Separating the art from the artist is a fundamentally irrational ideology. It’s nothing but an excuse for people to willfully ignore the cultural conversation surrounding art when it’s convenient to them. This is best exemplified through how people are only interested in separating the art from the artist if there’s a conflict of morality. But why is that? Surely if you believe that art should be criticized divorced from additional context, then that idea should apply regardless as to whether the artist has done something morally objectionable or not.
The discourse ends up being framed in a negative light as a result as it’s always about morality, but it doesn’t have to be. After all, context can compromise your enjoyment of art, but it also has the power to significantly improve it as well, so why not open yourself up to it. But on some level, none of this matters. People are allowed to enjoy music passively regardless of the artist so why should anyone care?
The answer is money. The conversation gets a lot less comfortable when money enters the picture. It’s not just about enjoying the music, it’s about enablement. By engaging with the art of problematic people, you are, knowingly or otherwise, putting money into their pocket, enabling them to keep on producing their art and keep being successful, and effectively giving them a ‘free pass’ to continue indulging themselves in their shittyness.
What I’m not trying to say is that if an artist gets involved in a problematic situation their art should be disregarded (I dislike ‘cancel culture’ as much as the next rational human being). Ultimately, it’s up to the consumer to play an active role in selecting the media they want to engage with, as well as consider how the media they enjoy might reflect back on them.