I don't think "separating the art from the artist" is really an accurate description of what's going on most of the time when you enjoy at art by people who did bad shit. Like I guess in the case of Michael Jackson where the art is so culturally ubiquitous and the thing you might want to separate it from is kind of hard to digest anyway, then sure that's a good description of what's going on. But a lot of the time it's more complicated than that.
For one thing you have artists who talk openly about bad shit they've done and that's a core part of the art. Charles Bukowski painstakingly chronicles lot of fucked up shit he's done that would certainly make you think less of someone if it wasn't part of their image. But part of the reason you go to his work in the first place is to hear shit like that. It doesn't change your perception of him. It's not like he tricked you and now you can't look at his work the same way. It IS his work. And then there are plenty of examples of people seeking out art simply because the creator is infamous. I guarantee you no one would be listening to Charles Manson's music if he wasn't Charles Manson. But no one has ever had any ethical debate about enjoying his work. Why is that?
I think what this demonstrates is that this is not an ethical issue. If something an artist does makes you not want to enjoy their work, it's more because what they did changed your view of them than it is because the thing they did was bad. If consuming the art requires supporting the person monetarily, then that is a separate issue. But where is your moral obligation to... not listen to some music? It's just not an ethical question. Louis CK made a career on jokes about whipping out his dick, but then it turns out he was actually doing it. Those jokes simply are not funny anymore with this added context. It has nothing to do with how bad a person is, and it has nothing to do with the initial quality of the work. It's just that work cannot be viewed the same way any more and has lost its value. And it can be something as simple as part of the appeal of the art being that you are meant to like and relate to the creator, and the thing they did is just so bad that you can't do that any more. But there's plenty of art that doesn't require you to do that, and I think it's a lot easier for people to overlook bad things the artist did in those cases.
I don't think "separating the art from the artist" is really an accurate description of what's going on most of the time when you enjoy at art by people who did bad shit. Like I guess in the case of Michael Jackson where the art is so culturally ubiquitous and the thing you might want to separate it from is kind of hard to digest anyway, then sure that's a good description of what's going on. But a lot of the time it's more complicated than that.
For one thing you have artists who talk openly about bad shit they've done and that's a core part of the art. Charles Bukowski painstakingly chronicles lot of fucked up shit he's done that would certainly make you think less of someone if it wasn't part of their image. But part of the reason you go to his work in the first place is to hear shit like that. It doesn't change your perception of him. It's not like he tricked you and now you can't look at his work the same way. It IS his work. And then there are plenty of examples of people seeking out art simply because the creator is infamous. I guarantee you no one would be listening to Charles Manson's music if he wasn't Charles Manson. But no one has ever had any ethical debate about enjoying his work. Why is that?
I think what this demonstrates is that this is not an ethical issue. If something an artist does makes you not want to enjoy their work, it's more because what they did changed your view of them than it is because the thing they did was bad. If consuming the art requires supporting the person monetarily, then that is a separate issue. But where is your moral obligation to... not listen to some music? It's just not an ethical question. Louis CK made a career on jokes about whipping out his dick, but then it turns out he was actually doing it. Those jokes simply are not funny anymore with this added context. It has nothing to do with how bad a person is, and it has nothing to do with the initial quality of the work. It's just that work cannot be viewed the same way any more and has lost its value. And it can be something as simple as part of the appeal of the art being that you are meant to like and relate to the creator, and the thing they did is just so bad that you can't do that any more. But there's plenty of art that doesn't require you to do that, and I think it's a lot easier for people to overlook bad things the artist did in those cases.
that's really the crux of it.