Separation allows for additional layer of appreciation and awareness
Art can be viewed without ignoring inexcusable behavior
February 14, 2018
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. 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. — Eli Curran-Moore
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.
