Separating Art From Artist

Hey You,

This week, a meaty topic for you.

Should we separate the artist and the art, and is it even possible? Can you support the art but not the artist? By default, if you listen to the music from the artist, who might be a nasty piece of work in real life, they will get paid when you stream.

And, if you do separate the art from the artist, are you signing off on their behaviour and actions?

And, is it all situational?

We can’t answer this topic in its entirety because it is so massive and, for the most part, incredibly divisive. We can, however, present some questions and arguments and explore the topic.

Shall we?

Can You Choose What You Like?

If we remove the mass-marketing machine that gives us what they want us to have, many of us do have taste, of some description.

In most cases, you either like something or you don’t. It is as fast as that. Some stuff will grow on you over time, but we choose quickly.

For the most part, you know when something tickles that part of your brain that makes you feel something good.

So, let’s say that you can’t choose what you do and don’t like, but you can choose whether to listen to it or not.

Meaning:

If you enjoy something but choose not to listen to it based on the artist's actions or words, you are not separating the art from the artist.

If you know you like it, know that the artist isn’t someone you’d want to associate with and disagree with everything they say or do, and choose to listen, you are accomplishing the separation. (Even if you don’t feel great about it).

Or the third option is that you don’t care enough either way and will listen to what you want.

We’re at the tip of the iceberg here, and the water below is already looking murky.

A theory that comes with as much criticism as many of today’s biggest names in music. Here is the outline:

A French philosopher. Roland Barthes penned an essay titled “The Death of the Author” in 1967. The argument (broadly) is that once a work is published, it takes on a life beyond the author themselves. The work (in this case, music) becomes open to interpretation, remixes, and rewriting, and the reader (or listener in our case) owns their version.

When we listen to music, we assign our own meaning to the work. We attribute many reasons to the choices made; potentially, none of these things were in the artist’s mind.

Assigning multiple interpretations to lyrics, instruments, the music video, and more. Using this theory, the separation is immediate, removing whatever the artist has done from their work.

The work then becomes a thing of its own, owned by every listener or reader.

But. Today's fandoms are hungry for the meaning behind the work in a way that wasn’t imaginable or possible even ten years ago. Now, with our access to artists, we see their private and public lives across all media types. We know more about them than we should, building parasocial relationships and creating our own image of who, what, and why.

It becomes a group project on a fan forum.

The criticism of this theory, perhaps with no surprise, is that the artists’ intentions were encapsulated in the work before we read or heard it. And therefore can never be separate.

It is consumption without answers to the question, “What does the artist mean?” Ultimately, through this theory, we don’t seek to resolve what a piece of music means through the artists but define it as what it means to us.

Should these be separated, or is the criticism of the theory valid in these cases? And can a theory be valid and invalidated as we see fit based on circumstances? In the first case, they said it and did it. In the second, what we hear and see are opposites.

We’re now back to the question: is this situational? Does the severity of the ‘crimes’ committed decide if the author is allowed to die (in the terms of the theory, not in reality)?

Where is the line?

Dissonance or Desensitization?

Alright, so we will start off with some definitions, which will guide the rest of this section.

Yeah, we know, it’s just music… but is it? Anyway…

Let’s (lightly) tackle the dissonance that some people might face in this conundrum.

Picture this (because it sure has happened): A person spends years, 15 or more, collecting merch and listening to an artist. They love their music. It has comforted them, and they’ve had amazing live show experiences, even tattoos of the band logo.

A news piece states that the artist has been accused of some heinous crimes. Not long after, they are charged and sent to a high-security prison for life. No appeals are possible.

BOOM. Inner turmoil, emotional chaos.

In as few as a seven-word headline, this person must choose to listen even though they hate the artists, what they have done, and it makes them feel sick. Or, untangle the last 15+ years of emotional attachment and tattoos *. Loving the music, hating the person who made it? Dissonance.

On the other hand, with so many news stories being released outlining in great detail horrific crimes committed every week, each as bad as the last. Some people become almost ‘bored’ with the breaking news.

Another example: An artist they love has the same news hit the headlines, sandwiched between a slew of other artists, film producers, and celebrities. The fan has the tattoos, the vinyl, the T-shirts, and more. And in the end, they feel almost nothing when hearing the news. They continue as if the news never broke because, for them, it is one in a long line *. If everything feels terrible, nothing is terrible enough to warrant a change. Desensitized.

** In both cases, there is the third option: never listening again, putting everything in the bin, tattoo cover-ups and removals, not separating artists from art, combining them, and getting rid of both.

Let’s not pretend music is less than what it is. Music is an emotional, financial, and time investment for those who love it and the artists who make it. These shock moments are, and rightfully so, felt like a personal betrayal.

You are now asked not to consume any media created or shared by the artist, required to shelf your favorite songs forever, and reminded that streaming the artist puts money in their pockets.

You’re asked to destroy a part of yourself, to keep artist and art as one. To ignore the times that their lyrics carried you through grief, love, elation, joy, and your dragging work day.

It is not a choice you make, but a cost you are asked to pay.

And there lies the question. Is it a price you are willing to pay? 

Because if the answer is yes, then you do not separate the artist from the art.

And if the cost feels too much? You have succeeded in the separation of the two.

We’re not demanding answers; whatever you decide is your choice. Because that’s what it is: a choice.

Should art pay the price when the artist falls from the pedestal we put them on, or when the artist is simply a horrible specimen?

Is there a limit to what we can and cannot accept when asked to make the separation?

On to brighter topics! This week, we’ve made a playlist for you to cry to.

Why? Well, why not?

And, we are now talking. Yes. You can find us on Spotify, the SongsBrew podcast.