Is it bad that I still listen to Kanye?

The moral dilemma of supporting controversial artists

KATHERINE ELY / CONTRIBUTOR / THE USD VISTA

By now we are all too familiar with the sinking feeling of discovering that a favorite artist of ours has done something terrible. But, in this internet-age of “Cancel Culture,” truthful or not, scandal spreads in a flash. It has become almost impossible for those in the spotlight to hide their private lives, or questionable pasts, from the public’s eye. With that in mind, the debate of whether we can separate the art from the artist has never been more timely.

Almost everybody knows the 2017 Oscar-nominated film “Call Me By Your Name.” Whether they know it for its renowned critical acclaim it received that year or as the film that launched the beloved Timothée Chalamet’s career, the film is well known to many in this day and age. 

I often receive questionable looks when I tell people I have not seen it. I always meant to get around to watching it, but I assumed I would have my whole life to see it. And yet, who could have predicted there would be only a four-year window for me to do so. 

Some might be able to watch it with blinders on; however, I will never let myself sit through two hours and ten minutes of seeing Armie Hammer’s face after he was at the center of an abuse and cannibalism scandal. In 2020, Hammer was accused of having a cannibalism fetish when an anonymous Instagram account published incriminating DMs sent from the actor. 

For the Armie Hammer abuse scandal, I personally cannot separate the two. However, I am able to do so with other artists. For example, I happen to love Woody Allen films. Did he marry his longtime partner’s adopted daughter? Yes. Was Allen the subject of years of public and legal scrutiny following allegations of abuse? Yes. Are his films still arguably some of the greatest contributions to the world of cinema? Heck yes. Am I still going to watch his movies? Probably, since “Annie Hall” is one of my all-time favorites. I know the sordid details and yet I enjoy his artistry because I am able to separate his art from his indecent actions.

First, art is a personal expression of one’s life experiences, beliefs, and perspectives. Some of the best art is created because the artist imbued their work with personal meaning. 

Artists are often burdened with experiences of pain, or are suffering from a bad case of heartbreak. Others are angry or confused with the world. Most are simply misunderstood. Artists are complicated beings. Distinguishing the art from the artist only presents a problem when the artist becomes problematic. 

Second, it is worth noting the obvious hypocrisy in this debate. People will change which side of the debate they stand on based on their own tastes and preferences. In some instances, people don’t care enough about the artist or their art to separate the two. Nobody really listens to R. Kelly anymore; so, after being accused of molestation, and later put on trial for sex trafficking charges, most people did not object to refraining from listening to his music. 

Other times, people choose to ignore the artist’s problematic history. We remember Chris Brown assaulting Rihanna in 2009. Yet people continue to play his music at parties because it is catchy or popular. 

If we are to listen to a musician, watch an actor perform, or read a writer’s book, we need to be conscious of who they are, what they have done, and what makes them who they are before choosing to connect their character to their art. 

One obvious example of this is Michael Jackson. The ‘King of Pop’ has been repeatedly accused of being a pedophile which, in my book, is as grotesque as it gets. I wouldn’t suggest that his actions are excusable by any means, but what makes Jackson so complex is that his life was anything but normal. 

Jackson had never known a life of privacy. His professional and personal lives were littered with controversy, allegations, and judgment, but (like one of his most famous songs), the decision to separate the art from the artist is not simply black or white. His art has touched the hearts of so many, and his signature dance move, the Moonwalk, is as much a cultural staple now as it was during its debut in 1983. Personally, I detest Michael Jackson as a person. But every single time that “Man in the Mirror” comes on, I can’t help but enjoy its brilliance. 

I hold a similar opinion of Kanye West. West is as controversial as it comes in the music and political world, and is notorious for making questionable public statements: his support for Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, his long-standing feud with Taylor Swift, and the famous Kanye-God complex, where on numerous occasions West said he believes he is God. As a result, Kanye has lost a lot of his audience.

My point is that we should think critically and have all the information about a person before deciding whether or not their art is worth being redeemed. If you truly care, do your research.

We must understand the context that surrounds Kanye’s controversial nature. In 2016, West was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, where he experiences manic episodes followed by constant paranoia. Since his diagnosis, West has resisted all medical treatment. Though we can question his choice to refuse help, we cannot blame West for how he addresses his condition because it is simply not our place. Resisting medication is nothing new, but because he is a celebrity, there is a pressure for him to seek help and keep up appearances. 

All celebrities are human at the end of the day. The difference between them and everyone else is that they have a platform, pressure and a responsibility to a much larger audience. Through their art, they are asked to be vulnerable and share their self-expression to thousands, if not millions of people everyday. 

Sometimes, there are what I call the ‘unavoidable no-no’s.’ Truthfully, some artists have a career so prolific and impactful that their art is  unavoidable when we see it. 

For example, Harvey Weinstein  is the producer of hundreds of movies we watch, sometimes without knowing it. But if I stopped watching every time I saw ‘Weinstein Productions’ appear in the opening credits, I might as well stop watching movies altogether. 

Ultimately, separating the art from the artist presents a sort of moral dilemma. On the one hand, it is wrong to support and further an artist’s career and arguably problematic to enjoy their work knowing they have done bad things. On the other hand, art is fluid. It speaks to everybody differently and is extremely personal. 

If I like or enjoy the art produced by someone who I know did  something wrong, I might not be willing to give up watching my favorite movie or listening to my favorite song. I propose that there is a common ground between the two, or at least I hope that   there is some sort of balance of the two extremes. We need to acknowledge that the person has done terrible things, but we also shouldn’t discredit everything the artist has done. Otherwise, there might not be any art left in the world to enjoy.