I’ll
start with a couple of overviews.
OV1:
Burdens Analysis
While
burdens are shared, that does not mean that we have equal grounds. Pro must
argue that we should separate the art from the artist by completely ignoring
the origins of the art piece and judging the art entirely based on
itself. Meanwhile, as Con, all I must show is that any amount of scrutiny channeled
through art and incorporating knowledge of the artist is preferable to none.
OV2:
Definitions
Pro
defined art contextually, but I will clarify. Basically, anything that is the
result of creative skill and imagination is art. So, whether we are talking
about music, paintings, literature, dance, science, engineering, private or
commercial products, they all fall within what is art.
Additionally,
the resolution states “if separated from the artist”, and while the definition
is clear, how this is achieved is not. Pro says this is about ideals, i.e. whether
this should occur rather than whether it can, but the ideal world needs to be
defined as well. In Pro’s world, everyone can completely and totally
compartmentalize upon perceiving a work of art. These people are functionally
incapable of forming connections between the art and the artist. This
necessarily diminishes our capacity to link art to the means by which it is
made.
1)
The Human Mind
Restricting our ability to make connections between art and
its source has important repercussions. Imagine if our interpretation of
scientific discoveries entirely excluded any concerns regarding the researchers
involved and how the research was conducted. For example, in Pro’s world, we
would fundamentally divorce our assessment of Nazi experiments from both the
people who conducted them and the means they used to do so. Each of these
datasets is soaked in the blood of Holocaust victims, and while those results
may have some value, failing to recognize their context effectively makes “the
Nazis our retroactive partners in the victims’ torture and death.” Our use of
that data validates their efforts, and consequently, validates similar efforts
by present and future human rights abusers that pursue objective data without
consideration for the victims they create. Pro effectively makes all of science
complicit in these criminal acts.[1] This applies to any creative output that
results from abuse; “that work of art is tainted as a tool of an abuser. No
work of art, no matter how ‘great,’ is worth more to me than the lives
destroyed by the abusive artist.”[2]
Pro’s world divorces humanity from essential connections. If
we fully separate art from artist, we facilitate the worst possible
transgressions against humanity. It does not matter if the art comes because of
theft or murder because we cannot make those connections. Pro’s world also
prevents us from making positive connections. For Pro, a painting produced in
captivity with limited access to necessary resources is judged based on the
same criteria as one generated freely in a studio with excess resources. Pro
reduces works of art by excluding any interest in who they were and why they
created it. To fail to recognize these differences fundamentally invalidates
struggle and determination against the odds as integral parts of the creative
process. It reduces people to what they create by utterly divorcing those
creations from who they are and the process they used to make them.
2)
Art as a Weapon
To argue that art should be entirely separated from the
artist ignores the fact that the two are intimately linked, with the former readily wielded by the latter. There are several ways that art functions as an
extension of the individual(s) who created it. The money and influence gained
by creating a work of art that garners notoriety are the weapons wielded by
these artists, and there is ample evidence that these can be and have been
turned on others.
“The
fact of the matter is, in our capitalistic, fame-obsessed culture, being a
critically or commercially successful artist gains you a significant amount of
influence. This influence, when in the hands of certain unfortunate
individuals, can be leveraged to do harm to others.”[3]
There are numerous examples of this occurring.
R.
Kelly used his wealth and skill at songwriting to physically abuse minors and
avoid the consequences of his actions for over a decade. This played out in
incredibly brazen ways: “even through his legal battles and worrying
statements, like when he responded to the journalist Touré asking if he had sexual
interest in ‘teenage girls’ with ‘When you say teenage, how old are you
talking?’ or his insistence on referring to himself as the ‘Pied Piper of
R&B,’ Kelly’s fame and musical success remained constant — during the six
years between the discovery of the sex tape and the singer’s acquittal, he
released five platinum-selling albums and 26 top 40 singles.”[3] Only far more
recent accusations resulted in negative outcomes for him, and in the meantime,
he was able to continue exercising control and power over others without any
meaningful control. “Both parts of this story follow the twisted logic of the
music industry’s implicit policy on sexual predators. R. Kelly was only able to
build his ‘sex cult’ because of his fame — the girls around him willingly, at
least at first, entered into relationships with him to pursue fame, only to be
trapped in something much more sinister. On the other end, the (relatively
minor) professional consequences suffered by R. Kelly are reflective of not
only the gravity of these accusations but also the singer’s waning starpower —
his most recent album, 2015’s ‘The Buffet,’ is by far his worst selling
release. Yet even a diminished Kelly is still a commanding figure in the
industry — when Buzzfeed asked 43 of the singer’s former collaborators if they
would work with him again in light of the allegations, none returned a
response, and the only pop musician with any degree of relevance to condemn him
was Chicago rapper Vic Mensa. In the music industry, it seems, abusers have
nearly infinite leeway as long as they can still make a hit.”[3]
What’s more, R. Kelly’s story demonstrates the importance of
linking the artist to their work. “There is no separating R. Kelly’s music from
his crimes because he himself interjected his crimes into his music. The DNA of
rape and anti-Black woman violence is splattered across every lyric about sex
he’s ever uttered… Who we are as people will always impact the energy we put
out into the world whether directly or not. Louis CK’s award-winning TV show,
‘Louie,’ is largely focused on his inability to detect or respect women’s
boundaries, which deserves more attention in light of the fact he would
routinely masturbate in front of women against their wishes. Woody Allen’s
films are full of older men who date younger women. And so on. There is no such
thing as separating art from the artist because the artist themselves seemingly
can’t even make such distinctions.”[4] If we create an environment where
critical evaluation of a given piece of art utterly excludes the individual who
created it, that still can’t remove the individual from the work.
“Separating
the art from the artist would be a perfectly sound critical school among many
in an ideal world, one where the power dynamics and imbalances fueled by fame
and industry influence did not exist and were not vital tools used by sexual
predators of all stripes. That is not the world we live in, though. The choices
we make in media consumption matter in a certain material sense — playing an
PWR BTTM song on Spotify or buying a Woody Allen movie on DVD literally funds
them, and even modes of media consumption that don’t involve spending money
still grants artists the influence and celebrity they can use to abuse others
and evade consequence. This isn’t, strictly speaking, a moral matter — you
aren’t a bad person for watching ‘Annie Hall’ — but merely a matter of tracing
cause and effect. By creating a culture that excuses the misdeeds of the
powerful, talented or rich, we make it harder for their victims, from fellow
celebrities to anonymous teenagers, to retain their dignity in society.”[3]
Essentially, we as a society are complicit in their abuse, further punishing
those victims with our support of their abusers.
3)
Art Represents the Artist
Removal of the outside influences that played a role in a
given piece of art damages our appreciation of said art. If we cannot
appreciate the source of that art (the artist) or other contributing factors,
then we necessarily limit our understanding of the work. “…every work of art is
deeply imbued with a number of outside influences, from the geopolitical
situation of the world to the sordid personal details of an artist’s life. The
artists themselves don’t separate themselves from their work, so a critical
approach that refuses to consider outside factors is limited and foolish,
blinding us from a full consideration of any creative work…
“In
modern pop culture, persona and identity so deeply intermingle with art that
the artist themselves often becomes impossible to fully disentangle from their
art… every creative work is inherently the unique product of the person (or
persons) who made it. The same mind that pioneered the depiction of Black
Middle Class families on primetime television through “The Cosby Show” also
conspired to sexually assault over 60 women. There are not two Bill Cosbys, two
Woody Allens, two R. Kellys or two Mel Gibsons — the personal elements of their
crafts are powered by the same people who have done despicable things.
“…The
celebrity musician (and most musicians you know are celebrities of some scene
or another) sells two cultural products. The first is their songs, but the
second is their persona. This persona, the carefully crafted identity of a pop
singer like Lady Gaga or a rapper like Drake, is as much a work of art as any
of their individual songs. In this case, then, the misdeeds of the artist
inherently affect their art. The loverman personae of Chris Brown and R. Kelly
are rendered unconvincing, ineffective craft by the revelations that they,
respectively, assault and molest women in their private lives.”[3]
Pro’s
world removes integral elements from consideration for all pieces of art. This
has three impacts. First, the artist becomes harshly limited in what messages
they can send with their work. By reducing art to only those pieces one
experiences when interacting with it, Pro’s world puts it in a vacuum,
suppressing any deeper messages that the artist seeks to send and reducing any
interpretation of art to its most obvious elements. Second, it scrubs art of
the association with persona. Musicians, in particular, are highly reliant on
concerts (whether in person or streaming online) to earn a living.[5] Pro’s
world removes any association between music and persona; consequently, the
purpose of attending a concert – to see the two displayed together on stage –
is also lost. Pro might argue that the persona is part of the art, but he will
have to explain what separates the persona and the artist – both from the
perspective of the artist and that of the audience – to do so. This makes it impossible for many of these musicians to make a
living, reducing their output and harming their outreach, while simultaneously
reducing their creativity with the art they produce. Third, even if we assume a persona is possible, it is utterly divorced from the individual presenting it, allowing artists to utterly vanish behind their personas and leaving those captivated by those personas vulnerable to continued abuse.
I
will save my rebuttals for the next round. Back to you, Pro.
That said, if I can keep my stats from tanking, I will
Not really. I debate because it is fun, not because I want to see my numbers go up.
Yep, nice debating you! I do think this is a great topic, lots to explore.
Are you mad that you did not gain positions?
Our difference in ELO is now 1. LOL
gg.
I might pass Trent without the help actually. I have a debate about to finish in a day or so
Consider this your free ticket to top 5.
But that is not separating from the art and the artist. If I peel the banana peel out of the banana then the banana is with the peel, How is that peeling the banana?
I have mixed feelings about this separation, but I do believe that efforts to entirely separate the artist from the art miss the point. There is a question as to how much of a role the artist should play in the assessment of their art when they do something well after the fact, but I don’t think we can or should ignore the relation for things they did during its creation, particularly if they continue to engage in those actions. The art itself is, undeniably, tainted by their actions.
You can separate art from the artist when considering the art and then when you're considering the artist you can rate them based on their art. The art should be based on itself.
PRO is going to have to make up a lot of ground here.
Good luck ;)
oh...
Looking forward to debating you on this.
Do it
Tempted as well...
I’m tempted. I’ll think about this one for a bit and, if no one has accepted, I might take you on.
so... what? Do we just not put Van Gogh's art in his gallery? We don't bother saying Leonardo drew Mona Lisa?
You should define "Separated" in this context... Not quite sure what you mean