“I like their music, but I don’t like them as a person.”
It’s a phrase we’ve all heard before. “I just separate the art from the artist.”
It comes up whenever someone does something inexcusable, but we struggle to remove them from our lives because we love their work. We want to appreciate the music, films, or books on their own, completely detached from the person who created them. But is that possible?
We’ve seen this most recently with singer Zach Bryan. His ex-girlfriend came forward last November and shared that the singer had emotionally abused her. She also alleged that Bryan and his team offered her $12 million to sign an NDA preventing her from discussing their relationship or the experiences she endured. She did not sign it. After sharing her experience of him controlling what clothes she wore, yelling at her friends, and “smashing” her phone, he has yet to face severe backlash.
Chris Brown is a musician currently touring the country on his “Breezy Bowl XX” stadium tour, a 20-year celebration of his music. He is actively releasing music. In 2009, the world watched as reports emerged that he physically assaulted his then-girlfriend, Rihanna. For many people, that moment permanently changed how they saw him. They no longer listened to his music. They threw away their merchandise. They filled their playlists with different musicians.
Yet Chris Brown is still selling out shows and collaborating with major artists, so obviously, not all listeners were fazed. To this day, his fans defend their loyalty. Some even roll their eyes in response to comments about Rihanna, encouraging people to get over it. But is separation like that even possible? Or does continuing to stream his songs send a message that talent can overshadow accountability?
“The director is gross, but the movie is good!”
This conversation has also come up regarding the author J.K. Rowling and her Harry Potter series. J.K. Rowling has been criticized for her incredibly transphobic comments and her work to remove protections for trans women in the U.K. But she has also created a world that shaped the childhood of millions. Many fans claim that they can separate the books and films from Rowling’s views. But can you really claim your support is separate if your wallet is tied to your engagement? For example, Rowling donated £70,000 to For Women Scotland to help its bid to obtain a Supreme Court ruling stating that “men cannot become women.” When you support her art, you do so knowing that’s where some of that money is going.
For fans of the Harry Potter franchise, these stories shaped their childhoods. So much so, it’s a part of their personal identity. But a creator and their creation are forever tied. When we choose to consume someone’s art, that is an active choice to contribute to their platform. And their income.
“What do their politics have to do with their acting?”
That doesn’t mean every fan who listens to Chris Brown supports domestic violence, or every Harry Potter fan is for anti-trans legislation.
Once released into the world, someone’s work is not solely theirs anymore. It then belongs to those who engage with it. Those who watch, read, and listen. That’s why separating art from the artist is such a personal decision. And so hard. There is no right or wrong answer. It comes down to how you set your own boundaries.
It’s always best to be informed. The worst thing we can do is ignore when a person causes harm. People who cause harm can be incredible artists. Does that mean we should stop consuming? Or should we begin consuming from a critical point of view?
We want to know, how do you enforce boundaries on what media you engage with? Join the conversation on social media.
