The Problem with Separating the Art from the Artist

Off the top of my head, I'm not too sure how I came upon it, but it simply goes:

"separate the art from the artist"

This quote above is self-explanatory; detach the artist from their art, particularly in the moment of displeasure by something the artist has said or done. I began hearing this a few years ago, and have practiced it diligently, whenever I discovered something unpleasant from someone I liked (from a distance of course). In a world where celerities are treated in a god-like fashion, it can be challenging for one to go about dong this, especially in situations where the artist has done the unimaginable.

History has always showed that having power and status excuses guilty people from facing crimes and such. Many people have gotten away with just about anything simply because of who they are. With celebrities, because they are so admired and placed on pedestals, they can also abuse their star-power to evade crimes.

Recently, R&B singer R. Kelly has returned once again to the spotlight. The singer was found not guilty several years ago on charges that he sexually abused underaged girls. Even with a recorded video which showed proof that he engaged in sexual acts with a child, as well as witnesses identifying the victim and him in the tape, he served no time. He kept a low-profile after his trial ended in 2008, and emerged a few years after at a BET show in 2010, much to the disagreement of many, but also to the thrill of a lot more others who applauded his 'comeback.' Now, R. Kelly seems to be completely comfortable with the spotlight, and was recently on SNL performing with Lady Gaga in a bizarre and cringeworthy performance for her latest single. It would seem the public has forgotten about his abuse of young girls, and he is currently promoting the release of a new album.

And of course he's not the only celebrity who was able to evade crimes and continue work with little reaction despite vocal criticism. Roman Polanski is still revered despite his departure from the states to escape the crime of raping a 13 year old girl. Decades have passed, and he has never been extradited to the US to face charges.

Being aware of these incidents, and others, can put any fan of these artists' work in a difficult position, especially those who care about the dismay their victims had to endure afterwards. I don't support or apologize for child abuse at all. So it's not at all hard for me to stop supporting someone because of something they've done outside of their artistry. But for a while I didn't, and I coped with this by trying to simply separate the person from their work. But recently, I've seen how difficult it is to do, and fairly, now that I'm older I see how it was a dumb and foolish idea.

Aside from the reality that an artist on your no-support list may have created a favorite or life-changing song/movie that inspired you, it's the simple fact that trying to separate them from their work is problematic. In continuing to support just the work of an artist guilty of a reprehensible crime, you're still supporting said person. Because you can't really separate the art from the artist. It's impossible, and in ways dismissive (to the artist, not that it applies for these men). I mean, what are copyright and royalties for? They are there for a reason and they are also designated to a specific person(s) as attribution. That work will be theirs no matter what becomes of them. And this goes for all artists in general; would you want someone liking your art and not you, especially when your work/art is technically an extension of who you are? It just makes no sense to me.

As many have seen with victim blaming and shaming of others for things they can't control, it's quite obvious that supporting an accused artists work would be in junction with these forms of abuse. It would be an encouragement of support, and a disregard to the victims of their crimes. It also intersects with with the silencing of their victims. The silencing over disempowered people usually works with money. Millions of dollars have been used to settle, evade, and buy good lawyers that will help them slide through the loopholes of the justice system. This is exactly how Kelly silenced most of his victims.

So at my choice of being a former fan of R. Kelly and some of Polanski films, that meant not supporting or viewing future and past work. Which also meant that even when though Rosemary's Baby is one of the best classic horror films and a favorite of mine, it's still a Polanski film. The Pianist is another one of my favorite films by him, but its even more challenging for me to watch and enjoy it, knowing that it was filmed during Polanski's repatriation, unlike Rosemary's Baby which was filmed almost a decade before he fled. 

With R. Kelly it was easier for me to stop listening to his music. I wasn't much of huge fan really, but I did have a few of his songs on my iPod—songs that I grew up on and listened all the time. He became a popular artist by writing sultry, sexy R&B music a.k.a 'baby-making music.' But now I can't comfortably listen to his classic 'Bump and Grind' knowing it was during this peak he was circling schools preying on young girls who'd become his victims. I can't even listen to Aaliyah's debut song 'Age Aint Nothing But a Number,' when it's been a widely-known secret that he and an underaged Aaliyah were married; him 27 and her 15. And as much I partied, danced, and played the song 'Fiesta,' I also can't help that when I think about the lyrics, I wonder what women was he talking about pursuing sexual escapades with? It's saddening to even think, especially when the infamous video tape would surface around the release of that song.

It can take some effort to go about this since the entertainment industry is interconnected in many ways. In my choice to not listen or support future R. Kelly songs or appearances, I didn't realize it wouldn't just stop there. Just because his name isn't labeled on the product doesn't mean he's not an ingredient. R. Kelly isn't just a singer, but a producer and songwriter, which further expands his art. He's written songs for so many people like, Michael Jackson, Genuwine, Beenie Man, Whitney Houston, and he wrote Aaliyah's debut song. That would mean he's not the only person I would have to stop supporting.

So nah, I'm not going to help contribute in maintaining whatever legacy R. Kelly has left. And while I unfortunately discovered the details of the Polanski case after seeing his films, I'll avoid his future projects.

These people became famous and popular because of me, you, us, fans, them, and society. If the public at large wanted to erase them, they could. And that would also mean not supporting or encouraging their appearances and projects. That's how protest works and succeeds. Still, it's sad but not surprising R. Kelly is getting invited to shows and making appearances. He was found not guilty on the charges against him, and for some people, that's enough to completely forget his crimes. Not Guilty does not mean nor has it ever meant that anyone is innocent. And Polanski has lived a great life overseas, knowing why he is there in the first place.

The way I see it, I can't comfortably like anyones work of art, when I have a particular strong opinion of the artist. The problem really lies in the silly idea to even try separate them, what's the point when I'm still supporting them anyhow? Ugh. It hurts my head that people comfortably say, "(enter artist name's) music/movies are still great, even though he/she committed (enter crime)." For Polanksi, there's hope that a time may come where he may be brought to justice. For R. Kelly however, it's sad enough that he was able to walk, and probably won't be tried again unless another victim possibly comes forward.

They aren't the only ones either, Michael Jackson(?), Tupac, etc; all artists accused of reprehensible crimes where evidence was strong against them.