(Credits: Far Out / YouTube Still)
Unfortunately, because audiences are so divided, the whole “separate the art from the artist” debate has always dragged on without a real answer. Plenty of famous people have tried to weigh in over the years, but the conversation is usually so vague or noncommittal that it just leads to more questions. So, what do you do when your favourite artist turns out to be problematic?
According to Nick Cave, not much. Well, he said a lot about the matter, but ultimately, he concluded by focusing on the impact of art in a way that wasn’t really all that conducive to a “do this” or a “do that”. As he explained in one The Red Hand Files post: “I don’t think we can separate the art from the artist, nor should we need to. I think we can look at a piece of art as the transformed or redeemed aspect of an artist and marvel at the miraculous journey that the work of art has taken to arrive at the better part of the artist’s nature.”
However, Cave has also been more forthcoming on the matter on separate occasions elsewhere, admitting that there are artists he has grown disappointed with throughout their careers but that, where he can, he chooses to focus on their art rather than their political statements. That said, the artist he framed around this answer was Kanye West, which, although his feelings might differ somewhat now, seems to point to a broader, more worrying ambiguity.
It also depends on what you define as “problematic”. For some, it’s as easy as coming across as egotistical, like how some categorise The 1975’s Matty Healy as nothing more than an indie fan on a power trip. Others, on the other hand, commend his character and ability to freshen up the alternative landscape with off-kilter choices and behaviours. The term itself becomes a little more definitive when it concerns political stances, with notable examples concerning once-beloved figures like Morrissey and his perceived betrayal of the once-unifying community he fostered within The Smiths.
What does it mean to be problematic?
In this context, and according to Cave, being deemed problematic means being “punished” for a mistake, mishap, or harmful political or societal opinion. This doesn’t necessarily mean disagreeing on specific aspects or states of the world; instead, it can mean outwardly and openly disregarding marginalised or oppressed members of the community or standing tall against that which perpetuates prejudice against others. While some prefer to disregard this and reduce it to simple binaries (left or right), it usually boils down to heart, intelligence, and character.
In Cave’s words, however, it isn’t always that simple. According to the musician, their art presents a version of them that was once their best, and if they somehow soil their reputation with a slip-up, it shouldn’t disregard the art that resonates with people for varying reasons: “We need to understand that the songs themselves are the best of them,” he said, claiming that we should not “eradicate the best of these people in order to punish the worst of them.”
That is an ambitious point of view, however, considering today’s extremely polarised landscape. Because of the political divide and social media, and because many musicians in the limelight adopt an always-on approach, their every move is observed with the magnifying glasses of the masses, poised and ready for scrutiny at every turn. It might sound bleak and doesn’t always apply to every person with a semblance of fame, but the crux of it remains true, making it even harder to extract a person’s “art” from them as people.
What do you do when artists become problematic?
While there should be accountability where it’s due, boycotting sometimes seems impossible. That said, it also almost always entirely depends on the level of problematic the artist has become. If, for instance, they make a mistake by using a term they weren’t aware had become a slur, their next move would be to apologise, learn from it, and make an effort to do better moving forward. In cases like that, it’s easier to accept growth and move on.
However, if an artist has a history of harmful behaviour, refuses to apologise or acknowledge it, and leans into it, that’s when the “separate the art from the artist” position becomes somewhat obscured in a battle of morality versus enjoyment. This is especially true if supporting their art starts to feel like supporting their proposition itself. At this point, it becomes necessary to draw the line however appropriate.
It also feels easier to do so when it comes to certain “legacy” acts where the line is less personal. In these cases, the artists have been in the spotlight for so long, having occupied it through changing vernacular and attitudes, that it becomes almost impossible to hold onto their less dignified moments, no matter how impactful. For others, it becomes synonymous with their reputation and cultural impact, making it much harder to ignore their controversy.
Still, it almost always comes back to personal preference. Some might commend those who speak up, even if it goes against mainstream attitudes, while others might grow uncomfortable with everything their favourite has come to represent. At this point, maybe it’s time to call it a day and find another visionary who either remains impartial or better aligns with certain values.
Related Topics