Some, however, believe that art can be separated from the artist. Ryan Dankanich, Middle and Upper School band teacher, says, “Art in the general sense—visual, music, dance, et cetera—elicits feelings and emotions from people: it’s why we consume it. Michael Jackson and Jackson 5 music, just to use one example, still sounds incredible, is musically impressive, and makes me feel good despite the personal issues that Michael Jackson had. I understand how some people can’t experience art the same way after knowing the personal issues of any given artist, but to me, that is experiencing their art through a different ‘lens’, not any fundamental change in the artistic work itself.”
Some students believe that so long as the artist’s wrongdoings are acknowledged, it is possible to separate art from the artist. Will Hopkins ‘21 says, “I think [the situation] depends on the person and the incident that they did. I don’t think there is anything wrong with listening to their music because you are supporting the music they made and not the act they are famous for, whatever it may be.” Celia Gallagher ‘21 agrees with the notion of enjoying art while holding the artists responsible for their wrongdoings. “We can separate art from the artist as long as we acknowledge and make known the terrible things that some of the artists did.”
Additionally, the question of allegation versus formal conviction is also important to consider. Actual convictions of sexual misconduct and other charges can often carry greater weight in the minds of listeners than allegations or claims. Many artists who have been accused have never been convicted. For instance, this past March, Janell Ross of NBC explains: “During his lifetime, Jackson repeatedly denied any wrongdoing… [He was] acquitted of criminal charges related to alleged sexual contact with children.” ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ is a strong sentiment in many communities who grew up listening to music from these artists.
The difference between buying albums and streaming songs has also changed the way people view this debate. While buying an album from a store is a relatively user-intensive experience involving physical transactions, streaming services allow users to listen to a song simply at the click of a button, at no additional cost to the user besides the service’s standard monthly fee. The ease of listening to any one song using a streaming service can make the decision more complicated for many users because they are not directly giving money to the artist. However, streaming services themselves can take the ethics of this debate into account. Subacus states, “It comes down to consumers, music-streaming services, and radio stations making those choices for themselves. Spotify could decide they won’t support R Kelly by hosting his music, radio stations can choose not to play it, et cetera.” But music streaming services don’t want to limit the choices and lose customers.
It is clear that this debate will not be resolved anytime soon. But as the art industry grows and evolves, it will become increasingly important to consider these nuances and tread carefully with these issues.