More than once we've heard about separating the artist from their work, but what is the artist? How do you separate this 'mask' from a person? And how does their work influence all of this?
Lately, in the face of any scandal involving someone from the music industry, three currents arise:
"Canceling the person (typical of the recent rise of the so-called 'cancel culture')
Calling for the separation of the artist from their work
Ignoring all of the above and turning a blind eye
And I wonder, is there a right and wrong option? What should be done in a case like this?
Let's take a relatively recent and well-known example: Chris Brown and Rihanna (in summary, Chris Brown brutally assaulted Rihanna).
Imagine I'm a fan of Chris Brown and his music. Faced with this fact, should I deprive myself of the pleasure his music brings me because he's a jerk? Or should I continue listening to it knowing that I'm supporting an abuser?
Deciding to try to separate the artist from their work—what is that and how is it done? I don't know about you, but I've come to the conclusion that it's impossible. There's no such procedure in my opinion. That person with such little brain wrote that song you like so much, and that's all there is to it. The artist is the person. The only difference is that sometimes they sing, and sometimes they hit their ex-girlfriend. There's no magical transformation between one action and the other, and separating the artist from their work is just an action that, in my opinion, simply aims to ease consciences so that when you listen to a song by said artist, you don't feel bad. Because you're not listening to the abuser, no, you're listening to the artist, to their music, their work, as if this had no connection whatsoever with what happened before. But no matter how much you try to separate the artist from their work, the money from the album you just bought isn't just going to the singing part—it's going to the person as a whole, to the part that makes music and to the part that you find deplorable.
As for what should be done in a case like this, I honestly don't have an answer. What I do know is that, no matter what you choose, you'll be criticized, precisely for the reasons mentioned earlier—because there's no correct answer (or consensus on what the correct answer is), and because there will always be people who think the option you've chosen is wrong (aside from the obvious tendency of a large part of humanity to criticize).
The conclusion I draw from all of this is that if we had canceled every jerk artist or every artist who messed up, we would have far fewer masterpieces. It's also important to consider that some people regret their actions and reform, while others defend everything they've done to the end. I think that's something very important to take into account—we all have the right to change and learn. But at the end of the day, even if someone is a true master in their field (whether artistic or not), we don't have to worship them. No one is untouchable, and if someone needs to be asked if they think before they speak, they should be asked, because no amount of talent in the world gives you the right to trample over others. That's something you learn sooner or later, in a better or worse way, but you always learn, even though some people really struggle with it.
Comments