Famous artists accused of sexual assault spark conflict
In light of recent sexual assault allegations, debates have begun regarding whether or not it is acceptable to consume art or media produced by creators who have criminal records or pending accusations against them
February 14, 2018
Creators and art are inseparable, interlinked
Because of the emergence of sexual assault allegations in the entertainment industry, people have begun to question how they should consume art and content. There is absolutely no way to separate the artist from their artwork. Art is a projection of who its creator is and we, as a society, cannot allow ourselves to disconnect the two.
By consuming an artist’s content, we are supporting them financially. When people disregard an artist’s behavior and actions, they are letting them continue to exist in an environment that allowed for their behavior and actions in the first place. These artists sexually assault someone and still maintain their fame and social status. For example, Kodak Black, a famous rapper, was convicted for sexual conduct charges and yet still has 17.9 million monthly listeners on Spotify.
If someone sexually assaults another person it becomes hard to understand why we are still readily accepting what they produce. Consumers have all the power. Once they decide it is no longer acceptable to consume a person’s content, their career is over. Once numerous allegations of sexual assault and harassment against Harvey Weinstein surfaced, he immediately felt the consequences. According to BBC, Weinstein was terminated from his company, The Weinstein Company, and exiled from the entertainment industry.
We cannot demand change in the entertainment industry while simultaneously ignoring the actions of creators just so we can keep watching out favorite TV shows. Change can only occur if a compromise is made.
Separation allows for additional layer of appreciation and awareness
Recent events in Hollywood prompt the classic question: ‘can and should we separate an artist from their art?’ Particularly if the artist’s actions warrant reevaluation of their work. Certainly an artist’s poor behavior or perspective should not be ignored when looking at the art, but it is possible to separate art from artist.
Art in any form can be appreciated with or without extensive knowledge of the artist. People are able to create their own meaning from art, meaning which doesn’t necessarily ever reflect or perpetuate any intrinsic flaws that may ebb from the artist, despite all art being partially autobiographical. Production of art, film for example, is created by many people, cinematographers, producers, other actors, etc., who all add their own personal touches to better a film, or other form of art for the public.
Woody Allen’s actions certainly warrant career consequences and diminish his reputation, but to say they devalue all films he has been a part of harms any new insight or perspective someone could gain from the art and everyone else who worked on the films. To say the actions of one person mitigate such a work of art is a disservice to those who poured their heart and soul into its production and anyone who could appreciate the art in the future.
Finally, when we seperate artist and art, we allow for the reassessment of the artist’s actions in the real world. To say an artist’s actions ruin every project previously worked on is to ignore the person’s actions as part of a greater problem of how they act as human beings. If we can look at art as unrelated, we can not only appreciate the art, but recognize even fantastic works do not excuse such behavior in society.