Art, Artist, and Accountability
By DIYA SANDEEP ‘28 and ANNIE ZHU ‘28
Music and art are central parts of our daily lives. You may wake up to your favorite song set as an alarm, walk to class with your AirPods in, or bond with your friends by sharing your favorite songs on Spotify. Some may argue that the artists who produce these soundtracks can impact us through their music — positively but also negatively. In pop culture, many artists whose music released mainstream music, yet their character values are in the negative. As you walk through campus, listening to “Heartless” or YNW Melly or even Big Bang, have you wondered about the people lurking behind the album covers, or that one day, if listening to enough of their music will turn you into them?
To get a better feel for the Exeter community, we asked multiple students and staff about their opinions. Some believe that the art can be separated from the artist. Prep Reya Satam stated, “A prime example is Taylor Swift. People love her music but not everyone agrees with her political views, but they still actively listen to her music.” Lower Euphoria Yang stated, “If their art is worth praising, and it is actually good and I enjoy it, that’s what matters to me.” As Prep Ethan Dai stated, “You want to be able to either criticize or praise someone’s art as opposed to criticizing their criminal activity if they have adopted beliefs that are contrary to yours.”
While many believe that music may be separated, a few individuals perceive the contrary. Prep William Shu commented, “I would like their music but not their person. I guess you can separate it, but whenever I’m listening to them, I will always have the artist in the back of my mind.” Physics teacher Charles Mamolo stated, “To be an artist means you’re pulling in all your life experiences and putting it into some form. So you cannot separate the two.”
Personally, we believe that it is not possible to physically separate the two. As most art currently (and hopefully for the future) is made by people, there will be a very personal touch imbued in each work—a small fragment that expresses a part of the creator. This is unavoidable, and even if one completely eradicates the artist’s past and legacy from the audience’s memory, the art will still represent the artist’s character. For example, one can take Debussy’s music and state that it was composed by Mozart, yet the free-flowing Impressionist style definitely does not match the logical, note-for-note Classical period — the piece will still unapologetically represent its creator.
So contrary to the results of our short survey, we believe that, no, you shouldn’t separate the art from the artist. Art is, and has always been, a form of expression. It is an extension of the artist, a visual piece of them that can be viewed with an audience. And yes, art should always be shared, for it takes different forms for every person — but at its core, any good piece of art should be meaningful to the creator.
Even without bringing into it an ever-present monetary concern, art belongs to the creator. In the same way, you are required to cite someone when you use their words in an essay, a painting, or a song’s intellectual property. They are indefinitely tied to the artist, even if the artist themself has renounced the piece.
And if that same artist has engaged in illicit or immoral activities, regardless of the quality of their creations, engaging with their content only shows misplaced support. If the values of a creator are malignant, then the art they create carries that same malevolence.
Now, considering the world we live in, almost all content is monetized in some way. Luxury art sells for millions of dollars or is thought of as priceless, but there is also a market for most niche art. Every time you listen to a song, musicians earn a fraction of a cent — which adds up rather quickly. Art has become more and more accessible to the public, and it has become easier and easier to support the creators, even if you don’t realize it.
That means that every time you stream someone’s song, not only do they get the support of an audience and listeners, but you could also be funding them. It’s because of the people who don’t mind listening to musicians, regardless of their criminal history, that these people are able to support their lifestyles. Every time you think that it doesn’t hold that much meaning, you are only proving to them that they are free to do whatever they like, and their actions hold no consequences, feeding into a cycle.
So, no, we cannot separate the art from the artist. Not only is the artist an integral part of the art and vice versa, but showing appreciation for their work is paramount to supporting the artist and their actions. Perhaps a casual listener would not know the depth of their actions, but promoting them or acting as fully-fledged fans while aware of their misdeeds is disgraceful, and we should all strive to avoid such.
However, we can also see the way non-separation skews the way we see certain celebrities despite all the good that they’ve done. Think about Taylor Swift and the way her music is constantly linked to her relationships and private life — so much so to the fact that she’s hated for supposedly only writing about one thing.
Still, it proves that her music is inspired and rooted in her own life, further strengthening the connection between art and artist. So, should her music be criticized because people consider her to be a “serial dater?” Not necessarily, as their main gripe is not with her being hateful, criminal, or obnoxious. It’s simply due to her lack of success in the sphere of relationships.
However, at the same time, cancel culture has proven to have its benefits. Taeil, a former member of NCT and several of its subgroups was removed from the group following public outcry at knowledge of his suspected sex crimes. While the investigation has not yet concluded, if the information his company has put out is true, the thousands of people now boycotting him are ensuring that he is no longer profiting from their unawareness.
Other controversial artists, such as Kanye West and YNW Melly, may also deserve this “separation” of cancel culture due to their actions, such as discriminatory posts, spreading drug use, and even murder. From this point of view, separating the art from the artist is highly beneficial for society, yet due to factors such as explicit lyrics, this action may not be entirely possible without destroying part of the art’s original authenticity.
So, while the connection between art and artist can occasionally cause issues, overall, it remains an important distinction to make. It prevents us from unknowingly or, even worse, uncaringly supporting artists who have shown a lack of regard for humanity.
From an ethical point of view, separating the art from the artist seems like an optimal path. Due to copyright, however, the art will belong to the artist for the rest of their life, as well as 70 years after their death. Even if the artist is unsigned from a label, they will still receive 30 to 40 percent of the remaining fund. Thus, legally and financially, the art and artist may not be separated. The only way for the art and artist to be completely separated is through the absolute removal of the art on all streaming platforms, such as Soundcloud and Spotify. Artists and their art can also be completely banned due to their content seeming explicit or expressing political controversy. Examples include the banning of Michelangelo’s David in Florida schools and China’s banning of “一无所有” (Nothing to My Name) by Cui Jian, which described the Tiananmen massacre. However, the banning of art often depends on a single opinion from a powerful individual; even if it is by the majority, there are a number of people who haven’t consented to this banning. Doing this violates the First Amendment, limiting the free speech of the artist.
Despite varying opinions, no one can deny that the artist is a part of the art that they create. And, while many may argue that the art is larger than the artist themselves — and often takes on new meanings that may stray from the artist’s original intention — the art would not exist without the artist. Even if it endures long after the artist has passed or been forgotten, it will always hold a connection to its creator.
That means that there is no way for us to fully separate the art from the artist, for better or for worse. And we also believe that we shouldn’t be attempting to make a divide at all because due to the innate link between the two, art will always be tainted by the actions and beliefs of the artist. To ignore the impact of the artist on the art is to ignore the impact of the art itself; if you must neglect the creator, then the art should not be celebrated.
