Post

Remind anyone who tries to use the phrase "separate the art from the artist" that it was originally coined for academic/critical practice in order to analyze the work. Not to cling onto stuff that actively harms people just because you like it a lot.

359 reposts1K likes

As a guy who says this, I never use it as a means to invalidate anyone's feelings about a situation with the artist. At the end of the day anyone is capable of creating something amazing but also do something bad. That's just the way it is. Doesn't mean I accept it but it's just how it is.

There are two things going on at the same time. Music and literature have "genre" . Art has "style" . A student needs to understand collections. At the same time, an artist will have their own grouping and in some cases a new genre and style.

Ironically, there are a lot of "separate the art from the artist" moments with Rowling - like ignoring any "Dumbledore is gay" remarks or comments on wizard plumbing and hygiene on the grounds that it's not in any of the books.

Reminder: those who write murder mysteries are not murderers. The creative process has its own rules and pathways. You either become a conduit for something greater than yourself or not. Imperfect people can change your life for the better without improving themselves.

Death of The Author as a concept was to encourage the critic to take the work on its own terms, without taking a biographical reading. The concept has nothing to do with absolving the author/artist of wrongdoing.

You can separate the art from the artist when using the art in a way that does *not* send money to the artist...and even then, only if the aspect of the artist being separated did not actually inform that art.