It’s not an all-or-nothing, binary affair. The art reveals parts of the artist at different times, not necessarily their entirety (which you can enjoy and dislike separately), and I can also enjoy it without taking the content seriously, just the nonverbal auditory and the visual but meaningless parts of them.

I’m no Christian nor an antisemite but Yeezus and TLOP haven’t been ruined for me, even if you can feel Kanye’s confidence/arrogance in the lyrics at times (to which I relate to a certain degree). I’m not an oversexual black lady obsessed with white peen but Azealia Banks has been on my playlist since the mid 10s. But I like the energy and melodies, and I’m amazed by the lyricism, even if I don’t agree nor relate. Same goes for Doja, who I’ve been listening to since her ‘silly’ “uWu” days. Sometimes, it’s enjoyable BECAUSE it’s ridiculous and I don’t agree with it one bit. I’m no polygamist/sex pest but both my wife and I enjoy “Ain’t No Fun”. 🤷😅

It’s a personal choice. I do separate the art from the artist because it’s not like me not torrenting their art will make a difference.

Only purity-testers have difficulty with this.

Imagine saying Alice In Wonderland isn’t good.

Besides, to condemn the art because you condemn the artist, you’d have to be playing the game of giving absolute moral condemnations of people in the first place. That’s a mug’s game. Everybody’s got good and bad in them.

Is it possible to dissociate the note from the instrument? This note from a violin clearly comes from a violin. The instrument shapes the sound, even though all instruments can produce that note. However, that bite belongs to me, bow. It’s in my head. I can attach it to sad or happy emotions, or close my eyes and imagine a landscape with it.

I think this art/artist debate misses half of the action. Once the note or the art has been produced by the artist, it belongs to the public, that vibes with it in the way they chose.

I tried but he got mad and chased me down the hall yelling “give me back my stuff, you filthy animal!” 🖼️ 🦝 💨 🤬

Up to you and how sensitive you are about the controversial aspects of the artist.

Generally I don’t separate them.

Controversial aspects about the artist can also make the art more interesting, not just less appealing.

My absolutely favorite take about art is the one from the edge of the 19->20th century, where they got obsessed about art having to be absolutely separated from reality, to be even worth considering, since that would only taint it, and just be perfect.

So in that case, I have no issues with separating the art from the artist. Or, since they also tried to make art out of their lives (the whole dandy thing), which made basically professional posers, I also don’t mind separating morality/reality from the artists and viewing their life as art. For example, Motley Crue were extremely bad people to be around, but their lifestyle was portrayed well enough that it does sound kinda fun (as long as you don’t actually live like that in reality), so I don’t judge and kind of appreciate them trying.

On the other hand, if someone is a dick as an artist without their behavior being refined enough to pass as an art/pose/dandyism, I make sure to not give them any money whatsoever, or promote their products, and just shittalk and laugh at them. Even if their actuall art is good, which I will probably enjoy, but will definitely not pay for.

Is it a good take on the question that makes sense? Probably not, but it does work for me.

Everybody draws their own vague red lines in the sand. There is no universal law. If you like it and it doesn’t feel icky, go ahead and like it. If it feels icky, don’t. Or make sure they get no money out of your enjoyment.

Depends what the artist did and when they did it as well as the conection to the art.

The internet really likes to forget that people and their believes changes over time. You don’t have the same believes you had at 14 when you are 30.

So you could be a biggot and racist as a teen, because yoz grew up in a home in which this was normal. Mybe you later get to know people you had prejudiced against before and are now in your 30’s and ally.

You could also be chill growing up and than for some reasons, fall pray to the right wing propaganda machine and becaume and anti-woke poopy-head.

So in my opinion, the time when the art was created plays a huge impact on how I see it and if I can separate it from the artist.

You can. I can enjoy Hitler’s paintings because they contains no nazism, even if a nazist mind produced them (you could argue that in his youth he was not yet a nazi, but that still doesn’t matter).

Heck, I’m going even further and say that even if a form of art posses some inheritely bad aspect, you can still separate it from other artistic characteristics.

Let’s say Hitler did a panting of a gas chamber killing people in a death camp, but is painted in such a skillfull and technically relevant way to be revolutionary in the art, then it’s ok if people like it (technically), it’s ok if it’s owned and hang in a museum, even if it depicts real, evil and needless suffering. You can approcciate something technically or artistically without having to embrace the ideals it represents. And it’s important to not cancel things just because bad people did it, because remembering is important.

As for modern bad artist, it’s more complicated because you might not want to financially support an artist who is a criminal/terrible person, but that still doesn’t mean you can’t appreciate their art.

I see this discussion a lot with a lot of compelling arguments for either take. over time, this has become my take. it will be bad but hear me out.

depriving bad people of money for their work is good. but enjoying good work from bad people is important. if you don’t want to pay them then don’t, but don’t deprive yourself of art and education based on moral standards that (since we’re being honest) will always be in flux as you change and grow. decentralize moral purity from your personal journey. centralize making informed decisions and embracing complexity.

it’s a bad take but honestly I really don’t like the concept of trying to be a good person as it pertains to consumption. there really isn’t such a thing as good consumption. and in my thirties I’m pretty okay with whatever criticism that earns me.

you can try but if someone is awful you’ll probably find that awfulness reflected in the art too.

Yes.

Even if it’s something current, I can enjoy the work and just not pay for it.

What is art and what is commercial product?
Most art is definitely divorced from the artist. Do you know the artist of your favorite App Icon on your phone? Do you have any idea where or by whom was your favorite car designed?
Where is the line when/where it is actually matter of the identity of the artist?
The other day I was reading magazines from the early 1900s. Some of the ad-art is 100% questionable by today’s standards, meanwhile they were put on paper with colored ink when both things were really expensive.
For some people it matters of what kind of sexual orientation the artist has. And you don’t have to go too far where woman’s art is not considered anything of value.
So at the end does it matter? Just vote with your wallet if someone’s ‘artiste’ persona is one that you don’t like.

Of course it’s possible. I can enjoy any art without knowing or caring what the artist does or thinks. I can listen to music or read books by people who might well be assholes, but even if I knew they were and I enjoyed what they did, I likely wouldn’t care.