admiring the Immoral.” Journal of the American Philosophical Association, vol. 5, no. 2 (2019): Pages 246-265. Web. 24 Apr 2019.

Grady, Constance. “What do we do when the art we love was created by a monster?” Vox. Oct 11, 2018. Web. 25 June 2019.

Johnson, Tre. “Donald Glover’s ‘This Is America’ Is a Nightmare We Can’t Afford to Look Away From.” Rolling Stone. Web. 8 May 2018.

Matthes, Erich Hatala. “Immoral Artists.” The Oxford Handbook of Ethics and Art, ed. James Harold. Web. 8 Feb 2021.