I like art. A lot. Art is a way for me to see the world differently and learn lots about perspectives and stuff. I see art as literature, paintings, music, dance, and lots of other things in which humans can express themselves.

There’s a debate going on regarding whether or not we can separate the artist from their artwork or if it is always necessary to view both the artist and the artwork together to understand and truly appreciate the art.

For example, people have problems with Kanye, saying he is problematic and that he does controversial things. However, his footprint and influence on music is undeniable. Should we view Kanye’s music the same regardless of how controversial and problematic he is? Or should we boycott and devalue his music because of the type of person he is?

With JK Rowling, tons of people like Harry Potter but recent news of JK Rowling being homophobic and anti-trans has people calling for a boycott of Harry Potter and related movies and merch. Does this make sense? Should JK’s actions affect how we view her literature, even when the actions have nothing to do with the production or the ideas introduced in the literature?

I don’t think so. I believe that we do not need to associate art with the artist and that the two can be viewed separately.

In other words, I think that you can hate the person that created the art but love the art itself at the same time. I think this for three reasons.

1. Once the art is created, it is separate from the artist.
2. The passage of time fades away the artist’s actions but leaves the art the same.
3. Art is up to the individual’s interpretation and people don’t need to have the artist in mind to appreciate art.

Once art is created, it’s separate from the artist. The artist does not need to be present or even alive for their art to exist. It just does. If I make a sculpture, it exists apart from me. I don’t have anything to do with it anymore besides the fact that I created it. If I die, in 2000 years, my sculpture will still be there and nobody will know who I am but still, they can appreciate my sculpture.

Once an artist puts out a piece of art into the world, it is its own entity with its own existence. Kind of like a child. You can hate someone’s parents but still love them. Because you love them for themself, not for their parents.

The passage of time fades away the artist’s actions but leaves the art the same. If I commit crimes in my life but produce magnificent art that inspires people and influences the world, generations after I die, people will forget the crimes I have done and appreciate my art without thinking of those crimes because time washes away all ideas about the past, which has my existence and actions in it. Time cannot wash away the present art that still exists. That is why people are forced to see art separately from the artist. As time goes on, every artist will die. The art will still exist. Eventually, enough time will make it so that nobody knows what the artist did in their life except produce the art. The art is the only thing left behind.

Art is up to the individual’s interpretation. Interpretation doesn’t require knowledge of the artist. People can interpret art however they see fit, and if that interpretation doesn’t involve taking into account the artist that created the art, that interpretation is no less valid than another that does.

We shouldn’t view Kanye’s work or JK Rowling’s work any less due to their actions in their lives. Their art is separate from them, over time we will forget their actions but remember their art, and people can interpret art without considering them. Boom. Easy.

Artists are not their art. Art is not defined by the artist. This is what I think. Disagree with me! I want to know why.