We Shouldn’t Always Separate Art From The Artist
Where does the line between giving recognition and being complicit exist?
There have been a lot of discussions online about whether to separate the art from the artist and where that line is and should be drawn.
There is no definitive answer; however, there are situations where, what should be a clear cut is regarded as “up for discussion".
Some people are willing to overlook an individual who bullies and lies, even when it’s revealed they have a history of such behavior. Some are willing to give a pass to an accused abuser. Many more are willing to overlook the history of a pedophile for the sake of immersing themselves in the pedo’s art.
There is a difference between an isolated mistake that someone can learn from, and a pattern of behavior continually swept under the rug. For many of these “artists” it is the latter.
The film industry globally continues to support accused/convicted rapists, pedophiles, and abusers whilst also using the individuals who are part of the project — some who have no clue of the involvement of these abuser’s history— as shields to avoid accountability and, more importantly, financial loss.
They purposely do this to force the consumer into what they believe is a murky grey area: do you boycott a film; thereby, financially adversely impacting innocent people alongside the abuser? Or do you support the film for the other people involved; thereby lining the pockets of the “accused” or “guilty”?
We should never be placed in this situation to begin with; the Max Landis, R Kellys and Polanskis of the world should have already had their careers obliterated in this industry. Yet, we have people telling us to look past the artist and solely view the art or take into account the others who were part of the film.
Elevating the art means that the art has more value than the life or lives hurt by the artist. That’s is essentially what is being said.
Often these are perceived across gender lines but there are also predators who have targeted trans individuals knowing they could. Abusers, predators not only target who they perceive to be “weaker” but also who they know society ignores.
This system is made to provide layers of protection; from location to lawyers, for predators to do and say what they want.
Character has to mean something. Without it what do we have?
When we support artists, we are giving them our money and paying for their lifestyle; however they choose to live it.
When we support artists who are abusers, that money pays for:
— Homes and vehicles where abuse occurs
— Hotels where staff may (for fear of losing income be for ed to witness and ignore abuse occurring
— The police and lawyers who sweep the incidents under the rug.
— The team who help silence the victims through threats, bullying and NDA’s
— The lawyer who manipulates the system and truth to shield the abuser and destroy the victim/s.
— The company who shields the abuser because they have other projects lined up for them to work on.
Your financial support is incentive for the cycle to continue. Abusers do not stop because you ask nicely. Companies do not stop working with abusers because you ask nicely.
Make it clear that you will not see the film or show because of this person’s involvement so there is no guessing at the next corporate meeting.
The only way to stop abusers or at least hinder their ability to get away unscathed is by putting pressure on the film industry each and every time they do this. Do not see films or shows that you know the abuser is a part of. If a director makes a 100k for a film that costs 10 million to make and the film grosses less than half of that, as people online are saying they chose not to see or support the film because of [X’s] role in it, sure the company may try again. But if each time they lose money, they will inevitably decide it is more cost effective to not work with a toxic abuser.
Also, elevating these artist’s importance ignores everyone else. There are other artist’s out there and; oftentimes, the most well known is not synonymous with the best.
There are artists striving for recognition who create and are not abusive predators.
There are also artists who will never achieve the heights they wanted, because they were the victims of a predator. We will not know how superb their creations could’ve been because they are no longer in their field.
In the end, it comes down to morals and values. We could separate the art from the artist. But when it comes to someone who is purposely able to abuse, hurt, rape, without reprisals, thanks to their art; should we?