One of the trickiest things that readers and viewers have to put up with sometimes is dealing with the dichotomy between a work of art and the person that made it. Occasionally, an amazing piece of art or entertainment is crafted by a person who – for one reason or another – is or becomes problematic. While not always directly RELATED to the art, these real-world issues can have an impact on how individuals (or, indeed, the world) views it.
The real question is – should we let it? Is it right to hold a piece of otherwise innocent media accountable for the actions of those who made it? Can art be separated from its creator?
Let’s discuss…
Death of the Author
Chances are you’ve probably heard this phrase before. It originates from an essay of the same name written in 1967. In it, the author argues that writings and their creators are unrelated (i.e. that the reader pretends the author is dead or a complete non-entity). The reason I bring this up so early is the fact that this argument is quite literally at the heart of the topic at hand. In truth, they are the SAME argument – only this author has come to a solid conclusion already. Moreover, it means that this particular idea has been discussed and re-discussed thousands of times in the intervening decades.
Now, while that can be a good thing for those interested in reading a myriad of opinions on the matter, it also means that any attempt to discuss the issue is likely treading well-worn ground. Not only that, but ground that has been traversed by more experienced hikers than oneself. And it is HERE, in fact, where I find myself. Nearly any argument I could make on this particular topic has been beaten to death already by scores of others.
As such, ironically, because there is SO MUCH to say on this issue (and so much of it has already been said better), this will be a fairly short discussion. Instead of grinding down the same tired arguments that have been thrown around since the 60s, I’ll instead just present my own opinions on the matter for you to do with as you will.
Art vs The Creator
Effectively, my thoughts on the subject boil down to this: an artistic work should, if at all possible, be separated from its creator in those cases where it is possible to do so, provided said creator has done something that would damage an otherwise unrelated work. Whew! That’s a mouthful! 🙂
Basically, as long as the work in question wasn’t used as part of the underlying issue (like, say, it promotes racist or sexist ideas as an inherent part of the work), I feel that it should not be lumped in with the poor decisions or views of its creator. A great example is a recent controversy with Harry Potter creator J.K. Rowling – recently, she expressed views that are disparaging to a certain group of people. That said, her famous family-friendly young adult book series (and accompanying movies) has none of this same malice ingrained in it. As a result, it would be ridiculous to lower the esteem with which we hold these works as some sort of ill-conceived notion of justice. These books and films bring joy to millions across the world and have done nothing to earn any such treatment.
That said, one argument in favor of doing so, not that I agree with it, is that by boycotting these works we are no longer supporting Rowling financially. And, while this MIGHT be true to an extent, I feel that the costs far outweigh the benefits: For one, she is rich enough that she is unlikely to notice or care about any small dip in current sales. Secondly, and most importantly, the media itself is beloved and is an utterly innocent victim. It would be like kicking the dog of a serial killer – related to the crimes tangentially, sure, but not at fault.
As mentioned above, if it is found that the author (or creator) used said media to promote their horrible ideas or notions WITHIN the work itself, then that is a different matter entirely. In that case, any ire directed towards the works are based on their own inherent merits and, thus, totally justified.
Personal Opinion
While certainly well-intentioned, all of the above cannot discount what is perhaps the most important factor at play here – the personal feelings and preferences of the viewer and reader. While not strictly at fault, no one would blame someone for having difficulty in enjoying The Cosby Show with full knowledge of the man himself. While Cliff Huxtable (his character on the show) is a different entity than Cosby himself, he is also inexorably tied both in physicality and in proposed personality – purporting a myth about the Cosby which is far from the truth.
Likewise, few would judge you for enjoying Seven or The Usual Suspects, and Kevin Spacey’s incredible performances therein, despite what we now know about his life. The works INVOLVE HIM, yes. But they are not necessarily DEFINED by him. On the flip side, if his inclusion DOES make you uncomfortable, most people would likely understand.
Because, at the end of the day, that’s really what we’re talking about here – a personal comfort level. All the theories and arguments in the world will do little to calm that nagging feeling at the base of your skull that something just doesn’t sit right. And if that’s the case, far be it from me or anyone else to tell you how to view a particular piece of work.
Conclusion
So what should we do? Can a creative work be divorced from those that made it? Should it? The answer, in my opinion, is yes. At least on a societal level.
While there is no accounting for how any one individual will or should feel about a piece of media, history takes the long view. Gone are any concerns over how Shakespeare, Poe, or Plato might have lived their lives in accordance with modern ideals of decency or acceptability – partially because we don’t know and partially because it doesn’t matter. The work is what remains. The stories and characters and ideas they put forth stand on their own as a self-sufficient monument.
In a hundred years, will future generations care about the personal life of the man who made JAWS or the opinions of the woman who wrote Harry Potter? No. Both, no matter how innocuous or damning, will be equally irrelevant. All that will remain – all that will be judged or remembered – is the art itself. The way it connects with an audience and the way it moves us.
Standards of proper conduct change over time in societies, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. What is considered an acceptable norm in one era is untenable the next. It would be a fool’s errand to try and throw out or disregard an artistic work based on how the creator is or will be viewed, provided the works contains none of the same traits. Art is, or at least should be in my opinion, an island.
So, in summation: The author is both dead (societally) and alive (personally).
Schrodinger’s author, if you will.