On Separating the Art from its Artist

I have often wondered how important it is to separate the art from its artist. Hemingway was known to be abusive and a misogynist. Woolf and Plath were known to have suffered clinical depression. Sexton admitted to physically abusing her children due to her mental illness. Sartre was known to be a Nazi. John Lennon was known to be abusive. Bukowski was an alcoholic. Bob Marley was a drug addict. How necessary is it to separate the artist from who they were?

It is naive to think that an artist is independent from his art. To think that it is possible to create without bleeding, if you have an inclination towards poetry. But the idea that there are artists out there who have produced work that was solely under the influence of drugs and alcohol is a little troubling to me. As it is in professional sports where steroids aren't allowed, a part of me wishes that in creating art you weren't allowed to be under influence (of drugs, of alcohol, of caffeine, of nicotine). But it made me wonder how limited human thought actually is. The thought that many of the greatest works may have not been so great is more troubling to me than an author who writes while high. It bothers me more that a said piece of art hadn't existed at all than the fact that an artist used a drug as a clutch to produce it. So then it becomes much more important, to me, to separate the work from its artist.

To forget the conditions under which the art was produced, to forget the mindset with which it was produced, and to let it stand as an independent creature that had no origin is how I believe art should be looked at. Imagine a dark room with the light only coming from a spotlight aimed at a piece of art. That, in my opinion, is how art should be looked at.

What I want to discuss now is the social context of art. The first thing that comes to mind when I wish to talk about social context is Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. It is a fair question to ask, how can you fully appreciate that piece of art if you aren't aware of the social, political, economic, etc. background of that work? Well, when I say a work should stand alone, I do not mean you should chop off its limbs that are connecting it to what makes it necessary. I firmly believe that the greatest works of art are deemed so because they were simply a necessity. A poem about a revolution in a tyrannical government, a satire in an absurd system, an absurd painting in a society hell-bent on perfection, et al. are all, in my opinion, necessary for the conditions they are created in. The root of this necessity tends to lie in the artists mind. Therefore it is very naive, as I mentioned earlier, to think art can be created without an artist leaving a part of himself in it. (Think of the tortured artist cliche.) This obsession in the mind of the said artist is very often shaped by the world they live in. One only has to think of the esteemed Harry Potter novels that remind one that even Hogwarts wasn't free from basic social issues of Racism, Classicism, Animal Cruelty, etc. But it is important to note that these works are enriched when one decides to look at its social context, made better from what they previously were. These works aren't great because of their social context, they become greater when seen in the light they were produced in. These works are wonderful to begin with is the thing to remember.

Toni Morrison in an interview with Stephen Colbert, upon being asked if she thought she deserved the Nobel and Pulitzer prizes, answered that her art did. That to me is a very important distinction because here is an esteemed author separating herself from her work. The point I am trying to make is that regardless of the mental condition the person was in while creating that work of art, the piece itself matters. And the piece of art should only be judged by its content and not what the artist themselves did or were like. Because that art isn't the artist and the artist isn't the art. It is a part of the artist. And the artist is a part of the art.

With this being said, when you appreciating an artist leads to that artist financially benefiting from it (for example, the case of Chris Brown-although I wouldn't even consider that Art), separating the art from its artist becomes very futile. In your appreciating, you indirectly are condoning who they are as a person. Problematic behavior must be pointed out and addressed.