Separating the art from the artist

Hey, this is something I’ve been thinking about a lot these past few days.

With the #MeToo movement and the information about various artists becoming so easily accessible, I find it hard to separate the art from the artist.

For example, the latest allegations about Neil Gaiman have left me in a state of limbo. I enjoy much of his work and have gladly read his books and comics, but now I find it difficult to enjoy them, knowing these negative stories have surfaced.

This issue extends to actors, singers, producers, and stand-up comedians. So, my question is: do you also find it hard to enjoy movies or books you previously liked, now that you know the person who created or performed in them is a problematic individual ?
 
That's a good question. I think it's possible to dissociate the two and it's certainly common for older works, but I can understand why it would ruin the experience for some people. At the end of the day I'd say it's a personal matter that depends on each individual and also varies case by case for each work/author.
 
We absolutely can separate. Most art we see, we know zero about that artist as a person. And, the majority of terrible things historically done by any artist have been lost to time, but their art remains to speak for itself.

Being a jerk doesn't make you any less of a human being. And seeing a piece of art doesn't necessitate deciding whether you are first willing to enjoy it, unless you have already made up your mind. Ugh, that sounds like a horrible way to be able to experience our lives.

It is the viewer who imposes their judgement onto the artwork, for whatever reason they like. Ignore others (so hard these days) and allow yourself to make your own decision. Or, don't.

I need to update my signature to say I could care less about how anyone else interprets my words. Good luck.
 
Like Aaz said, it’s a case by case basis; it really depends on the artist in question. You also have to define ‘problematic’. Most people today use it to describe people who simply have opposing opinions or stances, which is pretty silly, as opposed to genuinely problematic individuals. So yeah, it depends.

The author of Rurouni Kenshin is a fucked up person. I don’t think I can watch or read that work without him being on my mind. Someone like JK Rowling, however, while being a somewhat toxic person online, doesn’t pop up in my brain when I experience Harry Potter.

I find it helps to remember that people aren’t static beings who never change. People grow up and change through time, some for the better, others for the worse. The Neil Gaiman of today isn’t necessarily the same person who wrote whatever book you like decades ago. That person is gone, and you should feel free to enjoy his work without feeling guilty.
 
Last edited:
I don't think we have to agree with everything someone has ever said or done to enjoy the things that they've created. For example, one of my favorite authors is Gene Wolfe. He was a devout Catholic who expressed quite Conservative views about both men and women. And while I doubt we'd agree on any of those topics if we met in person, these disagreements aren't so pronounced that they invade his work as I read it. It's mostly felt by subtraction.

But there's a tipping point for each person, and it often comes down to sensitive topics like sex or outright abuse. I think it helps to weigh how egregious the offense was, and if they've expressed any remorse or regret because of a past offense. When stacked up, under the right circumstances, these offenses can make the author's presence louder than the work they created. At that point, it's hard to ignore them.

Case in point: The only time I can recall having experienced this myself (I never cared for JK Rowling, and I don't think Gaiman's alleged offenses are even on a similar level, but I had gotten over my Gaiman fandom decades ago anyway), was learning about Orson Scott Card's view of gay people around 2010. If it were just that—a private individual being a bigot? Whatever... But no, he used his relative celebrity to champion lobbying efforts that curtailed gay rights through his affiliation with the Mormon church. He's also said some batshit crazy things, like encouraging an insurrection against America for supporting gay marriage. That did piss me off, and it has changed my opinion of Ender's Game.
 
I personally don't even look into the private lives or beliefs of most authors or artists, unless I'm really interested in them. Most controvercies usually go under my radar anyway, I can't be bothered to learn everything about people I've never met, nor will never meet. Unless it's something that can bring a very uncomfortable feeling when reading something, then I don't really care.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of Roman Polanski being a pedophile than Rowling being a TERF. It's incredibly easy to compartmentalize with extreme political disagreements but I can't look at Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown (specifically a character like Noah Cross) the same way ever again. I don't think it diminishes them as art necessarily, but it sticks in my craw.
 
We will never agree on the actual tipping point for when art becomes trash, because it varies. I'll use Berserk as a not controversial example, since it can be judged by anyone, even though it was awesomely written by a class act:

Violent and gross.
Chauvinist power fantasy that shows every female character naked.
Mean spirited.
Critical of organized religion.

No doubt there are others people can throw out after reading for 30 seconds. This is a book series that I keep proudly on my bookshelf, but I certainly won't expect my own family to "get it" anymore than anyone I would see randomly walking up to look at it. And this is one of the best of the best for sure... so, it is hard to say how people should make judgements because of the actions of an author, actor, producer, or whoever else that is now ruining our good times even more.

I do wonder what people actually expect to happen. Are you going to burn your Harry Potter books or delete your Netflix subscription in protest of their on-going connection to Rurouni? Do you have an exact book, movie or anime that you wish you could delete from your life?
 
Yeah, sorry. Your larger point still eludes me. Maybe it’s just me.
Maybe so. I was responding to the fact that people will never agree in regards to anything in life, be it art or otherwise. Where does a person "draw their line" in terms of supporting an artist and their work. The more people you ask, the more differing opinions you'll end up with.

And that comes before someone does something reprehensible, causing you to reassess.
 
Maybe so. I was responding to the fact that people will never agree in regards to anything in life, be it art or otherwise. Where does a person "draw their line" in terms of supporting an artist and their work. The more people you ask, the more differing opinions you'll end up with.

And that comes before someone does something reprehensible, causing you to reassess.
But the question being posed here wasn't about "people", it was personal: "So, my question is: do you also find it hard to enjoy movies or books you previously liked, now that you know the person who created or performed in them is a problematic individual ?"
 
I am still able to enjoy such movies and books, even without liking that person on a personal level. I would not dislike a character because of the performer portraying them. Am I supposed to not watch or recommend LA Confidential because of Kevin Spacey being a horrible person, because I love that movie.

The movie I grew up loving, which I feel genuinely sad about is Milo and Otis. I have not watched it recently, but I am genuinely bummed about the cruelty committed to the animals involved. I don't care about the screenwriting team or others outside of the animal hurting decision, but I do care about the producers, stagehands, animal handler and director who decided killing animals for a more realistic movie was acceptable.

It is still a classic children's movie, but I don't want to watch it specifically because the pain and suffering in the film wasn't pretend. My question is: Is anyone willing to take action about this? Are you going to burn or sell your Harry Potter books or delete your Netflix subscription in protest of their on-going connection to Rurouni? Do you have an exact book, movie or anime that you wish you could delete from your memory?

If someone does care enough to take some action, I find that commendable. Interested to know what you chose to do differently.
 
Last edited:
Hey, this is something I’ve been thinking about a lot these past few days.

With the #MeToo movement and the information about various artists becoming so easily accessible, I find it hard to separate the art from the artist.

For example, the latest allegations about Neil Gaiman have left me in a state of limbo. I enjoy much of his work and have gladly read his books and comics, but now I find it difficult to enjoy them, knowing these negative stories have surfaced.

This issue extends to actors, singers, producers, and stand-up comedians. So, my question is: do you also find it hard to enjoy movies or books you previously liked, now that you know the person who created or performed in them is a problematic individual ?
Separating art from the artist is an approach. It's not an ironclad rule. whether you take this approach or not is up to you. Seldom in life you find a matter that has one absolute solution.

Cancel culture and boycotting has its roots in Ireland where people stopped selling items to Mr. Boycott who was an English official.

This is a double-edged sword. Remember Amber Heard and Johnny Depp and how people in their industry reacted to something that turned out to be false? Or take this LGBTQ+ community who wanted to cancel J.K. Rowling because she said gender is a fact. J.K. Rowling made a lot of kids go and read on their own, something very commendable. Harry Potter is replete with women empowering motives.

On the other hand there's this writer who is a main figure in Existential school of philosophy, Jean Paul Sartre. I personally don't find his penmanship good or his ideas unique. Anyhow he is a big name. Many people don't know this but he signed a petition to abolish age of consent in France in 1977. He believed that pedophiles simply shouldn't be called pedophiles, They are just regular people. That says a lot about his frame of mind. to me these facts correlate. The man behind both ideas are the same, I won't separate him from his work.

Another factor is that can you be sure that the person's statements are genuine? Some people change the details in their head and start believing the lie they tell themselves is the actual truth.

Money, Power, Agenda in the context of time and geography. It's a multifaceted issue and an approach. Just make sure that at the end it's the choice you make, not a choice made for you.
 
On the other hand there's this writer who is a main figure in Existential school of philosophy, Jean Paul Sartre. I personally don't find his penmanship good or his ideas unique. Anyhow he is a big name. Many people don't know this but he signed a petition to abolish age of consent in France in 1977. He believed that pedophiles simply shouldn't be called pedophiles, They are just regular people. That says a lot about his frame of mind. to me these facts correlate. The man behind both ideas are the same, I won't separate him from his work.

I have absolutely no interest in the matter, but I feel obliged to tell you that what you're saying about Sartre isn't true. Sounds like you don't know the context (related to a specific case) nor understand the nature of the petition (partly about the difference at the time between homosexual and heterosexual people when it came to their sexual majority). If you want to criticize him on that front, better to focus on what he and Beauvoir did with her students.
 
Back
Top